Archived Labor judge overturns union election at Target

[nib]

"Spot" wouldn't have a choice in the world about Unions if all HOURLY employees (which is the HUGE majority) would stick TOGETHER! Unions are the ONLY protections LOW and MID income employees have to fight off Big Business and Corp America's ways of UNDERpaying and poor benefits!

Saw that coming miles away when the Zellers purchase was announced.
There was NO WAY spot would've allowed the union a continued presence.

 

[nib]

very true!

"Spot" wouldn't have a choice in the world about Unions if all HOURLY employees (which is the HUGE majority) would stick TOGETHER! Unions are the ONLY protections LOW and MID income employees have to fight off Big Business and Corp America's ways of UNDERpaying and poor benefits!

 

[nib]

They sure control the boards and see to it that no one talks about the all important Union conversation!

Happened to come across this:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120522/AP05/305219814

"NEW YORK (AP) - An administrative law judge from the National Labor Relations Board has overturned the union election last year at a Target store on New York's Long Island and ordered a new election citing unfair labor practices.

The decision comes almost a year after The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500 contested the 137-85 vote against unionization in June 2011. It argued that Target illegally intimidated workers for months leading up to the vote. Target denied the allegations.

A "yes" vote would have made the store Target's first with a unionized workforce. Target has 1,700 stores, all in the U.S.

"Target completely poisoned the democratic process from day one," said Patrick Purcell, assistant to the president of the UFCW Local 1500 in an interview with The Associated Press. "And now a judge agreed with everything we said." "

 

[Hardlinesmaster]

the valley stream store from the union blog.
http://ufcwblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/off-target-with-valley-stream-closure.html

 

[commiecorvus]

Spot is proving once again that they are no better than Walmart or any of the other corporations that over the past 100 years have done every thing they can to violate people in their quest to organize.

 

[talan123]

Target never claimed to be a moral company, just one that obeys the laws which apparently it was too difficult in this case.

When Target loses this case, and they will if my interactions with their legal department is any indication and the fact there is just so much evidence here, they will have to pay the employees all back pay and 4x for pain and suffering. That won't be a pretty day in that district for payroll.

 

[commiecorvus]

Target never claimed to be a moral company, just one that obeys the laws which apparently it was too difficult in this case.

When Target loses this case, and they will if my interactions with their legal department is any indication and the fact there is just so much evidence here, they will have to pay the employees all back pay and 4x for pain and suffering. That won't be a pretty day in that district for payroll.

They'll just write it off on their taxes as a business loss and move on.
So in the long run we the taxpayers will be supporting their little illegal action.

 

[Crohl]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if one store unionizes don't we all have the opportunity at that point. For example, it would make it much easier for other stores to organize.

Because in "right to work" states it would be virtually impossible as it stands now.

I personally wouldn't benefit from a union, I'm compensated quite well for what I do and I have little to no qualms with my management. It would make leading my team a little more difficult as well. But from the stories I hear, it seems a union could certainly help in some states.

 

[talan123]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if one store unionizes don't we all have the opportunity at that point. For example, it would make it much easier for other stores to organize.

Because in "right to work" states it would be virtually impossible as it stands now.

I personally wouldn't benefit from a union, I'm compensated quite well for what I do and I have little to no qualms with my management. It would make leading my team a little more difficult as well. But from the stories I hear, it seems a union could certainly help in some states.

Hey, my hats off to you and any other TL/STL/ETL that are hard at work doing their job. I really do appreciate good leaders who can do manage to integrate Target's views of what it should be doing and reality. That cannot be an easy job.

As for one store unionizing then all having a choice thing, I do believe that they would have to do it store by store from what I have read. That's why it's practically impossible for Wal-Mart/Target to become totally unionized. Thousands of stores and dozens of state laws going over the entire process. That's kind of why I was so curious about the whole strong armed tactics thing, even if the employees all decided to do it all at once, you are talking about a decade of work there through the legal system.

 

[Miguel]

If employers are so opposed to Unions that they force their employees to watch anti-union videos and that they threaten to close rather than allow unionization, why don't the poor and middle income employees around the country realize it's an obvious sign to UNIONIZE! They wouldn't be so against unions if it didn't mean MORE money and benefits to the employees! Go Unions!

 

[Miguel]

No offense, but if you make between 7$ and 19$ an hour, you are NOT being "compensated well"!!! Therefore you WOULD benefit from a union!