Some weeks ago I castigated Democrats for sponsoring a pending bill which would prohibit secret ballot elections for workers to unionize. The bill said, roughly, that a majority of workers submitting signed ballots, over an extended period, would be sufficient for the union to be recognized. I felt it was a ploy to intimidate workers to sign up, and the employer had no chance to oppose it.
But now, the bill doesn't seem so bad. What made me re-think this is a story in the NY Times (8/30/09) about the Regis Corporation, a nationwide chain of hair salons, which asked workers at a branch in Montana to sign a document which would nullify any pro-union card they may sign in the future. The head of the company defended it, saying it was "totally voluntary" and was only meant to preserve the choice of secret elections.
Oh, really! And how exactly was it supposed to do this? Wait, I'll answer that. With a collection of these cards, an employer could know who wouldn't sign as well as those who did. The employer could then focus (read target) messages to the former group which would hint, ever so subtly, that their company loyalty was, ahem, less than desired. But just as important, the company would know the identity of workers who signed both the company card and a pro-union card later on. These workers might then be startled to find themselves named by the company in a federal lawsuit to void the union election!
That's a handy little list for any company.
I still prefer the secret ballot, but it's obvious that Regis, and probably many other companies, have no concern for workers' privacy. Otherwise it wouldn't have been so willing to adopt the same coercive measures it was attributing to the unions.
If the secret ballot is lost, so be it. There's nothing that makes me switch sides faster than seeing the side I was supporting come up with an idea that is both devious and stupid!
No comments:
Post a Comment