3 ms·

Note that I know nothing about the topic but the article, but the article says: > [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relatio

Note that I know nothing about the topic but the article, but the article says: > [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. Honestly, that was the point where I stopped reading and hid this story. They used a non-secret election! Fuck them tbh. Jimmy Wales is entirely right here.

tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
They followed the process for forming a union in the US. The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
- jacobgkau 2mo ago
  > They followed the process for forming a union in the US. They followed a process. Secret ballots are also an established process. From your own link: > Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, card check has been an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process. My understanding is that a secret ballot election is actually the more common scenario. > The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected. Do you really envision a situation where a supermajority of signatures were collected from fully non-coerced and well-informed employees, but some union-busting magic is going to cause them to lose a secret ballot election?
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
    I envision a scenario where the foundation just tries to drag out the process as long as possible because that's the best they can do in the situation they're in. I envision this because I've seen the same strategy used elsewhere myself (in the unionization context) and delaying to wear down opponents is a common strategy (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend) > They followed a process. Both of the processes require collecting signatures in the same way, the difference is what happens afterwards and when. Even for the election they would have to collect signatures, so claiming that collecting the signatures was somehow "wrong" for not being a secret vote suggests either a lack of understanding or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.
themaninthedark 2mo ago
See, what you are missing is the games that would be played if they did a secret election. "Can you prove that only employees voted in this?" "Can you prove there was no ballot stuffing? " I am not generally pro-union, I believe it has it's place but have also seen downsides but I have seen these games played out before.
- FeepingCreature 2mo ago
  You can play games with secret elections. You can play much much worse and much more common games with open elections. To be honest, they should prove that only employees voted and they should prove there was no ballot stuffing. That's just baseline competence.

tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago

They followed the process for forming a union in the US. The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check

jacobgkau 2mo ago
> They followed the process for forming a union in the US. They followed a process. Secret ballots are also an established process. From your own link: > Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, card check has been an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process. My understanding is that a secret ballot election is actually the more common scenario. > The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected. Do you really envision a situation where a supermajority of signatures were collected from fully non-coerced and well-informed employees, but some union-busting magic is going to cause them to lose a secret ballot election?
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
  I envision a scenario where the foundation just tries to drag out the process as long as possible because that's the best they can do in the situation they're in. I envision this because I've seen the same strategy used elsewhere myself (in the unionization context) and delaying to wear down opponents is a common strategy (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend) > They followed a process. Both of the processes require collecting signatures in the same way, the difference is what happens afterwards and when. Even for the election they would have to collect signatures, so claiming that collecting the signatures was somehow "wrong" for not being a secret vote suggests either a lack of understanding or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.

themaninthedark 2mo ago

See, what you are missing is the games that would be played if they did a secret election. "Can you prove that only employees voted in this?" "Can you prove there was no ballot stuffing? " I am not generally pro-union, I believe it has it's place but have also seen downsides but I have seen these games played out before.

FeepingCreature 2mo ago
You can play games with secret elections. You can play much much worse and much more common games with open elections. To be honest, they should prove that only employees voted and they should prove there was no ballot stuffing. That's just baseline competence.