SnyderShrugged Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110114/ap_on_re_us/us_unions_secret_ballots WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections. The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing. The amendments, approved Nov. 2, have taken effect in South Dakota and Utah, and will do so soon in Arizona and South Carolina. Business and anti-union groups sought the amendments, arguing that such secrecy is necessary to protect workers against union intimidation. They are concerned that Congress might enact legislation requiring employers to allow the "card check" process for forming unions instead of secret ballot elections. In letters to the attorney general of each state, Solomon says the amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution because they conflict with employee rights laid out in the National Labor Relations Act. That clause says that when state and federal laws are at odds, federal law prevails. Solomon is asking the attorneys general in South Dakota and Utah for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional "to conserve state and federal resources." more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Are there laws put on by the states to make sure there is not employer interference of threats heading into a vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 Are there laws put on by the states to make sure there is not employer interference of threats heading into a vote? I'd think that threats are against most state laws anyway, so its a moot point. To me, the whole notion of non-secret voting opens the door to much more intimidation to vote with the popular opinion. The secret ballot is a core facet of any true voting format Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I'd think that threats are against most state laws anyway, so its a moot point.To me, the whole notion of non-secret voting opens the door to much more intimidation to vote with the popular opinion. The secret ballot is a core facet of any true voting format I have no problem with the secret ballot but if AFP when pushing for these state laws did not ask to for laws to also make sure employers do not do anything to interfere then this is not about the secret ballot but rather just politics as usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110114/ap_on_re_us/us_unions_secret_ballotsWASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections. Now that is very suprising. Typically when their is an article about extreme wing nut behavior, Virginia is in the middle of it. Our wing nut extremists eclipse even South Carolina.. Kind makes you proud your state is #1 in one catagory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 I have no problem with the secret ballot but if AFP when pushing for these state laws did not ask to for laws to also make sure employers do not do anything to interfere then this is not about the secret ballot but rather just politics as usual Its only political if you consider labor unions as political. Since they are basically extensions of a particular party and have spent significant time sending teams of union members to rallys and campaigning, ZI guess they are. I'm really glad that you acknowledge this! There are plenty of labor laws and personal liberty laws on the books that would prevent an employer from intimidation . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Why is secret balloting such a big deal for Unions?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 Now that is very suprising. Typically when their is an article about extreme wing nut behavior, Virginia is in the middle of it. Our wing nut extremists eclipse even South Carolina..Kind makes you proud your state is #1 in one catagory. This post would make sense if it made sense ---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 05:39 PM ---------- Why is secret balloting such a big deal for Unions?? they hate losing the opportunity to intimidate those that dont want one in their workplace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I've never understood the argument against secret ballots. Intimidation can go either way. Why encourage it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 I've never understood the argument against secret ballots. Intimidation can go either way. Why encourage it? ed zachary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 do we have any union members here btw? Just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 do we have any union members here btw? Just curious There aren't hardly any union members left in America (despite the fact that the GOP tells us how the evil Unions are more and more taking over and ruining America for the Real Americans). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I don't see the conflict with the federal law,the state law does nothing to prevent a vote or forming a union that I see. Hardly any left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 There aren't hardly any union members left in America (despite the fact that the GOP tells us how the evil Unions are more and more taking over and ruining America for the Real Americans). Rarely do I see you make such an ignorant statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I don't like the federal law. I agree with the sentiment that it's pretty much impossible to have a fair election without secret ballots. Although, I don't know if I can invent a rationalization to claim that the federal law is unconstitutional. I don't like it, but I don't see unconstitutional. (Unless you invent "the right to secret balloting" as one of the "unlisted Constitutional Rights".) And if it's constitutional, then we run up against the problem of "do the states have the authority to amend their constitution specifically for the purpose of trying to nullify a federal law?" ---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 07:07 PM ---------- Rarely do I see you make such an ignorant statement. Often do I see you attack points without any support whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 There aren't hardly any union members left in America (despite the fact that the GOP tells us how the evil Unions are more and more taking over and ruining America for the Real Americans). That doesn't sound right at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I don't see the conflict with the federal law,the state law does nothing to prevent a vote or forming a union that I see.Hardly any left? 12.3% in 2009, the most recent numbers I found in a quick search. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf The numbers are dropping, which IMO is a good thing, but I don't think better than 1 in 10 constitutes "hardly any." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Often do I see you attack points without any support whatsoever. http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff16.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 12.3% in 2009, the most recent numbers I found in a quick search. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdfThe numbers are dropping, which IMO is a good thing, but I don't think better than 1 in 10 constitutes "hardly any." Surprised it's that high. Learned something. (Reading a bit into the thing, I think I may see why. What caused me to say "Oh, that's why" was when they mentioned police and firefighters. I hadn't thought of them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Hardly any left? Rarely do I see you make such an ignorant statement. That doesn't sound right at all. The percentage of working Americans in a union has dropped from over 33 percent in the 1950s to 12 percent today (and under 8 percent of the private sector workforce). You may or may not think that is a good thing, that's up to you. The fact remains that the voting percentage and the corresponding political power of the unions has plummeted. Nevertheless, they remain the boogeyman of the ideological right. That is what I was saying, and there isn't anything "ignorant" about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Quite a few left in the public workforce though 37% local govt employees it jumps even higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 On the merits of this dispute, I don't know what the courts will find. Federal preeemption can be a very complicated legal question. Traditionally, the courts have interpreted federal preemption of conflicting state labor law in a very broad manner. Labor relations has been deemed a matter of overarching federal interest ever since the Depression. And, generally speaking, if you have a state law that conflicts with a federal law or regulation, the state law is not enforceable due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause. But there are exceptions, and I have no expertise in this area. ---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 06:55 PM ---------- Quite a few left in the public workforce though37% local govt employees it jumps even higher True. That is why the 7.4 percent in the private sector can be brought up to 12.4 percent total. Doesn't change the reality of what I said. Labor, as represented by unions, used to hold almost equal political power with corporations in this country. That is no longer the case, not even close. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I don't see the conflict with the federal law,the state law does nothing to prevent a vote or forming a union that I see.Hardly any left? Yeah, I'm trying to understand the conflict, but I don't see it (not saying it might not be there though). The federal law, from what I understand from the article, says employers can recognize unions if enough members sign cards sayig they support it. The state law allows secret ballots for union elections. Now if thiincludes for the start-up of a union, then I see the conflict. But it just seems to be covring elections in an already-established union, which in that case I don't see a conflict. I'm just not sure which of the two it is. We elect presidents, senators, etc. in secret ballots, so I don't see a problem with elections in an already-established union being secret ballots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Its only political if you consider labor unions as political. Since they are basically extensions of a particular party and have spent significant time sending teams of union members to rallys and campaigning, ZI guess they are. I'm really glad that you acknowledge this!There are plenty of labor laws and personal liberty laws on the books that would prevent an employer from intimidation . People say there are laws on the books but I see it happen anyways And there are two reasons I see labour unions attacked by the right first they give money to the Dems so that draws the ire of the Pubs which is odd since they could also try and show they have their interests also. The other is labour unions like lawyers and higher education are all ways little people can improve their lot in life and I see all three get attacked by the right all the time. ---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 09:19 PM ---------- Why is secret balloting such a big deal for Unions?? Unions do not have a problem with it But often what happens after cards are signed to trigger a vote the employer starts a campaign to keep them unionizinf and will often hire "consultants" to help. ---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 09:29 PM ---------- Anyone else find it sort of ironic that a group who was started and funded by Koch a libertarian who complains about government involvement pushed for more government regulation in order to make it harder to unionize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgSkinFan Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Just one more reason to make sure nothing I buy is union made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.