Swordsmyth
06-20-2017, 02:40 AM
Under current law it is not a majority of those affected who will determine if a union is established but a simple majority of those voting. The ERA returns the voting standard to an earlier labor law that required true majorities.
The unions admonish that if it took an absolute majority for a member of Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) to be elected, then no one would gain office. But that is why the Constitution requires only a simple majority. We have to fill those seats for government to work. In a reading of the Constitution, though, there is no mention of the AFL-CIO. With only 7 percent of the nongovernment workforce in a union, it’s apparent these groups are not required for our country to function.
But after making that high-minded case for alignment with Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) on voting in elections, the unions seek distance from any other comparison. They have fought for the right to avoid secret ballots instead getting their majority status from publicly signed authorization cards. Why dismiss secret ballot elections? Because the confrontational public card signing alternative is the more reliable process for getting majority authorization.
Unions however, are aware that publicly signed cards are not reliable expressions of support. The reveal is that labor organizers are trained to collect far more signed cards than they need to win before seeking an election. And sometimes they still lose. Elections are to be avoided whenever possible. Today, employees are pushed into unions without a secret ballot vote 40 percent of the time.
Want more inconsistency? In the union-favored card signing “election,” unions have agreed to a 51 percent threshold for signed card support by all affected employees. (Some employers accept the cards to avoid a nasty election campaign). Why not agree to the same true 51 percent majority of all affected employees in a real election?
More at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/employee-rights-act-would-revive-fair-elections-fo/
The unions admonish that if it took an absolute majority for a member of Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) to be elected, then no one would gain office. But that is why the Constitution requires only a simple majority. We have to fill those seats for government to work. In a reading of the Constitution, though, there is no mention of the AFL-CIO. With only 7 percent of the nongovernment workforce in a union, it’s apparent these groups are not required for our country to function.
But after making that high-minded case for alignment with Congress (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/) on voting in elections, the unions seek distance from any other comparison. They have fought for the right to avoid secret ballots instead getting their majority status from publicly signed authorization cards. Why dismiss secret ballot elections? Because the confrontational public card signing alternative is the more reliable process for getting majority authorization.
Unions however, are aware that publicly signed cards are not reliable expressions of support. The reveal is that labor organizers are trained to collect far more signed cards than they need to win before seeking an election. And sometimes they still lose. Elections are to be avoided whenever possible. Today, employees are pushed into unions without a secret ballot vote 40 percent of the time.
Want more inconsistency? In the union-favored card signing “election,” unions have agreed to a 51 percent threshold for signed card support by all affected employees. (Some employers accept the cards to avoid a nasty election campaign). Why not agree to the same true 51 percent majority of all affected employees in a real election?
More at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/employee-rights-act-would-revive-fair-elections-fo/