http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2009/01/baptist-convention-endorses-employee-free-choice-act.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=baptist-convention-endorses-employee-free-choice-act News & Commentary About All Things Baptist Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:32:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2009/01/baptist-convention-endorses-employee-free-choice-act.html#comment-4644 Michael Westmoreland-White Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:31:29 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=1785#comment-4644 Right. The opposition is projecting. Management coerces employees (illegally) to vote against unions all the time. This would correct that. IF, in time, EFCA leads to union abuses, we can fight that, too. But to keep the management abuses because we fear the solution, is absurd. Especially since EFCA does NOT abolish the choice to have a secret ballot election--despite the claims of the Chambers of Commerce and other opponents. Right. The opposition is projecting. Management coerces employees (illegally) to vote against unions all the time. This would correct that. IF, in time, EFCA leads to union abuses, we can fight that, too. But to keep the management abuses because we fear the solution, is absurd. Especially since EFCA does NOT abolish the choice to have a secret ballot election–despite the claims of the Chambers of Commerce and other opponents.

]]> http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2009/01/baptist-convention-endorses-employee-free-choice-act.html#comment-4601 bapticus hereticus Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:22:55 +0000 http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/?p=1785#comment-4601 interestingly one of the criticisms of this legislation concerns perceived influence tactics employees may receive by pro-union, employee leaders. will such come to bear? likely, but in what organization does influence tactics not exist? do not pro-management, anti-union advocates perceive and activate influence tactics in executive meetings? had not socialization processes and power tactics been operative and embraced, one would not likely be in the boardroom in the first place. that socialization effects and power tactics (neither of which are inherently unethical) may be operative is given, but why is it an issue at one level of the organization but is not at another? from ape studies we learn that hierarchy appears to be a default position for social organization, but it is not the only viable position for effective social functioning. democratic, participative processes among apes work well, too, but they require more effort to maintain, and they must continually check the power of those that seek to overcome it in favor of hierarchical processes that tend to disproportionately benefit leaders. are we any different in this regard? interestingly one of the criticisms of this legislation concerns perceived influence tactics employees may receive by pro-union, employee leaders. will such come to bear? likely, but in what organization does influence tactics not exist? do not pro-management, anti-union advocates perceive and activate influence tactics in executive meetings? had not socialization processes and power tactics been operative and embraced, one would not likely be in the boardroom in the first place. that socialization effects and power tactics (neither of which are inherently unethical) may be operative is given, but why is it an issue at one level of the organization but is not at another? from ape studies we learn that hierarchy appears to be a default position for social organization, but it is not the only viable position for effective social functioning. democratic, participative processes among apes work well, too, but they require more effort to maintain, and they must continually check the power of those that seek to overcome it in favor of hierarchical processes that tend to disproportionately benefit leaders. are we any different in this regard?

]]>