Pro-union bill
I
Although there have been many reasons for, and explanations of, the win ratios required under the current Act, I feel that none of them have told the real truth about the unconscionable requirements put on the employees and their representative (union) to prevail. For example, a bargaining unit of 10 employees seeks to negotiate a contract with a union membership clause. The employees vote 6 to 4 in favor and they lose. Or, even worse, when the election is held lets say only 4 people choose to vote in it and all vote yes. The employee representative (union) still loses because, even though the vote is unanimous, less than 50% of the bargaining voted in the majority. Nowhere in our country. except Colorado, is any election held that requires one side to “win” with a 75% majority. I think it is safe to say that very few, if any, candidates carried 75% of the vote on November 7, 2006.
It is ironic in all this discussion that no one informs the public that regardless of the outcome of this special election, the union, by law, must spend its money representing dues payers and freeloaders alike, without discrimination. That is like requiring the Rocky Mountain News to distribute its product to all residents of the State and allowing only those who want to, to pay for it. This is fairness?
Denver
This letter has not been edited.
Paul I guess your example shows the support of union take overs in companies. If only 4 vote and that is less than 50%, that says to me the rest dont want a union. Keep an eye out because when this becomes the law Wal-Mart will be hit with the first vote. If you dont think so ask yourself when was the last time you heard a union or liberal democrat speak positive on Wal-Mart? A big clue is NEVER. with the bill you reference the 4 votes would force the other 6 to pay union dues.
Posted by Don on January 30, 2007 10:19 AM