Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 09:20:08 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

> Kevin Kelly (kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca) wrote:
> 
> >The secret ballot on certification is a bit of red herring. If an individual
> >does not wish to join a union or have one in the workplace they do not have 
> >to sign a card. Its as simple as that. 
> 
> If a person refuses to sign the card, she does so with the knowledge that
> the union will know this. Now don't you think that person is going to
> wonder just a bit if the union (or some members of it) is not going to hold
> something of a grudge against non-supporters? I would.
> 

Whether or not a vote is held, the union still has to sign up sufficient 
numbers of members before they can apply for certification. Thus, the 
union has always known who would or would not sign a union card. This 
hasn't changed under the new law at all. 

Additionally, if the % of signed up members is less than 55%, there WILL 
still have to be a vote.

> The secret ballot totally eliminates the possibly of intimidation &
> retribution. It thus allows the worker to vote entirely by conscience. How
> this could not be considered a "good thing" is beyond me.
> 
The problem isn't (and hasn't been) whether or not the workers should 
have a say. They can sign or not sign a union card, as they wish. And IF 
they do feel they have been coerced (which isn't likely, IMHO) they can 
revoke the card. 

The problem is, and always has been that the employer has always used the 
time period before a vote to campaign against the union, often illegally, 
often by intimidation or threat against the workers doing the organizing.

> >And dont bother with responding with the "union intimidation" defense used 
> >by opponents of unions. Usually the intimidation comes from the company not 
> >the unions. I know I was there. 
> 
> Just because intimidation *may* come from the employer (and a secret ballot
> does not make it any more likely) doesn't excuse making it easier for the
> union to intimidate if it so desires. The two are related, but *separate*
> issues.
> 

It doesn't make it easier for the union to intimidate ANYONE. If someone 
feels they have been intimidated they can REVOKE their signature. Signing 
a union card, is, in effect, voting. Requiring a second vote merely gives 
the company more time (and ensures that they know about the union 
organizing campaign) to interfere with, harass, intimidate and threaten 
their employees.

> By this logic it is not necessary to hold elections. We'll just let the
> Tories get signatures of support until they reach the 50% mark. As well,
> let's make sure the Tories have a record of each person who refused to
> support them - I'm sure they wouldn't think of having Revenue Canada give
> these people some extra scrutiny.
> -- 

If the Tories could actually demonstrate that 55% (as per the labour 
requirement) of the population were card carrying Tories, the result of 
any election would be a foregone conclusion. Fortunately, the Tories are 
extremely unlikely to ever attain this level of support.

> Jim Robinson
> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
> {ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
> 


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

     "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.  Capital is only
the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not
first existed.  Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much
the higher consideration."  - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: can.politics