Video Link Here
Posted on 05/20/2015 9:22:47 PM PDT by Dallas59
So?
It’s good that they focused on the signature cards. Unions routinely mischaracterize signature cards as being like petitions - indicating only a willingness to see a unionization effort go to a vote. They don’t want you to know that the signature card IS a vote and it they persuade enough to sign them (no matter how long it takes) the unionization is a done-deal.
It is well done.
Mark
It is a material misrepresentation for an organizer to tell a prospective signatory that his card represents only a desire to call an election, because the card actually does represent support for, and intent to join, the union seeking certification. If he does that, the certification card is void.
However, under current law, an employer always has the right to call for a secret ballot election, even if more than 50% of the people in the prospective bargaining unit have signed cards.
So while it is technically true that signing the card is a vote for the union, and it is technically true that a union can declare itself certified as a representative with 50% (+1 vote) of cards signed, no employer would ever waive his right to have the NLRB conduct a secret ballot election.
And as a matter of fact, while I am no longer a union organizer, I have personally never seen a case where the employer even accepted the signatures on union cards as belonging to people who were all valid members of the bargaining unit without a very lengthy review before the NLRB. Wrangling over who is permitted into the unit is a major source of delay in calling the election.
Here's the reason employers don't like the cards, even though in practical terms they don't have the effect that this video claims: There is a cascading effect against the company when people discover that a large majority of fellow employees have signed the cards. No employer wants to be seen as going against the wishes of a majority of his employees, even if he retains the right to force an election all the same.
Thanks for your insight and explanation, Fred. Yes, if someone thinks he is in the minority, he is going to go along with it so as to not be ostracized by fellow employees.
It was actually my union activities that led me into conservatism. I didn't understand, even as an organizer for a skilled trade union how thoroughly radicalized the rank and file of the service unions was, nor how radicalized the upper levels of union organizations [in all unions] had become. My discovery that they cared all about "the cause" [communism, basically] and not the least bit for working people finally put me on the path away from the Dark Side.
Union executives are living in a fantasy world. They believe that if they can get certification to happen without secret ballot elections the unions will flourish again, as they did before Taft-Hartley under The Wagner Act. They won't. People have caught on to their grifting and their corruption and racketeering.
Maybe they're just trying to educate the low-information employees.
“People have caught on to their grifting and their corruption and racketeering.”
sounds like many powerful organizations including the government...all three branches.
That is the key thing about union organization. They can keep that signature for years and keep reusing it over and over.
Yes, I believe it is well done, too. But overall, my impression is the presenters are actors rather than employees. They were just too perfect in their talks. A small point, possibly incorrect on my part, but that is my impression.
So what....companies have the right to inform THEIR employees....having been on the management side of the decertification of a Caterpillar dealership once...you do NOT Just let union goons do their thing
What point is that? That when you make expensive, professional corporate videos that you choose the actors carefully and even hire them if needed?
I don’t think that is the way it works for information videos.
Nothing save the point that was it possible they first tried to find real employees that fit the narrative maybe?
I’m not condemning it, I was merely making an observation.
If they said the are employees in the video, then I assume that they are employees.
My comment was never one meant that needed discussion beyond just that. At this point, who cares?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.