NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/can/politics/11699

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 6.7 KB | 137 lines

Xref: sparky can.politics:11699 soc.culture.canada:10374
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!robinson
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: [e-mail] (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:06:03 GMT
Lines: 122

John G. Spragge ([e-mail]) wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
>Robinson) says:
>>John G. Spragge ([e-mail]) wrote:

>>>Automatic certification exists in Ontario. It seems to me a waste
>>>of money to run a vote when almost 50% of the possible voters have
>>>already committed themselves to vote for one side.
>>
>>What price democracy? At any rate, with this line of reasoning one could
>>argue that we don't need elections as long Mr Gallup is in business.  As
>>well, for someone that earlier on was so adamant about not wanting to be
>>represented by the Chamber of Commerce, you certainly seem terribly
>>cavalier about not even letting *all* workers have a formal say in who, if
>>anyone, is going to represent them. What in the world is so terrible with
>>letting these people reflect upon their decision and then casting a secret
>>ballot?

>Nothing. But if we insisted on strict democracy for every decision we
>made, we would do nothing but hold elections.

We don't need to insist on strict democracy for every decision, only those
cases where it makes sense.

>Workers don't get to
>ratify the actions of their pension fund trustees by secret ballot;
>deposit holders don't get to choose the bank executives by secret
>ballot; and anybody who has ever received a proxy form can tell you
>the corporate setup does not (let us put this mildly) encourage
>dissident shareholders. All this happens, not because of some
>sinister anti-democratic conspiracy, but because no institution can
>always stop to ask everyone's opinion.

I would argue that a worker *should* be able to withdraw from a pension
plan with no financial penalty. And as for deposit holders and stock
holders, they can withdraw their money without penalty and place it
wherever they please with little to zero inconvenience. On the other hand,
it is simply not possible for a person to withdraw from a union without
financial penalty unless she is willing to look for, and can find, a job,
possibly in a non-unionized company. And I am sure that most people would
agree that looking for a new job is much more than a little inconvenient.
Unions have been given an incredible privilege in this respect, and with
this privilege should come the responsibility to ensure that workers are
given every opportunity to make their decision in non-pressurized and
impartial environment.

Geez. One would think I was asking NDP supporters to give up their first
born considering the enormous distaste with which they seem to view secret
ballots.

>So I believe that in principle, automatic certification makes sense,
>where a majority (or substantial minority) of the workers have already
>committed themselves to the union.

In Ontario all it takes is 40% of the workers to sign on in order for the
union to gain certification. Thus, it is possible for a solid majority
(60%) of workers to be against unionization, and yet find themselves
unionized. This isn't even close to being a democratic choice.

>As for the risk of "pressure",
>what evidence do you have the the large number of laws against threats,
>carrying out threats, et al. do not work on union organisers? Can you
>cite a single case in Ontario or BC where people signed union cards
>because of threats to their life or property, and neither the police
>nor the company would protect them? If so, I'll grant the validity
>of your concern.

John, you are offering a work-around to a problem after the damage has been
done. The secret ballot *prevents* the problem from ever occurring at just
a small one-time cost.  There just isn't any comparison. It's like selling
software that has a known bug and can fail under certain, albeit possibly
infrequent, circumstances; but rather than fix the bug, instead the
developer puts a section in the manual about what the user should do if he
gets a core dump.

As well, it is not even necessary to make a real threat. Peer pressure and
"unsubstantiated rumours" (e.g., did you hear about some guy whose house
was firebombed by the Teamsters because he wouldn't sign on?)  can be
enough to change the minds of some people.

>If not, perhaps we could extend the principle to
>other types of transactions: perhaps the government could send around
>"secret ballot" forms to make sure insurance buyers never got
>threatened by insurance agents, or doctors did not hire leg-breakers
>to recruit patients, or lawyers didn't frame people to drum up
>business, and so on. Or what reason have you to believe that union
>drives pose such a special threat that workers must be given special
>opportunities to "reflect" before we respect their decisions?

The union running the drive has a direct benefit to be made from succeeding
since it gets to represent the workers upon unionization of the workplace
in question.  This cannot be said of your example re lawyers, doctors, or
insurers since there is no requirement whatsoever for me to use the
services of the doctor who had my legs broken, or the lawyer that had me
framed. In other words, there is not a direct correlation between
successful illegal actions and financial gain (i.e. more business) in your
example; whereas such a direct correlation does exist in the case of the
union drive.

However, I am not totally unsympathetic to consistency for consistency's
sake. So, how about this: keep the 40% card signing certification, *but*
allow decertification whenever someone or some entity (employer included)
can get 40% of the workers to sign a decertification petition. This gives
the process perfect symmetry and is certainly reasonable if one can
rationalize the current certification requirements.

>And one correction: union executives represent only their members.
>Nobody ever has to join a union; non-union workers in a certified
>workplace need only pay a service fee (for the union services they
>use).

Strictly speaking this is true. However, since a worker must pay full union
dues regardless of whether she is a member or not, it makes sense to join
the union and have some say as opposed to not joining and having zero say.
In other words, it is a choice in only the narrowest sense of the word.


--
Jim Robinson
[e-mail]
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson