Comments on: Economist: One in Five Union Organizers Gets Canned

By: Asher Adelman

Asher Adelman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:01:21 +0000

Because companies without Union protection have a higher rate of workplace bullying, we have created a website to protect workers that enables workers to anonymously rate their toxic bosses and warn others about these bad bosses – www.ebosswatch.com. Because we share the common belief that workers should be treated fairly on the job, we would greatly appreciate it if you could help spread the word about our website.

eBossWatch has been featured by many media outlets, including Fox News, ABCNews.com, Forbes, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, and the New York Post. Please let us know if you have any questions about eBossWatch.

eBossWatch

By: bestcbstore

bestcbstore — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:31:08 +0000

Credit Card Debt Settlement, Eliminate you Credit Card Debt With No Debt Settlement Companies, No Settlement Attorney

By: PoliTrix » Blog Archive » Bruce Raynor: What your boss won’t tell you

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:43:45 +0000

[...] most secret ballot elections, employers regularly coerce workers to vote against the union. In 25 percent of all campaigns, employers illegally fire pro-union workers. Employers delay the election date in order to buy time for outside “consultants” to [...]

By: Gary Baumgarten

Gary Baumgarten — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:53:01 +0000

Paltalk.com at 5 PM New York time Wednesday February 4.

To talk to him please go to http://www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Join The Chat button.

Thanks,

Gary

By: Tuesdays Are EFCA Update Days « The Ohio Labor Lawyers

Tuesdays Are EFCA Update Days « The Ohio Labor Lawyers — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:00:57 +0000

[...] in five union activists gets illegally fired in the run-up to unionization elections, and EFCA is a way to equalize the power imbalance between labor and management so that workers can [...]

By: Inspector Gravis

Inspector Gravis — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:21:30 +0000

Absolutely NO credible statistical analysis of a robust data set exists to substantiate statements made above or in the babble of the “academics/scholars”. Whether Bronfenbrenner or Laffer or Hilarious, citing to faulty “research” based on limited and faulty data proves nothing. Please stop the press.

By: IRA VALFER

IRA VALFER — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:28:47 +0000

I believe that “influential methodology” is an improper phrase in this case. It should be “inferrential methodology”.

Based on the explanation states that the researchers “assumed”

By: Joe T. Plumber

Joe T. Plumber — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:55:21 +0000

If voters in the recent Presidential election had been called into one-on-one meetings to tell them how to vote, if their jobs had been threatened if the vote went the “wrong way,” if many were fired for campaigning or even expressing their peference, if opposition party organizers were not given the names of voters and highly restricted in their ability to contact them — we'd hardly call that a free and fair election, even if there was a secret ballot.

By: Lindsay Beyerstein

Lindsay Beyerstein — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:13:24 +0000

Pat, give me a break, union organizers don't have anywhere near the power to pressure workers that employers do. They're outsiders, operating on the workers' turf, with their permission. They can't fire anyone of discipline them. The worst they can do is a hard sell. It's in no way comparable.

Card check is already a legal way to form a union. However, management currently has a veto over card checks in the form of a mandatory NLRB election. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, workers would have the option of requesting an NLRB election, but management couldn't demand one. If workers want an NLRB vote, they can ask for one through the same type of signup procedure that currently gets the NLRB ball rolling.

By: EFCA NOW

EFCA NOW — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:30:29 +0000

Another Reason Why We Need The EFCA NOW!

Starbucks plans to settle another labor complaint one more reason why we need the EFCA NOW

Melissa Allison Seattle Times business reporter

Starbucks has reached a settlement in principle over a Michigan barista whom the National Labor Relations Board said was fired in June because of his union activities.

An administrative trial that was scheduled for today has been canceled, and the agreement is expected to be signed this week, said Chet Byerly, resident officer for the NLRB in Grand Rapids. He would not disclose details of the proposed agreement.

A Starbucks spokeswoman confirmed that it is working on a settlement.

It is the third time in a month that Starbucks has faced action from the NLRB regarding the Industrial Workers of the World union.

Last month, an NLRB administrative law judge found that Starbucks took part in unfair labor practices at several of its New York cafes.

Last week, the Seattle chain settled a separate NLRB dispute in Michigan.

All three cases were initiated by baristas affiliated with the IWW, a century-old union that has worked for several years to improve conditions for Starbucks workers.

In New York last month, an NLRB judge ordered Starbucks to give back jobs to three former workers and compensate them for lost earnings. The company also must post notices informing employees of their labor-organizing rights.

Starbucks plans to appeal the ruling, according to spokeswoman Tara Darrow.

Such appeals often take a year and might last longer now that the NLRB's board has lost three of its five members, said University of Tennessee law professor Jeff Hirsch, a former attorney at the NLRB.

Last week's settlement stemmed from a complaint that barista and IWW member Cole Dorsey made to the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration about a leaky air conditioner.

In interviewing at least one Starbucks worker about the matter, attorneys at a local law firm representing Starbucks neglected to issue legally required warnings that help prevent coercive questioning.

"We contend that these warnings are not necessary when dealing with an occupational safety charge. The NLRB disagreed," Darrow said in an e-mail. "We elected to settle the matter to avoid litigation."

Starbucks did not admit wrongdoing but must post a notice in the affected store in Grand Rapids "saying they won't do it again," said NLRB Regional Director Stephen Glasser.

Dorsey, the barista who complained about the air conditioner, was fired in June after working for Starbucks almost two years. The NLRB charges that he was dismissed because of his union activities.

He was fired eight months after Starbucks and the IWW settled an agreement over unionizing efforts by employees at his Grand Rapids store. At that time, Starbucks agreed to post notices in that store advising employees of their unionizing rights.

Such settlements never come with fines and rarely with admissions of wrongdoing. The Employee Free Choice Act, which stalled in the last session of Congress, would allow the NLRB to order fines in some situations, according to former NLRB attorney Hirsch. The bill faces strong opposition from the business community.

In October, Starbucks settled a similar complaint in Minneapolis regarding another employee who claimed he was fired for encouraging co-workers to join the IWW.

By Poster: This is one more reason why we need the Employee Free Choice Act Now!

For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog

http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org

http://efcanow.blogspot.com/