Question for union members and ex union
 

folks.

With the Presidents recess appointments to the NLRB, he further strengthens those groups and of course as a result South Carolina was penalized for being a right to work state and lost jobs.

In addition, as I understand it, since Obamas legislation to take away the secret ballot in union votes failed, "the NLRB leadership has imposed new requirements that employers supply union organizers with the names and home addresses of every employee. Nor do employees have a right to decline to have this personal information given out to union organizers, under NLRB rules."

I am posting two links, one from

RealClearPolitics - A Cynical Process and the other..

"http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/may/02/tdopin01-wrong-on-right-to-work-ar-1883388/

BOTH oppose this new regulation and cite how the "new" NLRB has top flight chances to kill job growth,

My question and it is a serious question...

WHY DOES A LABOR UNION NEED NAMES AND HOME ADDRESSES FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE AND DENY THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO PROTECT THEIR EMPLOYEES VIOLATION OF PRIVACY ?

Obviously the unions don't need these names they want these names so as to intiimidate employees into becoming union members. Obama is also working with the airlines on consolidations because the unions are in favor of same. Unions have not evolved since the 1940's and hence have become an albatross as respects varius industry's ability to compete.

I support Unions.

Thats fine, but what I am asking is why the union would need this information in anyway and would not support workers right to privacy ??

Not a trick question or a set up......but wondering why from those who support unions

just like asking those who support Obama care about the built in rampant costs.....the responses are noteable.....by their absence!

btk

My only guess is that the Unions, after getting the requisite number of signed cards to force an election, want the opportunity to send correspondence to all the employees to rally them to their cause with solid information of the issues of employee importance, and not just the rumors that are normally abundant. An advantage a company has over the unions.

I don't think Union reps should be blind visiting employees, but I see no harm in providing addresses for the purpose of mailings, especially if it’s after the requisite number of employes have signed on to legally force a representative vote.

I don’t think this is too much to ask for.

The government in years past has made it more and more difficult for Unions to organize labor for better wages and benefits. They've forced the Unions to organize piecemeal, meaning each separate company location, instead of company wide referendums as was the way it was done in the past. This makes it easy for corporations to divide and separate it's employees by threatening to close a location that dares to entertain the idea of organizing, all the while knowing the rest of the company can hum along regardless of what the employees of the targeted location do.

The issue of “card check” is always only reported from the side of the corporate entities. The Unions are depicted as “thugs” who may violently prey on employees of companies that have employees seeking union representation.

Nobody ever depicts the corporate entity as thuggish as it threatens employees who are tired of being underpaid and overworked and under appreciated with the loss of their livelihood if they as so much as consider voting for union representation.

I’ve been involved in elections for union representation, and there’s no end to the dirty tricks and labor violations a company will commit in order to halt an election or terrorize it’s employees in advance of a ratifying vote.

Card Check would have gone a long way to eliminating bullying tactics by avaricious corporations.

What's your experience with unions as you label them "albatrosses"?

I was a Teamster for over 40 years and we've agreed to changes in work rules and changes in health plans and pension plans in order to survive in the new reality.

Not all unions are stereotypical.

I support unions.

Is This Really That Confusing?
 

Let's see, Democratic Presidents appoint people to the NLRB who are favorably inclined towards unions and labor organization. Policies and regulations tends to follow the same pattern. When Republican Presidents hold the appointment powers, the table gets turned.

Is all this that hard to figure out?

Of course you do.

A First In Memory!
 

Aha! We have bi-partisan consensus! That may be a first in this forum in recent memory!

Just to clarify; I'm a former member and supporter of private sector unions.

The public sector unions?; that's a different kettle of fish.

Richie, my misunderstood pal, employees of the Federal government have several unions they can choose to represent them. There is the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) and several more. HR offices have a person who is a specialist in labor relations to deal with the unions.

Unions in government are valuable for the employees - and it is not in setting salaries. It is useful in cases concerning merit promotion, disclipinary actions, reassignments, transfers, equal employment opportunity, discrimination based on sex or race, or many other issues.

Unions can be a pain in the butt for HR offices to work with but they have helped employees in many situations.

public sector union active emps and retirees have "agreed to changes in work rules and changes in health plans and pension plans in order to survive in the new reality." TOO!

not only helped emps - they protected them from politically hostile non-union management! unions have also helped management when union emps failed to improve thru a pattern of progressive discipline and the union could only support the emp's termination!

bucco - i cruised thru the nlrb website and could not find any information to support the allegations as you posted them or as described in the articles you provided.

the closest i came to even finding a reference to home addresses is as follows: "current: The final voter list available to all parties contains only names and home addresses, which does not permit all parties to utilize modern technology to communicate with voters.
proposed: Phone numbers and email addresses (when available) would be included on the final voter list."
Proposed amendments to NLRB election rules and regulations fact sheet | NLRB

it appears that home addys are already provided in the representation process.

if you can come up with a specific rule change, i'd be happy to read it and comment.

Then I have been misinformed and you need to write to Thomas Sowell directly :)

I just read it with my daily read and found it interesting....if it is wrong then we should really and honestly write to him on it.

THIS from US News and World Report...

"Few federal agencies have worked as hard to disrupt the economic recovery as the National Labor Relations Board, a five-member body created in 1934 to oversee union representation elections and to investigate and propose remedies where unfair labor practices are found to exist.

""We keep our eye on the prize," Pearce said in January while promising, as supporters of Enzi's effort have put it, to force employers to make confidential employee information—including phone numbers and E-mail addresses—available to union organizers. This, of course, would expose them to harassment, intimidation, and potentially worse."

Obama's Renegade NLRB Is Disrupting the Recovery - Peter Roff (usnews.com)

I know what you're saying but the realities are different for public and private. When there's no profit motive, things are different and no amount of relating good work done is applicable to what I'm discussing.

Profit (cash) is not created by employees of public unions in order to facilitate and demonstrate their value, and that's just a fact of life.

All renumeration received by public employees is extracted from the private sector. You might say as a loyal public sector employee that the services you provide is just being paid for, but that's a stretch and a half, as taxpayers have no choice in the matter, and little say in the "purchase".

I know some states, as Florida has under the leadership of Rick Scott, been a little successful in scaling back some union employees benefits. I'm not sure what Gov. Scott did, but usually it's a form of "blackmail", where the employees agree to "givebacks" in order to avoid threatened layoffs, or even elimination of a department. In many unionized states this doesn't work as the workers have "tenure rights" and are just reassigned.

6/11 Proposed amendments to NLRB election rules and regulations fact sheet
Proposed amendments to NLRB election rules and regulations fact sheet | NLRB - much easier reading than:
December 22, 2011 representation election procedures (published at 76 Fed. Reg. 80138)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011...2011-32642.pdf
[but much more enlightening!]

then there is - s.j.r. 36 - haven't found results data on this joint resolution to overturn everything - but obama has said he will veto it if they do!

in my book - this entire "ambush" is a train wreck - for all sides! having participated in organizing efforts, the reduced timelines are far more detrimental to the union, the business and the employees.

thomas sowell's opinion is really over the top! there are bigger problems in these amendments than what he selected - they just aren't as attention-getting.

i don't think you do know whay we're saying - neither buggy nor i are saying anything about salaries! i am pointing out that regardless of private OR public, unions provide protections for members as well as employers. and public unions are making the same concessions private unions are are for their survival.

You have not been on this forum long enough to know that some of the very conservative posters (Wubers) get their marching orders each and every day from Fox News. They use the same phrasing that Fox Noise uses, they have the same regurgitated thoughts that Fox Noise has implanted in them, and basically the Wubers have no originality when it comes to political ideas.

The misinformation they have on public unions is all garnered from the talking heads on Fox Noise. Just overlook their biased viewpoints and realize they have been misinformed and therefore either ignore their rantings or just thank them for making you laugh at their nonsense.

Thank you, RichieLion.

Buggy, I'm getting very offended by this nonsensical Fox News B.S. You know it's B.S.

I'll quit the forum if you provide any direct evidence of FOX News saying exactly what I said about unions.

Put up, or shut up. I'm not kidding.

The vast majority of public unions are definitely not making the concessions the private unions are making. No way, Jose.

Fine, I agree that the union's representation is important, but the playing field is like night and day in regard to private and public unions.

This is why the Teamster's are rapidly organizing as many public employee groups as they can in order to survive, because the jobs are way more stable because there is no "profit god" to serve.

You may be able to convince the general public, but I was involved with the Union for over 40 years, and you have nothing to teach me.

Nah.....I support public unions. :laugh:

Buh-bye. :laugh:

Why is public sector different? OK for us to work Holidays for nothing extra? What makes a Teamster anything better? Having been on both sides of the negotiating table with Teamsters I mostly heard whining from them.

The one piece of FOX parroting I'm sick of is the snarky "Really?". Someone gives a point of view and wham "Really?" :yuck:

posh -
i guess some folks just have a very short-sighted interpretation of solidarity if all they can do is hang their hat on the difference between public an private sector.

i never had to deal with teamster unions but my husband did - and they were USELESS in supporting the little local they picked up that he was in! i did more with establishing and implementing a salary payment and increase schedule for their employees!

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john...taxpayers.html




I guess John Stossel copied RichieLion's ideas. Don't leave, Richie! Please stay!

Only talking about negotiating in different economic realities. Private sector unions have to negotiate in the reality that the businesses their members work for have to turn a profit to remain in business, and if the business fails, so do the members employed.

This is not the reality of a public union's negotiations. It's plain and simple and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

I not speaking to workplace protections, just the stark realities of negotiating with one union have much to lose in over demanding, and one union where this is a remote consideration.

First of all, this ISN'T FROM FOX NEWS!!

Second of all, there is no mention of my primary point in comparing the negotiating for contracts in the different worlds of public and private sector unions.

In other words, you failed, and might I add, miserably so.

... I do not think so. I will take that ice-cold Yeungling next time at the watering hole.

Hit them long, straight, and not too often.

It wouldn't open for me. Pray tell.

at least private unions still have the opportunity to bargain collectively...unlike some public unions - nj, wi, ct, etc.

When the pension program changes out of the blue and workers have less than they started with, that's a problem that all workers should have sympathy for IMO.

That definitely is true. Some years ago, one of the major airlines went bankrupt and out of business. It was Eastern, I think. Some of their retired pilots were getting about $6,500 per month in retirement pay. Not too shabby, if you ask me. However, when the company declared bankruptcy, the pensions were cut back to around $1,000 per month. That would be a shock to go from $78,000 per year to $12,000 per year.

Interesting conversation and for me enlightening.

I hope I present this correctly, but my question revolves around the public and private factors with unions.

In the private sector, a company who begins to "bleed", suffer losses, or whatever that might effect the workers need to address the WHY and HOW of that loss and if necessary share with the workers and negotiate whatever needs to be negotiated.

In the public sector as with the current situation where government spending is just going through the roof, and ANY adjustments to be made, whether it is raising taxes OR cutting costs, the union members will be effected. They need to pay higher taxes, if that would be the response, etc.

Does this attitude of a county, state, whatever being able to pay forever because profit and loss is not an issue become part of the bargaining on either side ? Meaning if a union pushes for higher pensions than the private sector, do they not realize that it will only be a matter of time or do they look at the entity with which they are negotiating as a body that can do it forever...any realities set in ?

This is an honest question...I tried to frame it so that no bias would be apparent. It appears to me that the government is looked upon as somebody to whom the private problems can not ever happen ???

Public sector has management just like private sector. Those managers need to watch spending (GSA, Presidential Vacations, Layers of Management) easily come to mind. Those workers that have been promised things need to be budgeted for and new expenditures need to be curtailed if not paid for.

Ok....now I never worked in the public sector, and I assume that any pensions or long term liabilities are included in any deficit numbers, and I also understand how you would plan on a pension that was promised....what kind of attitude then do you have when you see deficits and spending just going through the roof ?

When I peruse candidates who spend but also support unions, they get the endorsement. Is that not counter productive ?

Again, not trying to set anybody up....just trying to come to grips with this as if I were a public union member, and saw spending just going through the roof along with deficits, it would bother anyone but a public union member should even be more moved by those occurences...Yet, that does not seem to be the case with union backing ?????