The changing rules of union certification

[LukeAisleWalker]

Mr. Luke, I mean Mr. Aisle, I mean Mr. Walker.
If you have to try to convince yourself that you are right by telling yourself you are, maybe you are wrong.
Regardless, (since irregardless is not a word) dignity makes a lot of sense even though you may describe her writings as allegories. I say, Dignity, we don't have enough to paper the world. Write on!!

Mr. BT

Mr BT,
Apparently, despite your posts to the contrary, you haven't actually READ the letters on the NMB website. There is overwhelming support for the proposed change. I don't have to "convince myself" that I am right. Plenty agree with me as over 5,000 comments from individuals were received in favor of this change.

A total of 230 members of the U.S. Congress also support this change.

Support has also come from Professor Ray Marshall of the University of Texas School of Public Affairs. Ray Marshal was also the Secretary of Labor under President Jimmy Carter.

Dr. Kate Brofenbrenner also supports the proposed change. She has conducted a study of elections under the current voting process and her studies clearly show that management interference is present in a majority of union elections because of this archaic voting method.
Dr. Kate Brofenbrenner is the Director of Labor Education Studies at Cornell University.
In addition, the following scholars, per their comments on the NMB's site join me in agreeing this is the fairest way to handle RLA elections:

http://www.nmb.gov/representation/proposed...rulemaking.html

Richard N. Block
Professor
School of Labor and Industrial Relations
Michigan State University

Raymond L. Hogler
Department of Management
Colorado State University
Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Labor Law, 2007

Robert Bruno
Associate Professor of Labor and Employment Relations
Director of Labor Education Program
School of Labor and Employment Relations
University of Illinois

Sincerely, Paul F. Clark, Ph.D.
Paul F. Clark, Professor and Head
Dept. of Labor Studies and Employment Relations & Professor of Health Policy and Administration
Penn State University

Gregory M. Saltzman, PhD
Professor and Department Chair
Department of Economics and Management
Albion College
&
Adjunct Research Scientist
Institute for Research on Labor, Employment, and the Economy
University of Michigan

And finally, please keep up with me here, it is I who used allegory, NOT Dignity. There are online dictionaries galore...please Google one, click on the link and type it in a-l-l-e-g-o-ry.

 

[Dignity]

Stating that an issue must be corrected and then only addressing one aspect due to a personal preference is not fixing anything.

If some want a process change then by all means change all of it, that is the real issue, only addressing one side.

Elections are continuing to proceed while some are still claiming the process is unfair, if it is unfair then why are these election commencing? Why are requests to proceed with elections filed and then pulled?

I am not the only person who can clearly see the bias here.

 

[jalbalpa]

Here is the most detailed explanation of why the current voting method is undemocratic...

"As a professor and scholar of constitutional law, labor law, and law of the
American political process, I respectfully submit these comments in support of the
proposed rule that, in NMB representation disputes, a majority of those casting valid
ballots shall determine the craft or class representative.
This change would reform the NMB’s current practice of requiring the winner to
obtain the votes of a majority of all eligible voters, including those who consciously
abstain from voting, are sick or incapacitated, or are erroneously listed as eligible. This
change is long overdue."

....he goes on to say...

"These rules remain indefensible now. The refusal to certify the winner of a
majority of those voting is a relic of an agency practice that developed by accident, not
from any principled statutory policy. It violates every modern standard of democratic
elections at home and abroad. It effectively stuffs the ballot box against union
representation. This rule gives employers a ready method of locking in a significant
fraction of the unit as “Noâ€￾ votes through incorrect addresses. No union in any non-RLA
industry -- and no other voters in any political, corporate or internal union election in
America -- must overcome such arbitrary and lopsided barriers to majority rule."

...and...

"To be sure, the NMB to date has reserved a “majority of the votersâ€￾ rule as a
special remedy for egregious employer violations of the Act. However, this limitation is
completely irrational. It declares that employers are entitled to count non-voting
employees as deliberate “noâ€￾ votes, unless the employer has been so lawless that this
special employer privilege must be taken away."

Read the comments by Professor Jamin Raskin here....
http://www.nmb.gov/representation/proposed...ames-raskin.pdf

Jamin B. Raskin
Professor of Law
Washington College of Law
American University
4801 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
(202) 274-4011
(202) 274-4130 (fax)

 

[Dignity]

If the rules are changed on one end, then it must be changed on the other.

(that seems to be conveniently/repeatedly overlooked)

 

[southwind]

Just make sure , when Delta starts telling employees, " If you don't want a union, make sure you vote !" , that the whining doesn't commence. They are only playing by your new rules !