I disagree. When you consider that this barn has always been skeptical of unions, it wouldn't take much action by the company to spook them into voting down any union. What do you suspect the pro-company morale level was like in the days leading up to the election when you take into consideration the bribes the company was throwing out there? Read the below charges. Why would anyone vote for a union after hearing all the "good things" (which inadverdently happen to be illegal) the company was doing leading up to the election? Question is,
if these charges are true, should the people be given a chance to vote again after realizing the company tried to buy them out?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Union files objections to UPS Freight vote in KCK
Kansas City Business Journal - 2:27 PM CDT Wednesday, August 15, 2007
by Jerry LaMartina
The Association of Parcel Workers of America filed a list of five objections to last week's election in which workers at UPS Freight in Kansas City, Kan., rejected union representation by a 3-1 margin.
The union filed the objections with the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday, Dan Hubble, spokesman for the NLRB's Overland Park regional office, said Wednesday.
"(The union) indicated to us that they intend to file charges alleging an unfair labor practice," Hubble said......
In a release Wednesday, the union, based in Raleigh, N.C., listed five objections to the election, alleging that UPS Freight:
- Granted benefits to employees during the voting period by awarding part-time dock workers full-time employment, giving them substantial wage and benefit increases.
- Told part-time dock workers that it planned to substantially increase the number of full-time dock workers to influence employees to vote against union representation.
- Identified road drivers who hadn't voted in the election, contacted them while they were working and directed them to return to the polling area with their loads and vote, resulting in the drivers getting additional compensation for voting.
- Told employees eligible to vote in the election that if they voted for the union their pensions may be frozen, causing them to lose benefits.
- Falsely told employees eligible to vote that the amount of the pension they would get through their current benefits was more than it actually was.
.........