Labor Board Moves Ahead With Union Rules

[human_being]

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/29/national/w231350S07.DTL&feed=rss.news_nation

There’s a few good things in here…but what gets me is how the GOP is not allowing the two appointees which are necessary for this board to be appointed…One expires at the end of the year and they will have 2. Instead of five…they have no concern whatsoever about workers rights…Only employers rights…the pope has said what is at the botom of my posts in an encyclical letter…and they directlly oppose it…Yet the right always goes with them as they are white as snow…If they do not have 3 members nothing at all will be done…there should be laws against this.The people are not being represented or served…i’m sure that is what was said when the dems ran off to that other state in the Walker/Wisconsin deal. As far as I see it, I have no clue why the employers are given any time at all for an election to take place…I would figure that it is the workers who have a ‘right’ to organize…and that should nopt be tampered with…There is no case…if the employers cared so much, I’m sure the unions wouldn’t be called to begin with.Meaning that the employers have time for their case from the time emploiyees start being hired till the time for an election would come up…and an election would not be needed at all if they were satisfying their employees from the get-go…They have all the time in the world to prove to employees that a union is not needed…and if they looked at it that way…the whole election prcess would never come up, for the employees would be happy and would not even talk to the union. Why should they be given any more time at all?

IThe labor board action now paves the way for final approval of the rules later this year, before the **board loses a three-member quorum **when Democratic member Craig Becker’s term expires. The board usually has five members, but Republicans have blocked Obama from filling two vacancies with recess appointments.

Read more: [sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/29/national/w231350S07.DTL#ixzz1fFMBZyZ8]](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/29/national/w231350S07.DTL#ixzz1fFMBZyZ8])

 

[stinkcat_14]

As far as I see it, I have no clue why the employers are given any time at all for an election to take place…I would figure that it is the workers who have a ‘right’ to organize…and that should nopt be tampered with…

My wife’s employer has said that a possible outcome of employees forming a union is that the company could shut down. Do the employees have the right to this information, or should they vote to form a union in ignorance?

 

[gamewell45]

My wife’s employer has said that a possible outcome of employees forming a union is that the company could shut down. Do the employees have the right to this information, or should they vote to form a union in ignorance?

If the employer is alluding to shutting down becuase the employees want to organize, that would violate the NLRA of 1934.

Most employees these days have all the information they want regarding unionization or how to fight unions at their fingertips since they may obtain the information from the internet.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If the employer is alluding to shutting down becuase the employees want to organize, that would violate the NLRA of 1934.

Of course if the employer does shut down there will be nothing left to sue, which would make the regulation rather meaningless, wouldn’t it?

 

[gamewell45]

Of course if the employer does shut down there will be nothing left to sue, which would make the regulation rather meaningless, wouldn’t it?

The Board could order the assests of the business sold in order to settle any lawsuits that arise based on illegal actions taken by the employer.

Understand that most employers who have worked their entire lives to build up a business are unlikely to close down soley as a result of unionization. Most of the time they try to find other ways to bust the union. I know first hand because i’ve been involved in organizing campaigns where the employer hinted at closing down if the union came into the workplace. Not once did a company close its doors due to a sucessful organizing drive.

 

[bbarrick8383]

My wife’s employer has said that a possible outcome of employees forming a union is that the company could shut down. Do the employees have the right to this information, or should they vote to form a union in ignorance?

I believe there was a grocery store in Texas that shut down when employees tried to unionize.

 

[Brendan]

. As far as I see it, I have no clue why the employers are given any time at all for an election to take place…

Would the same be true for Presidential elections? Should we have the primaries the day before and the elections on the following day? Why should there be any time for anyone to state their positions on anything after all

.I would figure that it is the workers who have a ‘right’ to organize…and that should nopt be tampered with

Why would a 60 wait (or so) be considered to be ‘tampering’. If people ( of which the mangement are) have rights to free speech, should not everyone involved have a right to state their case? That would include both union and management.

We live in a society where multiple viewpoints are valued. In our court system, both sides are given time to make their case to the jury. That is considered to be a hallmark of a fair system.

The union gets an opportunity during the card signing period. Why make the claim that only side side gets to address the workers.

If their are claims of ‘tampering’, that is what we have a court system for, is it not?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Would the same be true for Presidential elections? Should we have the primaries the day before and the elections on the following day? Why should there be any time for anyone to state their positions on anything after all

Why would a 60 wait (or so) be considered to be ‘tampering’. If people ( of which the mangement are) have rights to free speech, should not everyone involved have a right to state their case? That would include both union and management.

We live in a society where multiple viewpoints are valued. In our court system, both sides are given time to make their case to the jury. That is considered to be a hallmark of a fair system.

The union gets an opportunity during the card signing period. Why make the claim that only side side gets to address the workers.

If their are claims of ‘tampering’, that is what we have a court system for, is it not?

I have not noticed many view points being valued these days.

The problem with orgainizing today centers on the efforts of employers to block drives. They use a variety of techniques.(You should educate yourself on these) The new guidelines will make it tougher for a company to impede a drive. Honestly, it’s the best deal workers are bound to get. Until we change the hearts of the repubs that is.

ATB

 

[JimG]

In the event that employees vote not to form a union, will the NLRB simply force them to unionize whether they like or not?

 

[gamewell45]

In the event that employees vote not to form a union, will the NLRB simply force them to unionize whether they like or not?

No, unless the conduct of the election is challenged and it is found that the employer violated labor law. The remedy could be setting aside the election and having a new one up to issuing an order to recognize and bargain.