danivon wrote:Just because an employer does not recognise a union, that does not mean there are not members there. I've been a member of a union for nearly 20 years, but only in a recognition agreement for the last 4 and a half.

And "where I am going" is reading the article you linked to. It concerns people who have stopped paying union dues. Those would be ex-members.

If you have evidence that the ballot was not secret, please present it. Otherwise stop comparing apples to combine harvesters.

I posted the NY Times article above. The bolded section above states in the 4th and 5th word "secret-ballot"

Yes, I can read. There was a secret ballot. Now show how the secrecy of it has been violated. That was what I was asking for.

The fact that a union knows who ex-members are and names them does not constitute evidence that anyone knows how people voted. Any more than knowing someone's voter registration breaches voter secrecy.

You are leaping to conclusions without any evidence, or you are hiding the proof. Which is it?

danivon wrote:Yes, I can read. There was a secret ballot. Now show how the secrecy of it has been violated. That was what I was asking for.

The fact that a union knows who ex-members are and names them does not constitute evidence that anyone knows how people voted. Any more than knowing someone's voter registration breaches voter secrecy.

You are leaping to conclusions without any evidence, or you are hiding the proof. Which is it?

So you are OK with the UAW publishing the list?

If we are talking about former members, or people who are getting the benefits of union negotiation without the risk or cost, an absent any evidence for the claims you were making, no. Not reallly.

Now, why are you avoiding my question? Is it ethical to make accusations based on no evidence?

The evidence is circumstantial. I think it is at best poor taste to print a list such as the UAW did.

No it is not proof that the list was from the election.

The article makes clear that they just published a list of workers who are not members of the union. You can infer that these would all have voted no in the secret ballot but that's all it is, an inference. People may have any number of reasons for not joining a union. I'm not in the union, as I said, but even if I were a member I would never vote yes to a closed shop arrangement. But equally, even though I generally haven't agreed with the various strikes that the union have called recently (and indeed as a non-member I've worked through them), had a I been a member I'd have gone on strike with the rest of them because I believe that if you're a member of a collective organisation like this you have to abide by the ballot of the members. You could conclude that everybody who chooses to go out on strike is supportive of trhe union's reasons for calling the strike but chances are that would be totally wrong, many of them will be just like me.