Why Union Organizers come Knocking on an Employee's Door and Why the Employee Free Choice Act will increase those "House Calls"
One big frustration for union organizers is access to employees for the purpose of soliciting union authorization cards and peddling the union message. Sophisticated employers have no solicitation policies, which force union organizers out of the workplace and into the parking lots and homes of employees.
The primary barrier to union home visits is determining where employees live. Until a union files a petition for election, an employer isn’t obligated to hand over employee names and address. To file a petition for election under the current law, a union must obtain signed authorization cards from 30% of the employees in an appropriate unit. Home visits are a very effective way of putting pressure on employees to sign cards, because most people view the visit as an intrusion and just want the “visitor” to leave. Therefore, they sign the card without much thought to its significance.
Unions use a variety of methods to get employee addresses such as company directories and just asking employees. Unions will go to great lengths to obtain employee addresses even employing a controversial method called “tagging.” Tagging involves Union members writing down the license plate number of employee vehicles in an employer’s parking lot and running the license plates to obtain the name and address of the person who owns the vehicle. Addresses are then used for home visits. The practice of tagging was recently struck down, in Pichler, et al. v. UNITE, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The Employee Free Choice Act will fundamentally alter the role of authorization cards and increase the importance of house calls. Under the EFCA, a union can be recognized as the bargaining representative for a company’s employees if it obtains signed authorization cards from more than 50% of the employees in an appropriate unit. Pressuring employees at home will likely become even more frequently employed tactic.
I am new to this blog aware of this topic,but this blog is informative.Thanks for providing information.
==============================
Katie
Thank you for this informative article.
I have a number of concerns in response to the statement ~
>>Home visits are a very effective way of putting pressure on employees to sign cards, because most people view the visit as an intrusion and just want the “visitor" to leave. Therefore, they sign the card without much thought to its significance.
>>
Also HOW / WHY the Employee Free Choice Act would make it more likely to have this occur more often ?
It would seem that with the title "Free Choice" I would be better protected from further intrusions.
Can someone please tell me what rights I have under these circumstances ?
As I understand it, my rights in PA are noticably different than when I lived in WA and OR, where this behavior is deemed to be Harrassment and Intimadation.
Is there somewhere I can go to obtain information concerning what my rights to privacy are in light of this troubling behaviour; and what rights (if any) I have while living in a state that is "NOT a right to work state."
I am concerned about a number of issues that are related to this article and am having difficulting understand the PA legal system, not being from this area.
Looking into the Pichler,et al. v UNITE indicates that I am not entirely alone in my concern about how unions work in PA.
ANY information or site locations I should look into would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you. - Satiera -