|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 24, 2011 16:39:41 GMT -8
You probably know about "card check," an idea championed by Labor which would essentially do away with the secret ballot by which workers in a company decide whether to unionize. The Times opposes this proposal. Their reasoning for taking a position contrary to that of the United Farm Workers may surprise you, but it may well make sense. www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-cardcheck-20110623,0,2583561.story?obref=obinsite AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 25, 2011 5:17:30 GMT -8
I don't think that the LA Times could take any other stance. No matter how left leaning or nutty the Times is, they just could not back the end of the secret ballot for workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2011 11:59:58 GMT -8
The card check issue first arose under federal law for non-agricultural employers in response to studies which showed that it was highly successful for employers who didn't want their workers to unionize to hire union-busting "consultants." Those consultants would violate labor laws left and right but it would take so long to litigate unfair labor practice charges and the penalties were so modest that by the time a secret ballot election was run, the union would look so impotent to the employees that many who once supported the union would vote against it. Therefore the percentages of elections won by unions was a minute fraction of what it was in the pre-consultant days.
Some change was needed but the card check was an example of how special interest groups so often go overboard. Very akin to Howard Jarvis with Prop 13, frankly. Identify a legitimate problem but rather than performing corrective surgery, take a meat cleaver to it. The proposed changes to the rules of the NLRB are the right approach and they're what California should do with its collective bargaining law for agricultural workers.
|
|
