New Haven Independent

Posted by: DeweyScrewy&Truman | February 26, 2007 8:02 PM

Bull... The Union would have been toast..They knew it..A Union at the Hospital would be a very bad move ,a worse case scenario for patient care ,see Griswold ..so much interference and buffonery ,how would you like Cap'n Andy and the Deranged tag along nincompoops caring for your Wife or Mother...

Posted by: Joe | February 26, 2007 10:27 PM

It won't matter how much evidence is uncovered that YNHH management employed dirty, dishonest, union-busting tactics. They've sold their souls for a big buck and, like Bush & Friends, couldn't care less about the people whom they are supposed to look out for. Someone should look into how YNHH covers up its medical errors, some fatal. Some nurses will talk. As one nurse who quit YHNN told me she wouldn't be a patient there no matter what.

Posted by: Frank | February 27, 2007 4:39 PM

Realizing that most employees don't want a union, the unions have had to come up with new ways to impose unionism on workers.

One of these schemes is called a "Neutrality Agreement." A neutrality agreement is a deal between the union and the employer where the employer agrees to say and do nothing to oppose the union.

You might wonder why an employer would ever sign such an agreement. Unfortunately, there are several reasons.

Unions use what are called "corporate campaigns" to extort employers into signing neutrality agreements and agreeing to recognize them on the basis of a “card check.”

These corporate campaigns have nothing to do with organizing workers. They are massive public relations and dirty tricks campaigns aimed at hurting the business’ bottom line. The unions viciously destroy reputations and the jobs of the workers they claim to want to help in their lust for members, money and power.

A corporate campaign can include any number of union tactics like filing frivolous complaint with government regulators, trying to get banks where they have pension funds on deposit to refuse financing to firms that won't go along, or fomenting boycotts of the company's products by "community" organizations.

In other cases unions have used their clout with already organized companies, as the United Auto Workers (UAW) has done with the Big Three, to get them to pressure suppliers to sign neutrality agreements.

And, of course, unions use their political clout to get public officials to pressure employers to sign neutrality agreements.

No matter what the excuse, neutrality agreements and "card check" elections are a terrible injustice for employees.

There are very few decisions that a worker makes about his or her job that are more important than whether to be represented by a union. It's very likely that the employer will have information about this that the employee needs in order to make a well informed decision. Under a neutrality agreement the employer can't give the employees this information.

To make matters worse, neutrality agreements usually include their ugly step-sister the "card check" election. In a card check election the employer agrees to recognize a union as a representative on the basis of signed authorization cards rather than a secret ballot election.

The injustice of this is clear when you consider that unions lose most secret ballot elections when they petition with a narrow majority of employee signatures.

Why would this be the case? For one thing, some employees sign authorization cards very early in a union organizing campaign when all they know is the pie in the sky promises of a union organizer. Once they get more information they realize that a union isn't in their best interest.

In other instances union organizers misrepresent what the authorization card is all about. This is particularly easy for them to do when the card is printed in English and the employee isn't fluent in English.

Sometimes unions use peer pressure and outright intimidation to get employees to sign authorization cards.

The long and short of it is that union authorization cards signed by a majority of employees are not a reliable indication of whether they really want union representation.

The unions know this. That's why they want card check elections instead of secret ballot elections.

Posted by: NO NAME WHEN THE UNION IS INVOLVED | February 27, 2007 9:13 PM

Has anybody ever heard of a union giving up when they feel they're in the right?
The NLRB was set up for the union, so whether we like it or not, there is going to be bias.
If that added advantage wasn't enough for the union to win their case, then they clearly never stood a chance.
It's nice to see that the management at YNHH, who have always taken the necessary means to treat their employees fairly, be rewarded with the absence of a troublesome and unnecessary union.

Posted by: ann | February 28, 2007 6:30 AM

The sad part is the employees of YNHH have fallen victim to this monster. The most important thing to remember is to vote out these officials who are puppets to these Unions. The public officials who want to take our right to vote away need to be voted out of office. I can't believe that this could happen in America. The SEIU does not care about the hard working people. All they want is to organize at any cost. Frank, you are so right. I guess if the SEIU is going to lose an election, they try to change the rules in the second half of the game. Joe, as for the nurse you are talking about.... You can tell her this for me. YNHH pedi ER saved my family member's life and the PICU kept her alive. My Son had surgery 2 weeks ago, the OR staff made an almost complicated procedure, successful. Kudos to the hard working nurses at YNHH.

Posted by: YNHH Employee | February 28, 2007 10:43 AM

I've been at YNHH 19 years. The union just wants our money. They don't care about us. I know employees who signed cards just to get the obnoxious organizers to leave them alone. We want an election!! Otherwise, the union should just go away.

Posted by: Informed Employee | February 28, 2007 10:25 PM

It's about time that they realized that they couldn't win an election at YNHH. My question is, what's more intimidating....your co-workers, union organizers, and University employees coming to your house (and the homes of your friends, family members, minister, etc.) asking you to sign a card every day, or a secret ballot election?

Why do these idiots want to take away our right to vote in a secret ballot election? It's not intimidating to vote in a booth when no one will ever know who you are voting for. I wasn't intimidated when I voted AGAINST DeStefano in the governor's race. I won't be intimidated if I ever get the opportunity to vote NO SEIU. Apparently this will not be in the near future.

Keep stirring the pot SEIU, because I know you're reading this. The writing is on the walls and we want you to go home. Take your 100 organizers from all over the country and find a place that needs your "bargaining services." We don't need it here. You have lied to us, confused us, and tried to turn us against the people that we trust. No organization is perfect, and your union surely won't fix any issues that we have.

Oh, and for the record....my manager did not intimidate me into feeling this way. How stupid do you think we are? You must have taken us for idiots. We will not be sheep led to your greedy hands.