St. George is Union Busting in the United States Senate

[B767]

There is a subtle, but fundamental difference between a political election, which is an "either/or" vote and a union election, which is "yes/no" vote.

Not really. EITHER someone (or group) wants a union, OR they don't. And never, ever, should not voting on anything count as a NO. You don't vote, you don't care. Him/her, yes/no, rep/dem. You flat out don't care. That's that.

 

[kellwolf]

Lack of a vote is not a "defacto" or "assumed" No, it IS a no. That's how these elections work, and how they have worked for decades. Why do YOU assume that if someone didn't vote, that it must be because of apathy.

There is a subtle, but fundamental difference between a political election, which is an "either/or" vote and a union election, which is "yes/no" vote.

The union election rules were changed in order to, for lack of a better explanation, "make sense." If you don't vote, it's not a "no" vote for the guy running against an incumbent president. In that situation, it's very much a "yes/no" decision. Yes, we want that guy to stay or no we want someone different in office. If half the country stayed home and didn't vote, they wouldn't be counted as "no" votes.

 

[zmiller4]

Lack of a vote is not a "defacto" or "assumed" No, it IS a no. That's how these elections work, and how they have worked for decades.

So...because something has been done incorrectly for decades make it OK. Good logic.

Why do YOU assume that if someone didn't vote, that it must be because of apathy.

Because if they weren't apathetic, they would simply vote no.

 

[O&M]

Not really. EITHER someone (or group) wants a union, OR they don't. And never, ever, should not voting on anything count as a NO. You don't vote, you don't care. Him/her, yes/no, rep/dem. You flat out don't care. That's that.

Yes really. You see, while a political election is often a binary choice (this or that), it does not HAVE to be. There could just as easily be three (or more) choices. But a union certification language is a simple yes or not vote; you either want a union, or you don't.

 

[O&M]

So...because something has been done incorrectly for decades make it OK. Good logic.



Because if they weren't apathetic, they would simply vote no.

Again, they ARE voting no. You want to vote yes? Check the box and mail the card. You want to vote no? Throw it in the trash. Again, why do you assume it's apathy and not deliberate actions?

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Again, they ARE voting no. You want to vote yes? Check the box and mail the card. You want to vote no? Throw it in the trash. Again, why do you assume it's apathy and not deliberate actions?

Haha. Why is there a "No" box at all then?

This type of vote is called a referendum or ballot question. Do you want X? yes or no. Examples include voting for Iraq's constitution, which would not have been passed had anyone who didn't show up to vote be counted as No. In fact, there is no referendum in the entire world that functions this way except for this one. There are some that require super majorities (2/3 of votes cast) and there are some that require a minimum percentage of the electorate to cast a vote for it to be valid, but there is not one in the entire world that ascribes "No" to the portion of the electorate not voting.

You could go throughout all the 20-odd states that have referendums and I would be very surprised if you could find a signal one that would have passed, in the history of the united states, if non-participant registered voters were counted as No.

Also most union elections are done by telephone these days. YMMV.

 

[zmiller4]

Again, they ARE voting no. You want to vote yes? Check the box and mail the card. You want to vote no? Throw it in the trash. Again, why do you assume it's apathy and not deliberate actions?

Of course it's a deliberate action by some people. But I've been part of a pilot group during its representation vote, and there are without a doubt a large number of people who were apathetic about the outcome. You haven't given any explanation as to *why* those should count as no votes other than "that's the way it's always been done", which is a ridiculous argument.

 

[kellwolf]

Again, they ARE voting no. You want to vote yes? Check the box and mail the card. You want to vote no? Throw it in the trash. Again, why do you assume it's apathy and not deliberate actions?

On the flip side, why are you assuming that most people that don't vote are voting "no?" They could just as easily be apathetic. Voting for this stuff has gotten so easy there's really no excuse to make your voice heard one way or the other. It took me less time to vote on our last contract than it did to type one sentence of this reply.

 

[wheelsup]

I don't agree with a non-vote counted as a NO-vote but would think a higher majority should prevail (like the 2/3 mentioned above). Perhaps a compromise? Reason saying is it is so hard to de-certify a union, and you really must be certain you want it for it to be elected. I'm pro-union but also realize that the mere threat of a union can and does make companies behave, which is the entire point in the first place.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Again, they ARE voting no. You want to vote yes? Check the box and mail the card. You want to vote no? Throw it in the trash. Again, why do you assume it's apathy and not deliberate actions?

Then why shouldn't not voting count as a yes vote? For the sake of argument, would you be ok if they changed to not voting is a yes vote? If you want to vote no, check the no box. If you want to vote yes, throw it away.

But you won't agree with this, proving what everyone else alredy knows. You don't wane a fair vote. You just don't want unions.

 

[derg]

Again, they ARE voting no. You want to vote yes? Check the box and mail the card. You want to vote no? Throw it in the trash. Again, why do you assume it's apathy and not deliberate actions?

I don't agree at all.

 

[kellwolf]

I don't agree with a non-vote counted as a NO-vote but would think a higher majority should prevail (like the 2/3 mentioned above). Perhaps a compromise? Reason saying is it is so hard to de-certify a union, and you really must be certain you want it for it to be elected. I'm pro-union but also realize that the mere threat of a union can and does make companies behave, which is the entire point in the first place.

I'd be on-board with this. I can't imagine the hell hole my current employer would be without a union, but some other airlines (jetBlue being a solid case in point) are kinda on the fence of really NEEDING a union. Barring some issues with the new scheduling rules, they've gone pretty well so far without needing one, but in this day and age of mergers, you need some kind of job protection that's legally enforceable. That's the main reason behind their union drive right now.

 

[surreal1221]

sigh...

You guys still haven't gotten it yet huh? He isn't one who can be persuaded, much less actually have an honest discussion. He isn't changing his mind.

And, most importantly...you're wasting your time on him. He has no vested interest. He was a dispatcher who wanted to run his company and couldn't stand having to relinquish 50% of operational control to the guy actually in the plane - deviating, diverting, or holding...

 

[mrivc211]

Can you explain why employees who don't care enough to vote should be given a de facto "no" vote anyway? Because hey, if they don't want a union, all they have to do is vote no...how hard is that?

It's a BS rule that needed to be changed.

I agree and were both SkyW pilots.

 

[mrivc211]

Lack of a vote is not a "defacto" or "assumed" No, it IS a no. That's how these elections work, and how they have worked for decades. Why do YOU assume that if someone didn't vote, that it must be because of apathy.

There is a subtle, but fundamental difference between a political election, which is an "either/or" vote and a union election, which is "yes/no" vote.

Sorry bud, but if you don't want representation, get off your rear and vote no. You don't get to cheat votes