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!