Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
News rules for NRA making it easier to Unionize
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="705red" data-source="post: 728619" data-attributes="member: 5229"><p>It would be much easier to organize a barn in a pro union city like Chicago, Boston etc. Much easier than in many of the right to work states. Some of these buildings could vote close to 100% in favor of the union only to have smaller rtw barns vote no which could swing the votes in the no favor.</p><p> </p><p>Perhaps some buildings are happy being non union while others are not. Its possible that some barns could be unionized while others stay non union just as DHL was. Its no secret that unionized DHL members made much more over all than the contractors hired to work in non union barns.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As to my first post in this thread, I must apoligize, no one should ever try and psot after reading 100 pages of legal mumbo jumbo.</p><p> </p><p>If you have 500 people that are eligible to vote to join a uinion and 320 ballots are cast. that is an automatic 180 no votes for ballots that were not cast, even if the union won the majority of cast ballots. Say it was 220 for the union and 100 against add the 180 non votes and the results are 280 against and 220 for under the old way.</p><p> </p><p>Under the new law only ballots that were cast would count overall in the election to join a union. So the 320 ballots would be the only ballots considered in the vote totals.I hope I cleared that up for you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="705red, post: 728619, member: 5229"] It would be much easier to organize a barn in a pro union city like Chicago, Boston etc. Much easier than in many of the right to work states. Some of these buildings could vote close to 100% in favor of the union only to have smaller rtw barns vote no which could swing the votes in the no favor. Perhaps some buildings are happy being non union while others are not. Its possible that some barns could be unionized while others stay non union just as DHL was. Its no secret that unionized DHL members made much more over all than the contractors hired to work in non union barns. As to my first post in this thread, I must apoligize, no one should ever try and psot after reading 100 pages of legal mumbo jumbo. If you have 500 people that are eligible to vote to join a uinion and 320 ballots are cast. that is an automatic 180 no votes for ballots that were not cast, even if the union won the majority of cast ballots. Say it was 220 for the union and 100 against add the 180 non votes and the results are 280 against and 220 for under the old way. Under the new law only ballots that were cast would count overall in the election to join a union. So the 320 ballots would be the only ballots considered in the vote totals.I hope I cleared that up for you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
News rules for NRA making it easier to Unionize
Top