🚀 go-pugleaf

Mcallister  Brian Francis (mcallis@uwindsor.ca) wrote:
>In article <4eoleh$pvi@mmddvan.mdd.comm.mot.com>,
>Jim Robinson <robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com> wrote:

>>Now why would decertification automatically require a secret ballot, but
>>certification can require no secret ballot? Seems a touch one sided to me.

>Where did you read that?  Both certification and decertification 
>balloting are done by secret ballot. 

Not true, as you yourself say in the next sentence.

>If a certain threshold percentage 
>of workers sign a union card, the certification ballot is deemed 
>redundant.

A secret ballot means that nobody knows how you voted. The signing of a
union card is not done in secret - it is done (or refused to be done) in
front of one or more union representatives who are extolling the virtues of
unionization while waiting for you to make up your mind. The two are *not*
the same; thus reaching the threshold does not render the secret ballot
*redundant*.  The most that can be said is that it renders it unnecessary
in the opinions of some.

Keeping this in mind, would you care to justify the one sided nature of
always requiring a secret ballot for decertification, but allowing
certification to occur, under certain circumstances, without the
requirement for a secret ballot. If it will help to clarify, please feel
free to post your definition of what constitutes a *secret* ballot.

>If the employer (or an employee) feels there was impropriety 
>in the card signing process, it can challenge the validity of those cards 
>before the labour board.

If this is such an effective mechanism, then why cannot decertification be
automatically achieved if 60% of employees sign cards requesting it?

No matter how you slice it, a double standard is being applied here.
Please attempt to justify it.

--
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com