Obama Changes Unionizing Rules

[Ryan]

You just don't get it, your paranoia of the government is blinding you. I can't think of any other way to make it plain to you. If employees don't want it to happen, they'll vote no.

 

[Mark]

Well-

I'm sure everyone has seen my posts on union issues. That being said I think it should be made as easy as possible to unionize and the ballots should be kept secret. The only requirement to unionize would be 50% signatures of the workforce in question. If those employees wishing to unionize have that 50% congrads. 49% no union. Once/if formed all employees should have the choice to join or the right not to if they so choose. Nobody should be forced to join by default, (not voting), intimidation or otherwise. It should be kept simple: Join the union and enjoy its protections and benefits or don't and you're on your own.

 

[volkris]

You just don't get it, your paranoia of the government is blinding you. I can't think of any other way to make it plain to you. If employees don't want it to happen, they'll vote no.

No, I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying. Yes, it is plain. But I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

If employees don't want it to happen they'll vote no. Right. But that's not the question.

The question really comes down to whether you can claim employees want something even if less than half say that they do.

If ten employees say they want it, nine say no, and two hundred don't bother voting for whatever personal reasons they may individually have, can you really say that the employees want it? Are those 10 employees out of 219 to be considered proof that the employees as a whole take the positive position? Because that's the claim being made.

I'd say if so many people don't vote that's to be considered evidence that it's not wanted, noting that there's a difference between not wanting--failing to want--and rejecting.

It really has nothing to do with unions, government, business, or my views on any of those. It's about counting and statistics. This new rule allows the situation where the views of a few are said to be the views of the whole, while the previous rule ensured that the views of the whole were representative of most workers at least. I don't believe this to be statistically sound.

 

[Ryan]

But I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

I understand completely, it's just not relevant. If you don't care enough to vote, who cares what you think?

I'd say if so many people don't vote that's to be considered evidence that it's not wanted,

This new rule allows the situation where the views of a few are said to be the views of the whole, while the previous rule ensured that the views of the whole were representative of most workers at least. I don't believe this to be statistically sound.

This is where you go wrong. If so many people don't vote, you can't say anything about what they want, you can only base the choice on people that actually make their preference known.