Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Howard Dean corrects Chris Matthews (Dean: Workers Deserve a Fair Shake)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 02:14 PM
Original message
Howard Dean corrects Chris Matthews (Dean: Workers Deserve a Fair Shake)
 
Run time: 01:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvcsUqlLto0
 
Posted on YouTube: November 06, 2008
By YouTube Member:
Views on YouTube: 0
 
Posted on DU: November 11, 2008
By DU Member: Omaha Steve
Views on DU: 1307
 

http://www.afscmeblog.org/2008/11/07/dean-workers-deserve-a-fair-shake/

Dean: Workers Deserve a Fair Shake
November 7th, 2008

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean appeared on Hardball Wednesday to discuss the priorities for President-elect Barack Obama’s administration. The first example host Chris Matthews brought up was the Employee Free Choice Act: http://www.freechoiceact.org/page/s/afscme

What Matthews refers to as “card check” is a key piece of legislation that will make it easier for workers to form unions. Gov. Dean argued that, after eight years of abuses, it’s time to level the playing field for working families.

“It is our job to make sure that working-class and middle class people get their fair share and a fair shake, which they haven’t done in the last eight years.

“That’s what the campaign was all-all about. That was probably the single biggest issue that-that elected Barack Obama and Joe Biden, is, let’s do something for middle-class Americans and working-class Americans, who haven’t had much done for them in the last eight years.”

Join the fight for the Employee Free Choice Act by signing our online petition.

(hat tip to thsisnotanexit at Daily Kos)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm pro union
But not at the expense of a secret ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. That is not correct, that is the way businesses have framed it

IF the workers want a secret vote, they simply check election on the card. Much different than the anti union types like the Chamber of Commerce claim it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. that doesn't really cut it, sorry
That's exactly like not having one. How about a secret ballot to see if they want to have a secret ballot? That would work.

Don't get me wrong. I like strong, good unions. But there could be one that uses undue influence on a worker to vote a certain way. Even checking that they want a secret ballot could be frowned on by the organizers. Why invite problems (possible intimidation, for instance)? If the union is a good one, and the leaders are good guys, the union would easily win in a secret ballot.

Why anyone would have a problem with requiring a secret ballot I have NO IDEA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Maybe I can help you out
Do you have any experience with union organizing? If not, then maybe I can help explain what this is about.

What we're talking about here is an election to decide whether the employees want union representation.

As noted in my other post, this type of election is problematic because it allows the employer time to coerce employees into voting the union down.

The alternative is to have a card-check recognition. I was involved in this procedure recently, and in my opinion, it is much preferred. The reason is that you can get the cards signed without giving the employer time to ruin things. The employer never sees the cards, so the employees don't have to worry about retaliation. If the employer demands verification, then a neutral third party is used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. WHY MAJORITY SIGN-UP?
For a better formatted version, follow the link:

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/majoritysignup.cfm

WHY MAJORITY SIGN-UP?


One of the most common lines of attack corporate special interests are using to stop the Employee Free Choice Act is the charge that we are trying to abandon sacred "secret ballot elections." How do we respond?

* The real issue is how we can restore the freedom of working people to make their own decision about joining together to bargain for better wages and working conditions. Until working people can exercise a free choice, they will continue to lose power in our country, living standards will continue to suffer and our middle class will continue to decline. Workers need a real choice. They don't have it now.


Do so-called secret ballot elections allow employees a free and fair opportunity to make their own decisions about unions?

* No. By the time employees get to vote, the environment has been so poisoned that free and fair choice isn't an option. People call the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election system a secret ballot election—but in fact it's not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. It's really a management-controlled election process because corporations have all the power. They control the information workers can receive and routinely poison the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who try to organize unions. No employee has free choice after being browbeaten by a supervisor to oppose the union or being told they may lose their job and livelihood if workers vote for the union.


Among Private-Sector Efforts to Form Unions

Employers that illegally fire at least one worker for union activity during organizing campaigns:
25%

Chance that an active union supporter will be illegally fired for union activity during an organizing campaign:
1 in 5

Employers that force employees to attend one-on-one meetings against the union with their own supervisors:
78%

Employers that force employees to attend mandatory closed-door meetings against the union:
92%

Companies that threaten to close the plant if the union wins the election:
51%

Cases in which the employer never agrees to a contract after workers succeed in forming a union:
1 in 3



Just filing a petition for an NLRB election generally triggers a bitter, divisive and
often lengthy campaign against pro-union employees designed to chill or destroy union support.

* Management is allowed to bombard employees with anti-union messages anywhere, anytime in the workplace. Workers can only talk about the union while they’re on
breaks in the break room or before or after work. Union organizers have no right to set foot in the workplace.

* Human Rights Watch, a respected international organization that investigates human rights abuses in 70 countries, has concluded that “freedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to exercise it.”

* Firing workers can kill an organizing campaign by intimidating other workers; a “secret ballot election” doesn’t change that. A secret ballot election doesn’t make workers feel protected from management threats to shut down. The harassment of anti-union group
meetings and one-on-ones with supervisors makes workers just want the conflict to go away, and an election doesn’t change that. These meetings also enable management to identify and target union supporters, and coercion isn’t undone even if workers vote in the privacy of a voting booth.

* Free choice should not be restricted to the heroic few. Although the right of workers to join unions is enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements, in reality the
only workers who can succeed in forming unions under the NLRB election process are those willing to undertake an enormous effort, withstand tremendous pressure, undergo inordinate amounts of stress and risk losing their livelihoods. It should not be this way.


Why is majority sign-up a better way to protect employees’ free choice?

* Majority sign-up minimizes workplace conflict. This process avoids coercion and harassment of employees and eliminates some of the delays that frustrate workers’
efforts to form unions. Majority sign-up has been shown to reduce conflict, coercion and harassment as well as the delays, business disruptions and legal costs associated with the NLRB “election” process.

* Majority sign-up is a proven approach. Many responsible major companies such as Cingular Wireless have agreed to recognize a union when a majority of employees signs up. They have found majority sign-up to be a free and fair way to assess workers’ choice—and
it results in less conflict between employers and employees.

* Majority sign-up is democratic. Under majority sign-up, a union is formed only if a majority of all employees signs written authorization forms. Employees vote to
have the union represent them by signing the forms. Any employee who does not sign a written authorization form is presumed not to support union representation.


Are workers are more likely to be coerced to sign cards under majority sign-up, as opponents say?

* No. In fact, academic studies1 show that workers who organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-workers to support the union than workers who
organize under the NLRB election process. Workers who vote by majority sign-up also report far less pressure or coercion from management to oppose the union than workers who go through NLRB elections. In addition, it is illegal for anyone to coerce employees to sign a union authorization card. Any person who breaks the law will be subject to penalties under the Employee Free Choice Act.


Once a majority of workers indicates they want a union by signing cards, the company should not be able to drag the process out for months as they can under a management-controlled election process. The will of the majority should be recognized.

1 Reported by American Rights at Work and conducted by Adrienne Eaton of Rutgers University and Jill Kriesky of Wheeling Jesuit University.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
4.  union recognition elections
The problem with the secret ballot ballot election for union recognition is that it gives the employer time to spread anti-union propaganda. In any case, the EPFCA provides for elections if 30% of the employees want one (see #8 below).

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/10keyfacts.cfm

What is the Employee Free Choice Act? >> 10 Key Facts


1. America’s workers want to form unions. Research shows nearly 60 million would form a union tomorrow if given the chance.


2. Too few ever get that chance because employers routinely block their efforts to form unions—and our current legal system is too broken to stop them. As many as one-quarter of employers illegally fire workers who try to form unions.


3. The Employee Free Choice Act would give workers a fair chance to form unions to improve their lives by:

* Allowing them to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.
* Providing mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes (PDF).
* Establishing stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.



4. In the 110th Congress, the Employee Free Choice Act had widespread support.


5. More than three-quarters of Americans—77 percent—support strong laws that give employees the freedom to make their own choice about whether to have a union in their workplace without interference from management (PDF).


6. Allowing working people to choose for themselves whether to have a union is the key step toward rebuilding America’s middle class. Union membership brings better wages and benefits and a real voice on the job (PDF). It’s no accident that the 25-year decline in workers’ wages in our country has paralleled a 25-year slide in the size of the America’s unions.


7. The Employee Free Choice Act would put democracy back into the workplace. Majority sign-up would ensure the decision whether to form a union was made by majority choice, not by the employer unilaterally.


8. Workers can still vote under the Employee Free Choice Act. At any time, if 30 percent of the workers want an election, they can have one. And once they have a union, workers also vote to elect their union representatives.


9. The Employee Free Choice Act has the support of hundreds of respected organizations and individuals—major religious denominations, academics and civil and human rights groups and others.


10. The AFL-CIO union movement is working in many ways to restore good jobs, health care and retirement security—but passing the Employee Free Choice Act is our top priority because we cannot create balance for working people or rebuild the middle class unless workers genuinely have the freedom to form unions for a better life.



http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/brokensystem.cfm

THE SYSTEM FOR FORMING UNIONS IS BROKEN

Today, CEOs get contracts that protect their wages and benefits. But some deny their employees the same opportunity. Although U.S. and international laws are supposed to protect workers' freedom to belong to unions, employers routinely harass, intimidate, coerce and even fire workers struggling to gain a union so they can bargain for better lives. And U.S. labor law is powerless to stop them. Employees are on an uneven playing field from the first moment they begin exploring whether they want to form a union, and the will of the majority often is crushed by brutal management tactics.

Cornell University scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner studied hundreds of organizing campaigns and found that:

* Ninety-two percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; 80 percent require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions; and 78 percent require that supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee.
* Seventy-five percent hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, often based on mass psychology and distorting the law.
* Half of employers threaten to shut down partially or totally if employees join together in a union.
* In 25 percent of organizing campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because they want to form a union.
* Even after workers successfully form a union, in one-third of the instances, employers do not negotiate a contract.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. I was fired for organizing in 1980

I know of what I speak. It took three and a half years to prove my case in court. It caused me and my family more than you can imagine. Nobody wants to hire a union trouble maker. Yes we went bankrupt. Today a case like mine usually drags on for over a dozen years.

My case at the NLRB: http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/261/261-38.pdf

I was fired within 48 hours of the company learning I had enough votes to get a union in. About 75% of the eligible employees had signed a card. After I was fired only three employees would even talk to me. And the employer started adding benefits that before they said they couldn't afford. The company merged a few years ago. It is now one of the largest in the country with several locations.

My story is very common in organizing. Give the employees a fair election on the card system.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Sorry to hear about that Omaha Steve
That is tragic - and illegal of course.

A big thank you for your efforts on behalf of labor here on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth Teller Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. Can't we get Dean to stay on another four years?
Damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC