Under the system you support somebody can forge my signature and the union can be formed without my consent and the consent of others. That is why you hold a secret ballot.

Under the system you support a couple of people can come and scare somebody into signing a piece of paper that counts as support for the union. Keep in mind people who said they did this for unions in the past have been in these commercials.

The point is the union tries to say since 50% + 1 signed the sheet we don’t need the secret ballot so lets not hold it. You don’t know if truly 50% support unless you have a secret ballot.

If you the union thinks they can get 50% + 1 using a public sign up they should easily be able to get the same votes in a secret ballot unless they don’t want the secret ballot because they know they have been cheating to get their votes to begin with.

That is why you have to have a secret ballot. Something which you don’t support Leroy!

We live in the United States where unions should have to have a secret a ballot election. What are you so afraid of. I’m an union person and I see no problem in demanding that secret ballot election every single time!

Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN

Yeah, no threat there.

And it appears you do.

Not sure what you have against voting rights, but that’s your problem, not mine.

Honestly, who is more of a threat? An employer who can fire you if you get to involved in an organizing effort, or a union who wants to help you get a better deal with your employer?

The card check lets workers put their name on the line and protect themselves from union-harassing employers. If you sign the card and are fired the next day, you have a pretty solid case against your employer. If you are operating in private trying to get the vote, and you are fired, it is a lot harder to prove causation. EFCA simply protects workers who are trying to unionize.

The fact is, a public vote is NOT the same as a private vote. The EFCA ensures union toughs can run rough-shod over employees. Nothing more.

Thanks for helping me to prove the point that the EFCA eliminates the secret ballot for employees.

Ask the citizens of Zimbabwe whether they believe a public vote and a private vote are the same thing.

What does the DFL have against voting rights?

cuba anybody?

If a majority of the workers already want a union, and signify such on a public card check what purpose would a private ballot serve?

You are aware that a majority vote on a private ballot has the same result as a majority vote on a public ballot, right?

You do understand that, don’t you?

Could be the subtitle to a documentary on the Democrat Party.

if i understand labor law now, an employer can request a free, secret-ballot election. how can that be harmful to labor unions if the majority want to join?

the card check bill also provides penalties for employers that do not follow the law, but no penalties for unions that do not follow the law.

finally, which is better for an employee: to make a decision about their job in private where they can consider all the facts/circumstances, or be forced to make an immediate decision in front of union organizers which have a history of coercion and threats.

The EFCA eliminates the right of the 30 percent to have their vote. Period.

“If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).”

Perhaps you got a different version of the ruling than the rest of the free world. In no place did the judge say that the case lacked merit or fact. It simply said that the malicious intent was not proven against the creators of the ad.

You are allowed to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

So Al Franken or Brian Melendez are lying when they say a secret ballot can be directed if 30%-50% of the workforce vote yes publicly. Even if
a secret ballot can be directed at 30-50% it would be a pointless misapplication to interpret the proposed legislation like that.
But I wouldn’t put it past the unions to mis-interpret their own legislation.

Thanks Walter.

And thanks for showing us why we should distrust the unions, Brian Melendez, and Al Franken, Aaron.

THAT MEANS THAT A SECRET BALLOT WON’T BE USED. THAT IS WHY THE UNIONS ARE PUSHING THIS SO HARD!!
They are trying to avoid the secret ballot elections which they have been losing. If they have been winning they will be eager to get rules to get to the secret ballot! They have been doing the exact opposite. They have been trying to get rules to avoid the secret ballot.

WHAT ARE YOU FAILING TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!

Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN

The card check will create a union if they public drive is the manner chosen by the workers. But they can also still, as always, use the secret ballot that has been used for years.

What your pulled quote says is that on the card check, once you reach a majority of employees, they union is recognized. Don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but that is the same number of employees who need to vote in the affirmative on the secret ballot for the union as well.

The amendment would create an ADDITIONAL system of voting. The workers asked for it, and they are going to get it. And Wal Mart is going to spend $15 million on lies to try and keep Norm around to own his vote on this anti-worker measure.

I can’t imagine I am alone in being repulsed by the idea of Wal Mart spending $15 million to buy this seat for Norm.

God bless America!

If they want, they’ll just re-plead with paticularity. But, to claim this is somehow the Court saying the ad is truthful is ridiculous.

You’re a liar. Read Aron’s post number one. The language as proposed reads, “the board shall not direct an election but certify”

Translation: If you can create 50% + 1 ballot signed you automatically get the union since there will be no secret ballot election.

So quit lying Leroy or go back to first grade and learn how to read!

Of course when everybody on your side is lying on this issue that’s why you folks probably believe that you have been telling the truth.

Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN

Thanks for approving my comment. I presume it was too many links and blockquotes. I did indeed try again, causing the second comment.

You would know, wouldn’t you?

The lawsuit was tossed out not because it lacked merit, but because the DFL was unable to prove that the creators of the ad were malicious rather than just stupid. The judge gave them the benefit of the doubt that the guys in charge may just be total morons. So, I guess that is a win for morons everywhere.

The fact that the case was dismissed without prejudice indicates that the ruling had nothing to do with the merits of the claim, and everything to do with a legal technicality.

The EFCA unequivocally eliminates workers rights to a private ballot. What does the DFL have against voting rights?

You can make this determination yourself, but the part in question boils down to this part of the NLRA:

Sec. 9 [§ 159.]

(e) [Secret ballot; limitation of elections] (1) Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and labor organization made pursuant to section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title], of a petition alleging they desire that such authorization be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer.

The EFCA adds this, in the same section:

(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

The key words are “notwithstanding any other provision of this section.” These words are there intentionally to protect the right to a secret ballot as indicated in Sec. 9 [§ 159.] (e).

The secret ballot never goes away and it doesn’t change. As it is now and as it would be after the EFCA, at any time 30% of the workers want an election with a secret ballot, they get one. The EFCA protects this right. To say directly that it removes the right to a worker’s private ballot is a lie.

Now, there are some grey areas that people bring up, and David Brauer covers that really well this morning.

Either way, this looks like a filing issue, not a problem with the allegation.