We beat the Union today!

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
Well, having been past 12 months, actually it began in February, we have been the recipients of the wonderful and "tender" touch of a Union trying to get a small group of 106 to join them. This entails a batch of fliers full of the most amount of lying I have seen since last February, when they ran the last run at us.

Anyway, this particular Union had 12 people actually approach me to warn me against a yes vote. They seem to work against the people at work, negotiating pay raises less than COL increases, etc.

Well, we beat them by a TIE VOTE.

The union must receive at least one vote above 50%, we tied exactly. The most amazing part was there were two people out that were "no" votes. I thought for sure the Union was going to win this time. One person moved from "yes" to "no" by our figures to ultimately defeat the Union.
 
You cannot imagine the amount of acrimony such activity creates in a workplace.

Of course I just found out today that had this vote gone through we would have had a second vote to see whether we were an "Open" shop or a "Union" shop.

This vote would have to be 75% for a Union shop for that vote to go through. This means it is likely that I could have been a non-represented person in an Open shop where they would be able to be union if they wanted. Interesting.

This is according to the Colorado Labor Peace Act....
 
Cypress said:
Congratulations on beating the union. You sound positively giddy. :clink:
Click to expand...
You can't believe the amount of tension it removed from me. I didn't even know it was there. Months of increasing tension and acrimony. And I didn't even actively work against it so most of the acrimony was saved for others.
 
uscitizen said:
To possibly lose by winning.
Click to expand...
Unionization does not yield positive results for the workers in all cases. I would imagine the workers who voted against the union had good reasons to do so. Usually when a union bid fails, it is because the majority of workers feel they are fairly compensated for their work, and have no desire to pay dues for what would likely end up with little extra gain over what they already have.

I have seen a goodly number of instances where unions have done the workers a lot of good. Collective bargaining definitely has its advantages when used wisely.

But I have also seen a number of instances where the union made things so difficult and expensive for the employer it drove the business into the ground, ultimately resulting in the workers being in the unemployment line instead of at a good job that paid 3% less (or whatever the difference was between employer offer and union demands). In those cases, collective bargaining was not used wisely and ended up screwing both employer and employee.
 
"It'll put us out of business!" is a common employer lie that allows him to manipulate the workers into working against themselves. It's not rarely, but never that this lie comes to fruition. Unions have a legitimate place in a market economy; fascists dislike this fact.
 
In a union shop, employers can higher nonmembers, but they are required to become union members after a certain length of time, or pay union dues for the higher salaries that the union has negotiated for them, or find a lower paying, non-union job.

In a closed shop, the union comes with the job, and it isn't negotiable.

There's also agency shops - don't know why that wasn't on the table.
 
Last edited:
I just know that there is currently a battle to remove WA state schools from the old closed shop method. Currently you don't have to join the WEA (WA's NEA chapter), but you still have to pay dues for the "privilege" of being represented should you're interests be effected, whatever the hell that means. Anyway, its a step forward. Honestly, other than screwing over the students' summers and potentially ruining their senior year, I don't know what the NEA expects to accomplish. Don't we already know that our salaries are shitty coming in the door? I mean, I obviously plan to work the Guard on the side to build up an extra pension and benefits, but working for the state always guarantees good/secure benefits despite lousy wages...
 
Watermark said:
In a union shop, employers can higher nonmembers, but they are required to become union members after a certain length of time, or pay union dues for the higher salaries that the union has negotiated for them, or find a lower paying, non-union job.

In a closed shop, the union comes with the job, and it isn't negotiable.

There's also agency shops - don't know why that wasn't on the table.
Click to expand...
The choice here would be between an open shop and a union shop.

In an open shop you can choose not to be union and still work there. In a union shop you must, after a period of time after hire, become a member of the union.
 
Damocles said:
The choice here would be between an open shop and a union shop.

In an open shop you can choose not to be union and still work there. In a union shop you must, after a period of time after hire, become a member of the union.
Click to expand...

There are different variants of the union shop.

A closed shop is illegal under Taft-Harley.
 
Threedee said:
I just know that there is currently a battle to remove WA state schools from the old closed shop method. Currently you don't have to join the WEA (WA's NEA chapter), but you still have to pay dues for the "privilege" of being represented should you're interests be effected, whatever the hell that means. Anyway, its a step forward. Honestly, other than screwing over the students' summers and potentially ruining their senior year, I don't know what the NEA expects to accomplish. Don't we already know that our salaries are shitty coming in the door? I mean, I obviously plan to work the Guard on the side to build up an extra pension and benefits, but working for the state always guarantees good/secure benefits despite lousy wages...
Click to expand...

If people are allowed to get the benefits of union representation without paying any of the dues, naturally almost everyone will choose the method in which they don't pay, and the union will fall apart at its core, and then you'll be at the whim of the employer.

Oh it's so unfair surely I'd be paid more if I weren't in a union.
 
Watermark said:
There are different variants of the union shop.

A closed shop is illegal under Taft-Harley.
Click to expand...
Then it wouldn't matter would it?

The reality is. In CO, you get a second vote to decide whether to be open or a union shop.

So, had the vote gone against us, we would have another vote that would have to be 75% that would "close the set" so to speak and make it a union shop, or if they didn't get 75% it would be an "open" shop where people can choose whether or not to join the union with no penalty.
 
Watermark said:
If people are allowed to get the benefits of union representation without paying any of the dues, naturally almost everyone will choose the method, and the union will fall apart at its core, and then you'll be at the whim of the employer.

Oh it's so unfair surely I'd be paid more if I weren't in a union.
Click to expand...
We are paid more, we get larger raises, and larger bonuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top