Monday, January 14, 2008

MINORITY RULES: Unions' new tactic to try and infiltrate companies

In August of last year, in an attempt to short circuit the principle of 'majority rules' in the workplace, the United Steelworkers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Communications Workers of America, the United Auto Workers, the International Association of Machinists, the California Nurses Association, and the Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America petitioned the National Labor Relations to issue a proposed rule recognizing that federal labor law forces employers to bargain collectively with a union that represents a minority of the employees.

Clearly an attempt to do an end run around the rights of workers and employers, the attempt nevertheless demonstrates the level to which today's unions will stoop in order to secure workers' wages through union dues and control the American workplace.

Well, on January 4th, the Change to W(h)in(e) federation jumped on the 'minority rules' bandwagon and sent in its own me-too petition to the NLRB.

To read the Change to W(h)in(e) Petition to the NLRB click here.

The sad fact is, although this distorted theory is rooted in the National Labor Relations Act's Section 7 Rights that state that workers entitled to (among other things) "...bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing...", the NLRB may, at some point in the not-too-distant-future and given a future next president's political appointees, actually grant the union's request.

As/if unionization occurs under regulatory fiat, similar to the potential enactment of the cynically-named Employee Free Choice Act, causing the unionization of hundreds of thousands of employers (and their workers) against their will and without a secret-ballot election, America will no longer be the land of opportunity, but the land of mediocre and the unemployed.

6 comments:

Proud2BUnion said...

So the current system is bad because of majority rule and that workers who don't want to join the union have to. OK, wouldn't minority unionism stop that. The idea of minority unionism would allow those workers who do not want to join the union the right to bargain with the boss independently. Only those who join the union would pay dues, bargain and be represented. The other workers are free to fend for themselves. This works in my eyes. Oh, but you want workers to be nothing more than wage slaves that you can push around.

Jeff said...

I agree with proud2bunion. Also, you may disagree with the minority union position, but how can you possibly characterize it as 'an end run around the rights of workers'? And what 'majority' do you think it is that currently rules in the workplace? Even if a workplace is organized the employer retains the right to run the business.

Anonymous said...

It's an end run b/c it allows union bargaining groups as small as 2. Can you imagine a workplace with 100 workers doing the same job and 12 unions representing them? It's chaos. This is all about unions wanting more dues money, nothing else.

Jeff said...

But how would allowing minority bargaining groups (I believe they call them 'units') with as few as two members harm employee rights? I can certainly see how you might be concerned on the employer side, but not on the worker side -- to the contrary, it looks as though it would provide more choice to workers.

Bob said...

This isn't an end run, it's consistent with the conservative thinkers of history - Jefferson, for example.

One of the tenets of a democracy is that you cannot allow the majority to impose it's will on a minority - the tyranny of the majority, if you will.

So if a minority wants to join collectively, they should be free to do so without being victimized by the majority.

Taruhan Bola said...

I am truly inspired by this online journal! Extremely clear clarification of issues is given and it is open to every living soul. I have perused your post, truly you have given this extraordinary informative data about it. Sbobet Casino