Is your office unionized, Ezra? Do you want it to be?
Are you a member of a union? Why or why not?

I remember that episode and remember thinking "isn't her threat illegal???" And it's amazing how Michael keeps getting rewarded for his stupidity, while other workers lose their jobs. At least Jan got her come-uppance...

Come on Ezra - the corporate Rep is Jan, not janet. Jan Levinson. No longer Levinson-Gould.

8 or 10 a day?!?!?! Geez, no wonder you stopped enjoying yourself! That's just gorging, and nothing's enjoyable if you gorge on it!

But the final shot of Season 3 is still funny no matter what.

Yes, Cock, it's illegal. Unfortunately, the penalty for breaking this law is ludicrously mild.

First, the company is at fault, not the supervisor -- the government won't fine her or punish her in any way. Now, as for what happens to the company...

...if the Board does in fact oversee a union representation election, and the "No" votes win, the union can file what's called an "objection" to the election, arguing that the supervisor's illegal statements destroyed the "laboratory conditions" that should exist for a fair union vote.

It would usually take 3 to 6 months to get a ruling from the Board and deal with the boss's appeals on re-running the election. And it can take a few months just to get to the election in the first place, since the boss can drag out the process by fighting over who exactly should be included in the group of workers who want to organize a union together.

During all this time, of course, the union busters have made the workplace miserable for everyone -- mandatory propaganda meetings, supervisors pressuring workers in unconscionable ways based on information the union busters have gotten from them (e.g., talk to the single moms every day about losing their kids' health insurance).

So, maybe 6 months or more into this process, the Board can, in a best-case scenario, rule that the threat of closures was illegal, and they'll re-run the election. The boss is okay with this, since in those 6 months they've been able to bully/buy off a few people, persuade a few others to quit because the workplace has become so poisonous, etc.

They'll assume they'll get a majority "no" vote on the rerun, and if they have any concerns, they can just break the law again.

Oh, and the other thing the Board does to punish the company is to make them post a notice at work admitting that they broke the law and promising not to do it again.

The remedy for this illegal act would be for the Employer to post a notice advsing the employees that they broke the law and won't do it again.

Corporate America shakes in its shoes as such awesome penalties -- usually imposed a couple of years after the campaign to unionize has been thwarted.

It seems like one solution to this is to remove the all-or-nothing aspect of union shops that makes it so important to employers to prevent unionization.

As Colorado has a Right To Work initiative coming up this fall, I did some research and found that all of the claims about the harm of Right To Work rules are washed out when you control for a few simple things like educational attainment, union membership rate, and industry size.

Erik, right-to-leech has pretty much nothing to do with this. The issue you might be thinking of is the doctrine of "exclusive bargaining agent" -- that's the legal doctrine that allows only one union to represent all the employees in a given "bargaining unit." Even if 60% of a school's teachers want to join AFT, and 40% want NEA, the law says they all have to be represented by one or the other.

Right-to-leech means the contract applies to you, and the union must never take your leeching, freeloading behavior into account. It doesn't mean you can "opt out" of the terms of the contract.

But guess what? Business doesn't want to get rid of "exclusive bargaining agent." You think bosses want their 200 employees to belong to 11 different unions? Exclusive bargaining agent was a concession to Capitol in the Wagner Act, and an effort to turn unruly worker agitation into regulated, rational relationships between business partners.

It's "so important to employers to prevent unionization" because they like having total power over their workers. When you're the dictator, you believe in your own benevolence, and see anyone who wants rights as a traitor and subversive.

This is why I would like to see, just for the barest starters, some imaginative way to publicize in the nastiest way possible the worst offenders: not only the companies who have engaged in these tactics, but the union-busting consultants, the law firms that help them, and the scab companies that send in replcement workers. The annual "Dirty Thirty," for example, with little stories describing what each has done where and when. Spread it through Move-On, et al. At least make it painful, instead of lying down en masse and letting them run all over us.

Typo correction: "Capital" not "Capitol."

Looks like the links in my last comment sent it to moderation-ville, but in short: Erik suggests that "right-to-work" laws will get companies to stop interfering with unionization drives. If that was the case, you'd expect to see more unions in right-to-work states. In fact, according to the nrtw.org list of right-to-work states and the BLS list of union representation by state, only two "right-to-work" states have more than 10% workers represented by unions (IA and NV), and only one non-"right-to-work" state has less than 11.2% (CO). Next!

I've never seen a single proposal for card check elections.

The proposal I have seen has been for card check union recognition, and secret balloting in the ensuring elections for the union officials.

What a shock, all one sided blame on employers, not even one mention of Union abuse.

Who protects the members from the Unions???

Just the latest example here in Vegas;

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/25662749.html

"Ron Taylor, a Clark County middle school teacher, upset his bosses. He raised questions about how they were spending their money. He complained about the health care benefits they set up. Worst of all, he tried to recruit some of his fellow teachers to join a union -- the Teamsters -- and have it certified as their bargaining agent."

"Mr. Taylor went to the Local Government Employees-Management Relations Board, complaining he'd been subjected to unfair labor practices.

And last week, he prevailed. The respondents had subjected the teacher to "prohibited labor practices," the board ruled. It's illegal to "restrain or coerce anyone of their right" to organize for or join a union -- any union -- the board ruled. Mr. Taylor's expulsion could have "a chilling effect" on others who wish to criticize their bosses.

Those bosses also showed "personal animosity" toward him and never tried to work with him to resolve his concerns, the board ruled."

"The outfit that's now ordered to reimburse Mr. Taylor his $10,000 and reinstate him with full privileges of membership is the Clark County Education Association -- the teacher union.

And because the board found the union guilty of "prohibited labor practices," the ruling must be publicly posted -- Mr. Taylor says he'll put it "on every union bulletin board in every school in Clark County."

SEIU was also doing some shady things to keep CWA? out of one of the local hospitals. Seems a large number of the nurses felt SEIU was more interested in collecting dues and playing politics then represetning them. Most people expect SEIU to lose most of the nurses, not that they aren't playing some dirty politics to stop them from leaving.

What do you propose to protect members from crooked unions? Should members be harassed if they try to change from one union to another?

Matt W, you make the same mistake most opponents of RtW make. You do a simple comparison of a variable in and out of RtW states and make a conclusion. I'd suggest there is a good chance that unionization is lower in RtW states because those states have lower presence of industries that typically unionize relative to the non-RtW states (and that high unionization typically keeps RtW from being enacted). So I'm not sure your conclusion is necessarily sound.

Nate: Um, it kind of looks like the state Employee Relations Board protected the members from the union in Mr. Taylor's case.

Are there union members who don't like all the decisions made by union leadership? Of course. Do unions act in the best interests of all their members 100% of the time? Unfortunately, no. Does any of this have anything to do with employers harassing, threatening to fire, or threatening to close down the plant if workers attempt to form a union? No.

Erik: I'm afraid you are not correct. The teachers unions would to organize in RtW states, but given that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to mount a union campaign (because of the anti-union actions of employers), most unions don't see much benefit in forming unions in states where the local will be struggling to stay afloat. This, I believe, was the point of "Right to Work" laws in the first place.

Dave3544,

I think everyone agrees when employers;

"employers harassing, threatening to fire, or threatening to close down the plant if workers attempt to form a union?"

it's wrong and they should be held accountable. When Unions do the same thing to stop members from changing Unions it is equally wrong. How can you say they are not compreable? A worker should not have to suffer harrasment from anyone, employer or union. All the advocation of Union favorable laws ignore union abuse and make members more suseptable to it. One reason why secert ballat is the only way to vote, so neither side can intimidate the workers. Card check is a scam to strong arm workers.

One reason why secert ballat is the only way to vote, so neither side can intimidate the workers

Ha! You don't think that employers currently intimidate their employees going into an election?

Seriously?

Erik, at least I have some evidence that "RtW" isn't associated with lessened resistance to unionization. You have no evidence that it is.

"I'd suggest there is a good chance that unionization is lower in RtW states because those states have lower presence of industries that typically unionize relative to the non-RtW states"

And you somehow don't think it is telling that such industries aren't doing well in right to work states?

中联石化不锈钢管销售公司,专业经营各种不锈钢管,不锈钢板,高镍合金不锈钢管等,是国内知名的不锈钢管材料供应商,公司不锈钢管不锈钢管生产技术力量雄厚,经验丰富,是广大不锈钢管消费者的首选

We specialize in [url=http://www.batterygoshop.co.uk]laptop battery[/url],laptop AC adapters. All our products are brand new, with the excellent service from our laptop battery of customer service team.

http://www.wowgold-powerleveling.com

I think you [Ignatius and the Post] should run a correction; Social Security is not facing "bankruptcy" by any standard, unless you define bankruptcy as a potential, very minor, easily managed and historically unexceptional shortfall about four decades from now

I am very like it, I wish you happy every day!

really interesting sir, thanks

Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！

Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.

hello

hay

good

uggs on sale provided prompt delivery and showed sincere concern for my satisfaction

http://www.see-shoes.com

My girlfriend received the uggs boots on sale I bought her for her birthday, she adores them. I was a little worried the calf would be tight around her legs but it hasn’t been a problem. I’ll be back before Christmas.

All kinds of adidas shoes On Sale.

Wholesale jewelry from China

Wholesale jewelry from China

UGG Boots UK & Classic UGG Boots-To ensure your toes are in heaven,UGG Boots made by UGG Australia are your must-have boots.50-70% off.Free shipping.

Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
classic ugg boots

How soon will you update your blog? bailey button uggs I’m interested in reading some more information on this issue.