Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Options for small business owners if card check passes and their business is unionized.
03/05/09 | PD

Posted on 03/05/2009 11:23:41 AM PST by hdbc

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: hdbc

Maybe small businesses of like products could unite and institute (or threaten to institute) a “fee” - think of a name that makes it clear what the fee is meant to make up for (small business card check fee?) ... the public needs to understand that THEY are paying for this stuff - not the businesses.


41 posted on 03/05/2009 12:11:43 PM PST by Anima Mundi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: only1percent
...the class of applicants for $12/hour jobs with benefits is a lot better than those for $9/hour jobs without...

You mean paying someone more results in a better worker? And they're not even upper-management!

There are some on this forum who seem to not believe that statistic. They are more than willing to pay upper-management as much money as the managers want, but will pay the low-level hourly people as little as they can get away with; and the first people they'll fire are the low-cost employees!

42 posted on 03/05/2009 12:13:24 PM PST by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Its kinda hard to fire your new partners, and they're your partners until you do

That's true but you can have different levels of "partners" and different voting blocs among partners also.

Something to the affect if enough votes get cast against you you are no longer a partner.

You keep enough votes for yourself that they can't vote you out.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be pitfalls to watch out for but would that keep the unions out of it?

43 posted on 03/05/2009 12:13:57 PM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: hdbc

My husband is a PM for a commercial dry wall company that has refused to allow unions since the company started back in the 1950s.

They figure it’s pretty much a done deal now. It’s just a matter of how long they can continue to push back.

The first company in their line of business to fall to the unions won’t be able to compete for business. They’ll be priced right out of the market.


44 posted on 03/05/2009 12:16:21 PM PST by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

I doubt it would work. If the partner classes were too obviously controlled by you, you’d be in for a court fight. That’s expensive too, especially because your opposition would be bankrolled—by a union, or by some ethnic interest group funded by your own taxes. The deck is really stacked against the entrepreneur. I was amazed at the number of hands that went out to divert the cash as soon as we formalized our business.


45 posted on 03/05/2009 12:16:30 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; Wingrider

Some jurisdictions have “successor company” rules that pass the employer’s obligations to the new company but there is a lot of variation. This usually applies to job sites that change hands but in some cases can also apply to work that is outsourced to an agency.


46 posted on 03/05/2009 12:21:25 PM PST by Squawk 8888 (TSA and DHS are jobs programs for people who are not smart enough to flip burgers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

IBEW came into a company I worked for years ago. Within 30 days they went on strike. The owner of the company called all employees into a meeting. He told them “You have the right to go union, but understand this....you will get nothing from me that the union does not fight me for. Non-union employees will get their raises in the normal fashion”. Then he offered all employees a job if they wanted to go back to work and forget the strike. He broke the union within 60 days.


47 posted on 03/05/2009 12:24:47 PM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
Walmart has dealt with this problem for years up in Canada where card check is legal.

The laws vary by province- Québec uses card check (the reason Wal-Mart closed one store) but Ontario requires a secret ballot to certify a union. Here's the kicker, though- in Ontario, if a union can convince the Labour Relations Board that the company was "intimidating" employees, the union can be certified even if they lost to vote. Wal-Mart got stuck with a union because of that and it took the employees nearly a year and a small fortune in legal costs to get rid of it.

48 posted on 03/05/2009 12:28:09 PM PST by Squawk 8888 (TSA and DHS are jobs programs for people who are not smart enough to flip burgers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

Employ family members only. Also aren’t small businesses with under a certain amount (10) exempt? Most small businesses actually are run by mom and pop and kids with one or two employees. Are the unionizing mom against pop? Kids against parents? They take the business in their estate taxes anyway.


49 posted on 03/05/2009 12:28:29 PM PST by Semperfiwife (Common sense is in short supply in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hdbc

“Does anyone with experience in these matters know what can be done, if anything, if your business becomes unionized as a result of card check?”

Yeah, either go offshore with your business or walk in to the unionization meeting and say the following: “Since the union wants you to vote out in the open and take away your civil rights, I shall also speak in the open. If you vote for the union, the day it is approved I am closing shop and moving to Texas. That is all.”


50 posted on 03/05/2009 12:38:59 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Control the information and you control the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hdbc

What if a state is a right to work state?


51 posted on 03/05/2009 12:48:15 PM PST by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hdbc
Are there any civil disobediance measures a business owner could take against the unionization? Could you shut down or lock out the operation?

There's no civil disobedience in the owner of a company closing shop when the employees approve a union. In fact it happens more than you realize because the companies involved are small, localized companies and thus relegated to "Local News".

But here is a different twist that nobody really thinks is possible.

The company I worked 35 years for in Detroit closed our Detroit stamping plant back in December of 2006. In I think 2005 a group of Detroit businessmen comprised of Dave Bing, owner of a steel company and Motor city Stamping, teamed with ex-Detroit mayor Dennis Archer in an effort to take advantage of the "empowerment zone" financial loans and buy our stamping plant.

Unfortunately Ford Motor Company told our company that they would not approve of the sale because (1.) there was no guarantee the new group would get the finances available to buy the plant and (2.) there was no guarantee that once the sale occured, the new owners could honor the existing contracts for body stampings.

The sales offer was dropped and the plant is now closed.

Here is another situation that occured. My company also had a stamping plant in Shelbyville KY that went out on strike back in February of 2006. Our company was fully prepared to send down non-union management employees from my corporate office and the Detroit plant (and did so) to attempt to continue to run limited production on our Ford truck body parts while the employees were out on strike.

Unfortunately the Ford Motor Company, fearing that the strike would interrupt their truck production at the Kentucky Ford plant intervened and told my company to put an end to the strike immediately or they would pull all work out of that plant. We were forced to give in to the union and all their demands at that plant.

In July of 2006 the Germans announced they were selling our stamping division, half the people at the corporate office were let go and the Detroit plant began the process of closing down. In November it was announced that the division has been sold to a Canadian company called Martinrea, the plant closed in December, more people at the corporate headquarters were let go and a select number of people were hired on by Martinrea.

Most of those hired by Martinrea were eventually let go in 2007. A company that was once the #1 major supplier of body parts to the auto industry since 1925 is no longer in existence.

Lots of folks here might point the finger of blame at the UAW but in all honesty, the UAW made every attempt to reach common ground with the company including concessions. Unfortunately the German owners of the division saw dollar signs in the sale rather than loyalty to employees, in many cases 3rd generation employees. Don't forget, Germany is one of the most socialized countries in Europe and most benefits are provided by the government.

When the Krauts came into the plant in 2005 and informed the employees that there would be no further monies allocated to the plant in updating equipment, maintenance, etc. unless the shareholders could be guaranteed a 16% return on the investment, that was when we knew that the Krauts were pulling out.......

This is the only time that you will ever hear me speak of support for the UAW...

52 posted on 03/05/2009 1:30:20 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (This country isn't going to hell in a handbasket, it's riding shotgun on an Indy car....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hdbc

The strategy really depends on what kind of business that you have.

In Pittsburgh, some folks who opened up retail stores in the 60s/70s proactively sought out friendly local unions and proactively signed “sweetheart deals” up front to eliminate real labor work problems. The unions are only concerned about collecting the money- it might be prudent to do so and get a handle on the costs.

An organizing campaign creates discord and radicalizes the workers a lot more. Workers who are members who didn’t have to be recruited would seem to be less likely to cause real problems, a sweetheart contract would allow a lot more leeway than something implemented by an arbitration or fought for through a card check campaign and all the bs promises.


53 posted on 03/05/2009 4:03:34 PM PST by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

I am not a business advisor, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night - but
Would making all the employees partners in the venture work.
Then it wouldn’t be employees, it would be an owner operated business.
Don’t know the inner workings of doing this but it might be something to look in to.

Read Atlas Shrugged Part 2, Chapter X: The Sign of the Dollar about the 20th Century Motor Company or if you want a real life example, do some research on Obama’s darling company, Namaste Solar, for how that will work out.


54 posted on 03/14/2009 9:41:23 AM PDT by John.Galt2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: I_Like_Spam
I don't claim to be an expert on unions or business, but common sense tells me that unions “look out” for themselves and the workers and often use government intervention through policy to force businesses to comply with their demands, often to the detriment of the business itself. This seems to be in direct conflict with free market principles, property rights (telling me how I will run MY business) and Capitalism in general. Wouldn't A solution, not THE solution, be the systematic firing then rehiring of employees as individual or subcontractors with set weekly/monthly payment draws with annual contract re-negotiations or using temp agencies? FYI, the US is an AT- WILL EMPLOYMENT State, which grants the right of employers to fire employees for any reason, or for no reason at all. It also gives employees the legal right to quit their jobs at any time for any reason. This this legal doctrine has been eroded over the years through various legislative acts. For example, employers may not fire employees in a way that discriminates:age, sex, race, etc. , violates public policy or conflicts with written or implied promises they make concerning the length of employment or grounds for termination. This is why employers must build a case to ensure they are not sued. On a side note, the recent Alabama gunman's mother and he had a wrongful termination suit ongoing, but I digress. Ultimately, this is the Obama administration's real agenda with respect to unions... erode the AT-WILL work relationship and move us to a more progressive WORKER'S STATE i.e. Socialist or Communist State. Every successful socialist movement, and I just mean successful in changing the Governmental system itself, requires a legal change in the employer employee relationship. For Socialism or Communism to take hold, Capitalism and the free-market must fail. There must be communal or social ownership of all means of production, property and natural resources. The founding fathers new this and they equated property rights to Liberty among other things. For more information on AT-WILL employment goto http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management/264247-1.html
55 posted on 03/14/2009 11:48:20 AM PDT by John.Galt2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: John.Galt2012

Wouldn’t A solution, not THE solution, be the systematic firing then rehiring of employees as individual or subcontractors with set weekly/monthly payment draws with annual contract re-negotiations or using temp agencies

_________________

Temp agencies are definitely a solution, but hiring workers as subcontractors could get employers into trouble with the IRS. The IRS has rules- ill advised as they might be and with serious penalties- as to what makes someone an “employee”.

I would not advise anyone to do that until they ran it by their tax accountants or other professionals.

Of course, philosophically you’re correct. A businessman does have the right to conduct business as they deem fit.


56 posted on 03/16/2009 4:51:39 PM PDT by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson