Obama Changes Unionizing Rules

[sunchaser]

Articles here and

here.

Any opinions on this? It doesn't seem like that's the way unionizing should be done.

 

[Steve4031]

I read both articles. If I am reading this correctly, it means that in the past if somebody did not vote, that was a "no" vote. The new rule only counts the votes of those who voted. IMHO, this would encourage people to become involved and vote. It does not take anything away from anybody.

I am a member of a union, and I don't always agree with what the Union does. However, I do make sure that I vote when the opportunity to vote on something occurs.

 

[sunchaser]

From the Fox article-Instead of requiring a majority of workers at a railroad or airline to favor banding together to form a union, the new rule, announced by the three-member National Mediation Board, would recognize a union if a "a majority of valid ballots cast" approve of organizing.

That reduces the qualification rule to apply to the number of participants in an election, not the larger number of workers who would be affected by the vote.

Wouldn't that skew the results?

 

[Steve4031]

If not everyone votes, Obama's changes skews the results one way. If non votes are counted as "no" this skews the results the other way. However its done, the results could be skewed. However, the change would encourage all involved to vote. Not voting would not be counted as no.

 

[Ryan]

However, the change would encourage all involved to vote. Not voting would not be counted as no.

As it shouldn't.
Really, if you don't vote, you don't have any right to b-tch when things don't do your way.

 

[battalion51]

But the question is who is in charge of the counting? Is it the Union? Is it the management? Is there a check and balance?

 

[PRR 60]

But the question is who is in charge of the counting? Is it the Union? Is it the management? Is there a check and balance?

The representation elections are run by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

 

[oldtimer]

Just a quick comparison should all elected offices require a majority of all citizens over the age of 17, regardless if they are registered voter or not?

This would throw the American electoral system into chaos. This is how it has been in organizing both the railroad and airline industry, and I speak from 41 years experience working in both. I also held a union office for the last 28 of those years. This is a long overdue change.

 

[oldtimer]

But the question is who is in charge of the counting? Is it the Union? Is it the management? Is there a check and balance?

The representation elections are run by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Actually in the railroad and aviation industry representation elections are run by the National Meditation Board.

 

[volkris]

The change is probably a bad idea in general as it threatens to force organization-wide changes upon all employees, in the name of the employees, without the most employees declaring that they want the change. It's also hard to undo once it's done, so it actually should be hard to do.

But the more problematic thing is how the rule change was handled. It wasn't debated among our representatives, put to a vote among the states, or voted on by the people. It was a significant change handed down by a president based on his personal political leanings, and it's one of many for this guy. So what, is the next president now supposed to rewrite all of the rules to match his opinions? Are we supposed to live in a country of constant uncertainty where everything might change every four years?

The system was rightly designed with more consistency than that. The president is supposed to be managing the government, with changes coming out of thoughtful debate in congress, where these swings of political ideology are tampered by the number of people involved in the decision-making process. Everything from our economy to our justice system relies on the consistency and predictability afforded by that annoyingly slow process.

 

[Ryan]

The change is probably a bad idea in general as it threatens to force organization-wide changes upon all employees, in the name of the employees, without the most employees declaring that they want the change. It's also hard to undo once it's done, so it actually should be hard to do.

If they employees don't want it, all they have to do is vote against it. It's not like they're being forced into anything. If they're apathetic enough to not vote, then they don't have a leg to stand on.

But the more problematic thing is how the rule change was handled. It wasn't debated among our representatives, put to a vote among the states, or voted on by the people. It was a significant change handed down by a president based on his personal political leanings, and it's one of many for this guy. So what, is the next president now supposed to rewrite all of the rules to match his opinions? Are we supposed to live in a country of constant uncertainty where everything might change every four years?
The system was rightly designed with more consistency than that. The president is supposed to be managing the government, with changes coming out of thoughtful debate in congress, where these swings of political ideology are tampered by the number of people involved in the decision-making process. Everything from our economy to our justice system relies on the consistency and predictability afforded by that annoyingly slow process.

You're right, that never happened in the previous 8 years...

 

[MikefromCrete]

Very interesting philosophical discussion, but what's it got to with Amtrak Unlimited?

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

If I am reading this correctly, it means that in the past if somebody did not vote, that was a "no" vote.

IMHO, that represents a time when some people might be afraid to vote "no", and instead, felt it was better for their personal and family safety to simply not vote if they didn't support the union.

"Oh, golly, Vito, I was going to vote yes, but forgot. See, your brother Xavier believes me. " h34r:

 

[volkris]

Well, it really comes down to picking the right question and then going for the method that answers the question.

Unionization affects every single employee, affects the business's operations and bottom line, fundamentally alters the dynamics within the organization, and is a longterm change going out years into the future.

Given all of that, what question do you want to ask?

A) Do most employees support the change, believing it to be in their best interests? Or

B) Do most employees not object to the change, apparently not believing it to be a terrible thing, or not objecting for some other reason?

I'd say it makes a whole lot of sense to stick with A, which is supported by the previous rule. Obama has switched to B apparently because he didn't like the answers coming back from A.

 

[caravanman]

Lets try and be fair here...

Are all employers fair and decent, do they all give a fair amount of pay to all their employees without question? Do they all bend over backwards to keep them safe from harm in coal mines, construction, etc?

When shareholders are screaming out for profits, do those shareholders ensure that the employees contributing to that business are well taken care of?

Unions exist because of the bad way employees are often treated without them, they are not sponsored by the devil!

There is a need for fair play in all area's of life.. If people vote yes or no on any topic, then let's count their votes, if they don't vote, then put them down as a dont know, or a don't care... seems entirely fair to me!

Eddie

 

[Ryan]

Well, it really comes down to picking the right question and then going for the method that answers the question.
Unionization affects every single employee, affects the business's operations and bottom line, fundamentally alters the dynamics within the organization, and is a longterm change going out years into the future.

Given all of that, what question do you want to ask?

A) Do most employees support the change, believing it to be in their best interests? Or

B) Do most employees not object to the change, apparently not believing it to be a terrible thing, or not objecting for some other reason?

I'd say it makes a whole lot of sense to stick with A, which is supported by the previous rule. Obama has switched to B apparently because he didn't like the answers coming back from A.

First off, lets get one thing straight. Obama didn't do anything. The National Mediation Board made a change.

That aside, your two questions are functionally the same if 100% of the population votes. Since nonvoters voluntarily cede their decision making to those who care enough to cast a ballot, it really doesn't matter what they think at all.

 

[Trainmans daughter]

Silence is consent.

 

[MikeM]

I agree with Trainman's daughter. Many are afraid of supporting a union, particularly given the way the NLRB has become very politicized in the last administration. It is interesting to note that as unions have become weaker, companies have been able to hold down average wages while the CEO's tend to earn far more than ever before. Great news if you're a CEO, but kind of sucky for those of us in the trenches trying to make a decent living. Unions, like most things, have good and bad points, but I have to believe the pendulum has swung pretty wide away from workers having much clout in the typical work place these days.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

So many people go through life unaware of anything that goes on around them, the very concept of ever taking lack of action as a negative action is inherently ridiculous.

It is the way we vote for everything else, ya know. Some people care for something to happen. We call that a affirmative vote. Some people care for it to not happen. We call that a negative vote. And other people simply don't care. We call that no vote at all.

This should be different... why?

 

[oldtimer]

So many people go through life unaware of anything that goes on around them, the very concept of ever taking lack of action as a negative action is inherently ridiculous.
It is the way we vote for everything else, ya know. Some people care for something to happen. We call that a affirmative vote. Some people care for it to not happen. We call that a negative vote. And other people simply don't care. We call that no vote at all.

This should be different... why?

OMG

If I can believe my eyes not just the GML but the previous four posters to him appear to be in concurrence. That is a rare occurrence on AU. This is pleasing to an old, retired (and also just tired) railroad union person!

 

[GG-1]

OMG
If I can believe my eyes not just the GML but the previous four posters to him appear to be in concurrence. That is a rare occurrence on AU. This is pleasing to an old, retired (and also just tired) railroad union person!

Aloha

Tired fits me, Retired not yet, but From meeting you in Chicago on the way to the Boston Gathering we may be old in years but definitely not mentally. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[volkris]

Fundamentally, this really isn't about unions at all, or about the NLRB, or the politics, or the way employers treat employees, or money, or any of that. Replace "vote for unionization" with "vote for a new dress code" and it's the same basic question.

Fundamentally this is about speaking for employees that will all see their circumstances changed by a decision when the decision is designed to give them what they want. It's only reasonable that given those circumstances you should make sure most actually want the change.

You see the claim that silence is consent... but there's no more basis to that than saying silence is dissent. What makes one more right than the other? Nothing. So don't count it in either column.... but don't claim those people don't count as employees.

In the end I don't believe that what a minority of employees want should trigger the government to swoop in and force all employees and the employer to change, but that's exactly what this rule sets up.

 

[Ryan]

If there was a significant impediment to voting, you may have a point.

Since there isn't, it's just more of the same ramblings from you...

 

[transit54]

I think the way the votes are conducted also matters.

If voting is done by secret ballot, then I am less bothered by the change. I still think that it should be like any other vote, in the sense that votes don't count one way or the other.

If the concern is that employees would be hesitant to vote for a union because management is pressuring them not to, then why not split the non-voting employees 50/50 - have half the votes count towards the union and half against it. At least that's less of a dramatic change than this proposal.

My concern is that if votes are not mandated by secret ballot, employees could feel strongly pressured by fellow employees to vote against their own feelings. Or, if things must be this way, why not have an option to vote 'present' but not vote for either side? Our own representatives give themselves that option.

 

[volkris]

But that still leaves open the situation where government comes in and forces changes upon everyone, with the claim that the employees asked for it, when not even half of the employees said they wanted it to happen.

Let employees vote present--sure--but don't consider that to be a "yes" in any fashion.