There they go again! Whether you call it a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, a fib, a lie, or just plain old Left-Wing Propaganda...the Progressives** are once again not telling the truth!
In today's People's Weekly World, as well as on the International Labor Communications Association website, under the heading "NLRB opens new attack on unions" the writers blatantly misrepresented a recent National Labor Relations Board decision as opening "the way for decertification of unions even before the first contract negotiated by a union and approved by the workers takes effect."
As our interest was piqued when we saw this wild assertion, we quickly investigated and realized these left-wing dolts don't know what they're talking about...and clearly, don't know the difference between a decertification election and a deauthorization election.
Here's the REAL scoop:
Back in October, 2005, a company called Convenant Aviation Security agreed to deny their employees the right to a secret ballot election and agreed to recognize SEIU 790 through the often coercive card-check process. The union gained recognition by getting 55% of the 1,010 employees to sign union authorization cards.
In December 2005, the Company and union reached a first contract and the union had the contract ratified with a vote of 378-229 (or 37% of the total bargaining unit).
The contract contained a Union Security Clause, also known as a forced dues clause or "union income security clause," which forces employees to pay dues to the union or be fired from their job.
A number of employees signed a petition seeking to remove the union security clause from the contract. The legal question that arose was whether the signatures gathered were valid, since a majority were gathered before the union had gotten its contract.
After the San Francisco region of the NLRB denied workers their right to vote on deauthorizing the union income security clause, they appealed to the NLRB in Washington. Nearly a year and a half later, the NLRB ruled:
After carefully considering the language of Section 9(e)(1), the legislative history behind that statutory provision, and Board law governing deauthorization elections, we believe that requiring the signatures underlying the showing of interest to postdate the effective union-security provision here would unjustly impede the right of employees to deauthorize a union shop
No decertification...Just workers getting the right to choose whether or not their union should get the right to get them fired for refusing to pay the union.
End of story...
In the meantime, however, the wacky "progressive" writers at People's Weekly World, as well as International Labor Communications Association are either deliberately misleading readers or are too stupid to check the facts before writing their story.
In either case, it would appear that giving workers the right to choose where their money goes is somehow "anti-labor" as the PPW writer stated in his piece.
** Editor's note: the term "progressives" can literally be read as socialists, anarchists, leftists, communists, Democrats, Liberals, or whatever other moniker they choose to call themselves these days--and it often changes daily and by audience.