LaborPains.org

As members of Congress, state legislatures, and the President of the United States are sworn into office, we’re reminded of our American democratic ideals. Unfortunately, many union members don’t get the chance to celebrate democracy thanks to a unionization procedure known as “card check.”

Take Karen Cox and her coworkers at Americold Logistics, who are only the latest examples of how unions intend to end the secret ballot in labor organizing. In spring of 2012, she was given a card that she was told would be used for information purposes. She filled it out and returned it. But in June, she learned that she, along with at least 50 percent of her fellow coworkers, had signed and returned the cards that recognized a labor union.

Cox, who opposed the union, tried to collect petitions from co-workers to call for a secret ballot vote. But rather than let her have the same access rights as union organizers, Cox was stopped from doing so by Americold. She’s now being represented by National Right to Work Foundation in a complaint against the company filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

“I think they did it that way as a way for the union to sneak in without opposition,” Cox told Sauk Valley Media. “Some people were mad about that, and all I want is a legit election.”

In 2011, Barbara Ivey shared her very similar story. A 21-year employee at Kaiser Permanente in Oregon, she was shocked that after only 13 days, a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) card check campaign successfully turned her workplace into a union shop. Ivey said that her coworkers felt pressure to sign the card.

Ivey began to collect signatures for a decertification election, which would allow the employees to vote on the unionization by secret ballot. Although these elections used to take place immediately after a card-check drive, a “safety valve” provision to ensure the card check collection was proper, the NLRB’s penchant for overturning precedent ended that protection. In Lamons Gasket, the NLRB did away with the immediate vote petition and instead required that more time elapse before the decertification vote could take place.

These women aren’t outliers. In fact, denying the secret ballot vote is policy for labor. That didn’t die with the EFCA. With UNITE HERE leading the way, several labor groups, notably the AFL-CIO, backed a boycott of Hyatt Hotels in July because the company refused to allow card check unionization at its hotels.

Just prior to the November election, Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO told the Atlantic that labor will never give up on card check. “That’s within the next term,” he claimed.

Card check is no way to determine if an individual really wants to join a union. The process is fraught with potential problems—deception and intimidation chief among them, as shown in the workplaces of Cox and Ivey. Card check makes the vote public and puts employees in the difficult position of openly stating their position to a union organizer. The Employee Rights Act requires secret ballot elections for union certification votes in order to ensure that each individual employee can decide whether she wants to join a union without someone looking over her shoulder.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has officially made the “naughty list” for 2012. Earlier this month, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report criticizing the NLRB for abandoning its role as an “independent regulator” and becoming a “dysfunctional union advocate.”

The report, which runs to 33 pages, “documents a pattern of behavior at the NLRB that undermines its integrity and creates an impression that the NLRB has morphed into a rogue agency plagued by systemic problems.”

The overview of the NLRB’s questionable rulings and activities includes:

• •A “pro-union bias,” including “an extreme lack of impartiality” in the recent Boeing case and “jubilance and excitement” at news of the union’s agreement with Boeing.
• •Multiple instances of NLRB officials “undermining the separation principle,” particularly between the Board and the Office of the General Counsel during the Boeing case.
• Evidence that NLRB officials “thwarted Congressional oversight” on several occasions, including delays in handing over documents and “flippant” reactions to congressional requests.
• Fostering “uncertainty and instability” in the workplace through its rulemaking and its lawsuit against Boeing.

The report also highlights the NLRB’s reversal of precedent in its Specialty Healthcare decision. The decision’s legalization of “minority unions,” the report notes, allows unions to organize businesses regardless of whether a majority of employees support unionization.

Another example of the NLRB’s naughtiness is the “regulatory overreach” it has undertaken in the form of two new hyper-partisan substantive rules. The rules in question are the “quickie election” rule and the “notice posting” rule—two overtly partisan rules which have been reviewed by federal courts.

Rounding out the list are complaints about President Obama’s questionable use of “recess appointments” to appoint controversial Board members and allegations of “ethical and criminal misconduct” by NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, most notably in a case in which he had a financial interest.

Final decisions on the legality of many of these issues have not yet been reached, most notably with the faux-recess appointments. Yet the abundance of evidence still points to an NLRB that has abandoned its neutrality and taken up the union cause as its own. All that remains is to see what the NLRB gets in its stocking this year. Hopefully it won’t be card check.

Where will the National Labor Relations Board extend its tendrils next? Here’s your answer:

The National Labor Relations Board has threatened to sue the states of Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over recently passed state constitutional amendments that require secret-ballot elections before a company can be unionized.

The board says the states can’t override federal law that gives workers the option of the so-called card-check method of organizing, which unions favor but many employers oppose. …

The amendments to the four states’ constitutions were approved Nov. 2 by voters in those states. The amendments have already taken effect in South Dakota and Utah and are expected to become effective soon in Arizona and South Carolina.

These amendments were never expected to hold up since they run smack into federal law. But they serve as a good bellwether for how strongly the public opposes mandatory card check. South Carolina’s amendment passed with 86 percent of the vote. South Dakota’s garnered 79 percent support. Likewise, the NLRB’s threat should serve as an indication of just how obsequious the board has become.

Image courtesy of jezarnold.

Even as newspapers and columnists around the country like the Sun Sentinel in Florida, the Washington Post in Washington D.C. and our own Oregonian deride the act, Jeff Merkley supports it.

Even as bloggers, the new media for politics in the United States, point out the major flaws and hypocrisy with this grossly mis-named act, Jeff Merkley supports it.

Even as members of his own party, liberal icons like George McGovern speak out against it as being un-democratic, Jeff Merkley supports it.

Even though a survey shows that 94% of Oregonians believe employees should have the right to vote on forming a union by a private ballot election where each individual’s vote is kept private, Jeff Merkley supports it.

If you follow the money, the answer seems pretty clear: Big Labor Unions and the Union Bosses are contributing tens of thousands to Merkley’s campaign. Would you care to guess what the Big Labor Unions #1 priority is for Congress next year? You’re right: Passing the Employee Free Choice Act. You can bet that the people they supported will need to support their #1 priority.

Which all means that Big Labor, not Oregonians, are Jeff Merkley’s #1 priority.

A recent column by David Reinhard in the Oregonian highlights the problems behind the grossly mis-named “Employee Free Choice Act”.  This piece of legislation would strip workers of their right to a private ballot in the workplace when it comes to unionization.  Instead, workers would be subject to harassment, coercion and intimidation from union organizers who could come to their houses to “persuade” them to support union representation.

The article says it well enough but doesn’t point out that Jeff Merkley, candidate for U.S. Senate, supports this deceptive piece of legislation wholeheartedly.  What’s worse, when confronted about the issue, he tries to either steer the conversation away from answering the question or avoid the question entirely.

When will Jeff Merkley honestly answer why he wants to take away a worker’s right to a private ballot?  Until he does, we can only assume that it’s because Big Labor Union Bosses, who are funding his campaign, know that it’s a bad bill and don’t want him to say anything.  Putting money in their own pockets seems to be the most important thing.

Read part of the article for yourself:

OK, you want to talk issues. You’re tired of talking personalities, character, experience and Sarah Palin’s eyewear. You’ve had it contemplating whether Barack Obama’s or John McCain’s campaign ads are more full of lies and distortions. You’re above all this bunkum. You want to talk about some substantive difference between the two presidential candidates that could shape the way we live — that could alter some basic American value — in the decades to come.

So here’s the issue. It’s a big one that’s below the surface and not getting a lot of attention, and it’s not the racial issue. It’s called card check.

Read more…………..

Jeff Merkley has become very good at the political two-step. Asked a question, he gives a response seemingly related to but not really answering the query.

In the clip below, Mr. Merkley was approached and asked a question about the issues. Specifically, whether it was hypocritical for Mr. Merkley to accuse Senator Gordon Smith of taking money from special interests like “big oil” (a favorite Democrat boogeyman) in exchange for voting for their bills when Merkley himself has taken tens of thousands over his career in exchange for supporting the union-sponsored and grossly mis-named Employee Free Choice Act?

First, a little background: The Employee Free Choice Act, or card check legislation as it is also known, would take away workers’ right to a private ballot in the workplace when voting to unionize. Union organizers would instead pass out cards indicating whether workers wanted to have the union represent them.

Stop and think about that for just a minute. Everyone where you work would know whether you support unionization. No private ballots to avoid intimidation, coercion or threats by the Union Bosses and their hired thugs. They could even come to your home to “persuade” you to vote for unionization.

That’s right, the party that claims to be about big “D” Democracy is all for taking it away when it serves their purposes for increasing union membership and boosting the campaign coffers of politicians like Jeff Merkley.

This piece of legislation is one that Big Labor and the Union Bosses are pushing particularly hard this year. Last session in Congress, it passed the Democrat-controlled House but stalled (thankfully) in the Senate. Union Bosses know that this year, they have a slim chance to win some desperately needed Senate seats in places like Oregon.

So, they are pumping millions of out-of-state dollars (dollars forcibly taken from union members) into races like Jeff Merkley’s in the hopes that they can smear Senator Gordon Smith and cover up the fact that Jeff Merkley supports their despicable bill. A bill that takes away the fundamental American right to a private ballot.

Even George McGovern, a self-described friend to labor unions, is against the Employee Free Choice Act.

Back to Mr. Merkley’s response. He tries to pass off some dribble about supporting workers’ rights and is disappointed in Senator Smith for voting for tax increases to ship jobs overseas. Then, in order to avoid looking even more foolish, he quickly thanks the voter and walks away.

At least he took the time to listen to the question this time.

Leaving us to wonder, why won’t he just answer the question honestly? Is it because he knows that he’s being a hypocrite? Is it because he responds to questions like a Raggedy Andy doll: “Pull my string once for a canned response about Iraq, pull my string twice for a rehearsed response about jobs in Oregon, pull my string three times for my re-hashed diatribe on linking Gordon Smith and George Bush.”

It would be nice if for once, Mr. Merkley would just answer the question he is asked instead of making up a question in his head and then giving us that answer.

Speaker Jeff Merkley recently ran away from a voter who just wanted to ask him a question about his support from Big Labor Union Bosses and if it unduly influenced his decision to support the grossly mis-named Employee Free Choice Act.  The Employee Free Choice Act, or “card-check”, would take away a worker’s right to a private ballot in the workplace when voting whether to unionize and open workers up to intimidation, coercion and threats by union organizers.

The voter wasn’t even able to get the question in as Speaker Merkley jaywalks across the street and quickly slithers into his car to get away. Apparently, Mr. Merkley is uncomfortable answering questions from real voters who want real answers on why he would support legislation that takes away a worker’s right to a private ballot in the workplace.

At a recent event where the Grim Reaper showed up to remind people that Jeff Merkley is killing democracy with his support of the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, a spectator at the event tried to reason with Mr. Merkley. The Employee Free Choice Act, or “card-check” legislation, is a bill that is being pushed by big labor union bosses and the politicians they are buying in order to make it easier for unions to organize. The bill would take away a fundamental American right; a workers right to a private ballot in the workplace.

The gentleman first tries to point out to Mr. Merkley that if he were a better man than the Grim Reaper, then maybe Merkley should leave. Assuming that if Mr. Merkley leaves the Grim Reaper will follow, the gentleman continues to try and explain his reasoning. He ends by trying to point out to Mr. Merkley that if he really wants people to vote for him and that if he wants to represent these people then he should leave and the Grim Reaper will follow.

Being the better man of the two, the Grim Reaper decides to walk away and leave Mr. Merkley to try and explain why he didn’t leave and why he supports killing democracy in the workplace.