LETTER: Police supported in effort to organize union

In response to williamj.lepetomane's comment:
"Workers who would be required to pay union dues would not be allowed to vote on unionization." Your statement is incorrect; if the police sergeants are left out of the vote, then they WILL NOT be part of the union, thereby exempting them from paying any union dues. The sergeants, however, would be free to form their own union if they so desired.

After reading last Tuesday's article regarding the efforts to unionize, I'm curious as to why the city hired an outside attorney and why they're putting so much time, effort, and money into fighting for the sergeants to vote. What is the city's motivation for doing this? Especially during a time when the city budget has a projected defict of over $39,000 for 2009.

Williamj.lepetomane you really have it wrong concerning the secret ballot and the employee free choice act. What it will do is give the employees the right to call for a secret ballot which is where that power should be. As it is now the employer has the right to call for a secret ballot which delays the voting process (60-80 days I believe) and gives the employer the time to strong arm employees or call in union buster teams to talk to employees. The Walmart corporation is notorious for pulling this, I'm not saying our local Walmart has done this, I'm talking about what has happened at the corporate level. It seems that you are buying into the ads that are playing showing union leaders as mob bosses, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Groups vote to join union's it doesn't just happen, the workers are the ones who vote to join a union and the members ARE THE UNION. Granted not everyone is happy with being in the union (some people vote no) but I can guarantee you that those who negotiate contracts, protect workers rights and working conditions, are looking out for the greater good including those who voted no.

A simple google search on the card check law will provide all the facts in short order. It is designed to eliminate the secret ballot, pure and simple. As the law stands now, a union may be certified or a secret ballot election may be called for by the employer with only 30% support by the workers. The card check law demands that the union be certified after a simple majority indicates support of the union signed in front of coworkers, employers and union representatives, three groups of people who most individual workers don't want to create tension with. Voting ones conscience is an entirely different matter when it's not a secret ballot. Imagine going to vote in november and having your ballot choices put up on a big screen in front of everyone at the polling place. There may be some people you don't want to know your choices for a whole host of reasons. You may be treated entirely differently by those people in ways and for reasons you have no control over. This opens the door to intimidation, coercion, discrimination and a lot of other things that unions like to rail on about as long as it's not about them doing it. A secret ballot is a wonderful thing for bringing out the true intentions of the voter, and someone who supports the elimination of it should be looked upon warily. The whole business has come about because union membership is dwindling. When given the chance to vote by secret ballot, over half the time workers choose not to unionize. The unions simply want to stop the bleeding by stifling the free will of the workers. Any way they can. I say let the workers decide for themselves without worry about repercussions, retaliation and ill will that the card check law will bring about. If you're truly concerned about worker's rights, then why would you support the elimination of the right to a secret ballot. The law has been the same since the 1800's because it's worked. Unions want it changed because they are losing members, power and money. Workers aren't buying what the unions are promising and this is just a back door attempt to stop these losses. I have several friends who are union members and have only had 1 tell of an instance where the union had to step in to enforce contractual obligations of his employer. The others are completely indifferent to their unions or see them as a hindrance to getting the job done because regulations prevent them from doing things they are trained to do but not hired specifically for. People can see what's going on and make up their own mind about what union membership really means and, unless this law passes, can vote privately about it. You can call this pile of fertilizer a boquet of roses, but keep it away from my nose, please.

gov.

I have lived in this area for many years. I can remember back when there would not be an open position for extended periods of time at our police department. As a member of the community, I like when there is stability at our police department. I think a familiar face is nice, easier to work with, and easier to share your problems with, which in turn would help create a safer community for everyone. I have noticed over the last several years that we continue to lose employee after employee at our police department, so I looked into it for myself.

Since the year 2000, that police department loses an average of 3-4 employees every year. Granted, some of these are due to retirement, but apparently very few (approximately 4). I have seen several young faces leave this community for other communities and I am tired of it. I have noticed that there is not much difference between our community and the ones that we are losing our employees to. So given that I ask the question, why are they leaving? How can we become more competitive and keep these employees here? What is the problem with our Police Department? I think only the men and women of our law enforcement agency could answer that best. I do know that most, if not all cities the size of Hutchinson or larger are organized (union). I have heard unions are supposed to create a more equal and fair work environment for all employees. I am not sure why the thought of a union is so scary for some people, but times have changed and maybe it’s time for our police department to change as well. I am not sure why we have lost all of the employees down there, but I think that a union could not hurt the police department. Maybe it will create that stability that the department once had. My thought is, why not try the union, what can this city possibly lose?

As to the individual known only as “blogger”, I think your blog is very inaccurate and unjust. I have personally met and know most of the employees that make up our police department. I think it is an unfair statement to say any of them are “lazy”. I believe each and every employee at that department brings something unique to this community that could and should make our Police Department one of the finest. Now it’s just a matter of how do we hang on to those employees and I think, if they want a union, give them what they want, we need to stop this rotating door.

Lazy police officers??? I have been reading the newpaper articles and online comments regarding the unionization of our police department. I was suprised by the comments submitted by canthelpbutlaugh and blogger. They were very different from the previous postings, which were mostly debating factual information. The undertones and emotion within the two most recent comments, suggest that they were written by someone who is closely involved with the police department or possibly works there. I, as a tax payer and member of this community, was shocked to read that we supposedly have "lazy" police officers. I would be interested to know how many of our officers are truly productive and how many are "lazy".

I also would like to comment on the statement that unions protect lazy workers. I am a member of a union and have seen, throughout my career, colleagues reprimended for not properly doing their job. The union did not prevent our supervisors from correcting those worker's actions or giving a consequence; however it did allow the workers the right to have someone present to ensure that their rights were protected and that they were treated fairly.

I absolutely agree that the union has nothing to do with lazy workers, which is why I was so suprised when blogger implied that it did. I highly doubt that there is a group of lazy police officers sitting around in Hutchinson thinking that they need a union to protect their laziness. I am sure they have many valid reasons for believing that a union would improve their work environment and I hope they have a chance to find out.

If this truly was about employee freedom it would give employees who don't want to belong a union and pay union dues the oppurtunity to opt-out in a union shop in order to negotiate their own contract. A simple majority takes away that option for ALL employees, period.
"once a majority of workers indicate they want a union by signing cards". You conveniently forgot about the "in front of their employer, coworkers and the nlrb representatives" part. And this harmless little sign-up event becomes a de-facto election with no privacy and every oppurtunity for coercion on both sides. Also indicating your wish for a secret ballot election is a default indication you wish to vote "no". Again, no privacy.
"because one side has all the power"- so if I decide to make the investment in time, infrastructure, etc. to open a business I shouldn't be able to tell employees who have agreed to work for me of their own free will what to do while at work, what I expect from them at work and, if I don't believe union organizing activities are conducive to a healthy and efficient work environment that I can't discourage that activity or tell my workers of my opinion? Doesn't sound like I'm the boss anymore. Also, the potential employee has the power to refuse the offered employment.
"Strengthens penalties for companies that illegally coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them from forming a union" How about some penalties for union organizers who disrupt an efficient workplace and diminish the moral of employees who don't wish to join.
Union proponents fail to understand that the market for jobs is like any other market, both sides have to agree that what the other is offering is worth what they are giving in return, otherwise no deal(no job). Unless you are in a communist country, you can look at other jobs. Also, the assumption that being in a union is the best and only way to deal with your employer and that as an employee there is something wrong with you if you don't agree with that just shows how much respect union supporters have for a person to make up their own mind.
And my favorite bit of union speak for the day-"America’s working people are struggling to make ends meet, and our middle class is disappearing. The best opportunity working men and women have to get ahead is by uniting with co-workers to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits.". Increasing what it costs an employer to employ someone by adding another cost layer decreases the number of employees that a company can afford and takes away funds that could be used for capital investments and company growth that would result in more jobs. The bosses money is not yours until you EARN it. Then you can decide what to do with it. Boss not giving you enough?-find one who will. Can't find one who will?-Maybe you need to look at what you're offering the boss or maybe a different career path altogether. This is not a communist country.(yet-we're already a socialist nanny-state)
Again I say that arguing to take away the secret ballot(and this IS what this bill is about) makes me question where the value of freedom lies an your values list. You want to be concerned about employees without power or freedom?-go to China, North Korea or any other communist country. I'm happy where my boss and I can both agree what we're worth to each other. No need for an artificial layer of middle men and regulations. If one of us isn't happy, we both have options. And that, my fellow Americans, is beautiful, simple, and true freedom.

gov.

I could care less if the police department chooses to be a part of a union or not. What I do care about is why the city hired an outside attorney. Was the city attorney busy? The city can't afford mosquito spraying but we can afford to hire an outside attorney to include police sergeants in a union vote . From what I have read here they can join their own union. Where can I find out how much the city spent on this attorney. Maybe they could have used that money to keep me mosquito free next year. Does the mayor approve this? city council? did you get any answers tNt4ever?