This is where are hospitals spend their money – protecting their interests.
I also see they are funding ANTI-UNION activity. No surprise. Our healthcare workers are some of the lowest paid in the nation.
This is where are hospitals spend their money – protecting their interests.
I also see they are funding ANTI-UNION activity. No surprise. Our healthcare workers are some of the lowest paid in the nation.
I don’t really see how Ammendment K is anti-union. It merely clarifies language to ensure all South Dakota elections are via secret ballot. Some argue that language already is found elsewhere, but they are never able to explain where… so what is the harm in having it listed explicitly?
I’ve read the pros and cons and the Attorney General’s explanation (link below), and I don’t really see a valid reason to vote no. The only arguments the unions seem to have is that if it passes they will fight it in court.
Actually – why are the unions so afraid of this? Seems to me they don’t want people voting in secret because that might harm their ability to pressure people into supporting a union. I can’t see any other reason why they would spend so much of their money on advertising to kill it, so obviously they want unions to be able to organize via card check rather than mandatory secret elections.
I ask – if secret elections are the only acceptable method to elect someone to a school board or city council, why are they not the only acceptable method to determine whether or not to unionize?
If there is a legitimate answer… I sure can’t think of one.
http://www.sdsos.gov/electionsvoteregistration/electvoterpdfs/2010/2010%20BQ%20Pamphlet&Cover.pdf
Costner, I think you are right. If the unions get their way (as part of card-check – the federal legislative buzzword), employees will be approached individually by a friendly (or maybe not so friendly) union organizer. That organizer will explain what a great thing the union is, and say if you agree just sign this card. If you don’t sign the card, they move on to the next employee and you don’t get to vote on the question of forming a union. They approach employees one at a time, and when they have signed cards from over 50% of the members, they have officially gotten a bargaining unit. The people who didn’t want a union didn’t get to vote. The people who voted (by signing the card) had a union organizer leaning over their shoulder – possibly making them feel either intimidated or guilted into filling out the card. I don’t think unions are inherently bad, but this method of forming them certainly is.
It is already in the state constitution to have secret ballot they are trying to eliminate the option of card check.
No, they’re trying to ensure that the unionization of a workplace can’t happen without a vote by secret ballot.
You still have card check to initiate the vote (just like you do today). It will change nothing as it relates to current labor laws.
If it’s already in the state Constitution, then what is the big deal about clarifying it?
Here’s the text of K.
The rights of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. If any state or federal law requires or permits an election for public office, for any initiative or referendum, or for any designation or authorization of employee representation, the right of any individual to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed.
Explain to me how that eliminates card check in its current form.
DDC, sorry, I said that wrong. You are right “they’re trying to ensure that the unionization of a workplace can’t happen without a vote by secret ballot.”
What I meant is they are trying to eliminate that option if the FEDS approve it.
“they’re trying to ensure that the unionization of a workplace can’t happen without a vote by secret ballot.â€
Why on earth shouldn’t a secret ballot be required?
Would it make sense to have candidates for sheriff walk around to people’s homes and say “Here, sign this legally binding card if you want me to be sheriff”?
Seriously, I can’t even even come up with a scenario where it makes sense to not have a secret ballot for this.
You are twisting the facts. Card check does not eliminate ‘secret ballot’ it simply gives employees another option to organize.
OK, here’s what “Card Check” is.
As it stands now, unions need to get 30% of the employees to sign cards (indicating they are interesting in unionizing and would like to hold a vote) before they can call for a secret ballot election. They usually get at least 50%, because they often lose when they only get 30%. They usually shoot for around 60% just to make sure they won’t lose.
If the EFCA passes, card check rules will be changed so that unions would simply need to get a simple majority of a company’s employees to sign a card and the employees would be “organized”. No vote would even be held.
So, yeah, you’re right that it doesn’t eliminate the secret ballot. It eliminates any ballot at all. No opportunity for employees to vote at all. Union bosses just drive around to employee’s homes, stand on their front step and do whatever they can to get them to sign that card.
That is what Amendment K is designed to counter.
“Union bosses just drive around to employee’s homes, stand on their front step and do whatever they can to get them to sign that card.”
And I see nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, because we know how honest and nice the union thugs are. Just look at the mayoral election for an example of that.
Thankfully, you’re in the minority with that opinion.
Very true. In South Dakota. A state that ranks last in wages.
DL:You are twisting the facts. Card check does not eliminate ‘secret ballot’ it simply gives employees another option to organize.
Actually yes – in some situations Card Check would do exactly that… eliminate the secret ballot and create an environment where pressure and fear are determining factors to decide whether to unionize or not.
If the employee doesn’t sign the card but if enough employees do to unionize then the union leaders and other union employees are going to hold it against those who didn’t support them. They will be the first to go or they will be outcasts.
If the union doesn’t get enough members to unionize and the effort fails, now the employer has a list of names of those people who wanted to unionize because it is listed right there on the cards. The next time they downsize or have a reason to let someone go… it will be one of the pro-union guys.
How is this a good thing in either situation?
DL:“Union bosses just drive around to employee’s homes, stand on their front step and do whatever they can to get them to sign that card.â€
And I see nothing wrong with that.
Please tell me you are joking. Are you seriously going to suggest intimidation and fear are acceptable tools to get someone to vote one way or another?
That is about as anti-democratic of a concept as you could possibly invent. Imagine if the GOP sent around thugs from door to door saying if you don’t vote for their candidate you will regret it. Do you think a lot of 70 year old grandmas would tell them to buzz off? Doubtful.
Face it – the one and only reason Unions are fighting so hard against this is because they so often rely upon fear and intimidation to coerce others to join the union. If it is based upon a secret ballot, their chances are decreased and that hurts their bottom line (union dues). It is all about protecting their own profits rather than protecting the worker – just as it always has been.
I’ll say it again. SD ranks 50th in wages because it is so hard to organize labor.
You think that is the reason our wages are low? How is it any harder to organize in South Dakota than it is in North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska etc?
Answer – it isn’t. That is why we have so many unions already operating in the state. The difference is people around here have strong work ethics on their own and since we don’t have a large manufacturing industry (like ship building, steel fabrication, or automobile manufacturing) we don’t have the large unions some areas do.
What industries in our area lack unions that are commonplace elsewhere? I just don’t see a huge difference. We have unions for the trades, we have unions for UPS drivers, we have teachers unions, we have unions for city employees, we have unions for bus drivers, we have unions for heavy equipment operators…. there are countless unions.
There might be a lot of reasons wages in SD are low (although last I checked we weren’t 50th but in the high 30s), but unions aren’t really a huge factor. Geography has a lot to do with it, and having a large Native American population also has a significant factor on the averages since the only jobs available on reservations are very low paying. There is also the cost of living which has an impact because like it or not it does cost less to live in most of South Dakota than it does elsewhere, and the recent tax burden numbers that came out had us in the high 40s as well (meaning we have one of the lowest tax burdens in the entire nation).
Then again if people think the grass is greener elsewhere, they are welcome to collect a higher wage elsewhere. I hear California is hiring – they only have a 9.5% income tax and one of the highest tax burdens in the nation… but hey – at least they pay a bit more right?
Here are the 2008 median household incomes: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank33.html
South Dakota is ranked 38 with a median household income of 46k and change. I’d bet if you dropped out reservations from the calculations you would increase that number by at least 5k as well.
So when you look at the average for the nation at 52k a year, and you factor in no income tax for SD residents, I don’t really think there is a huge difference. If you had to pay 9% income tax on 52k, you would pay 4680 in state taxes bringing the number down to 47320 which is about 1300 more than SD.
Honestly – is $1300 a huge disparity? I don’t think so – and it is wiped out the second you start looking at housing costs in comparison to much of the nation.
Actually – why are the unions so afraid of this? Seems to me they don’t want people voting in secret because that might harm their ability to pressure people into supporting a union.
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner!
I don’t have any problems with labor trying to organize, but the least they could do is have an honest process free of intimidation by either side.
I still disagree that this is ‘intimidation’ If someone comes to my door and I don’t like what they are saying, I say ‘Goodbye’. Employees have that option also.
If someone comes to your door and you don’t like them and you slam the door in their face, that is the end of it. But if that person was your boss or someone who has direct control over your employment or paycheck, it wouldn’t exactly be the same thing.
If there wasn’t anything to it l3wis, then the unions wouldn’t be so against a secret ballot. They know full well intimidation plays a significant factor in their ability to unionize, and without such intimidation they won’t be able to grow and attract new members… because in this part of the country people would rather consider themselves independent rather than be lumped into a group.
Not to mention that if the employer knows who is and who is not trying to unionize, they can apply direct pressure and intimidation on employees to refuse to sign.
Either way you slice it, the threat of intimidation is real from both sides, which shows us the unions aren’t being honest about their intentions, and they surely aren’t putting the best interests of the worker in mind. They care about one thing and one thing only… their ability to collect union dues.