Case for Labor Unions

¶ … precedent that other cases have created, it does appear that the election results should be deemed invalid. While these results may have truly represented what the employees wanted, it seems more likely that they were gently encouraged to vote against the union. Because they wanted to keep their jobs and did not want to anger their supervisor, they voted the way that supervisor clearly wanted them to.

Some of the employees would have likely voted that way anyway, but it is not possible to tell what percentage of them would have made that choice if they would not have had any influence from the supervisor. It is usually not a secret why a company does not want its employees voting for a union. Labor unions are focused on the best interests of the employees and are, as such, often at odds with the management of companies.

By suggesting that the employees vote not to unionize, the supervisor was making an effort to protect the company. It is understandable that a supervisor would do this, but it also does not provide the proper level of fairness to the employees, who should feel free to make their own choices. The size of the groups brought into the supervisor's office in the case example, along with the percentage of employees who voted, will not have a significant effect on the validity of the voting results.

Whether the employees were spoken to all at once or one at a time -- or anywhere in between -- they were clearly given information that they were largely expected to follow based on how their supervisor thought they should vote on a very important issue. By voting in a way they felt their supervisor wanted them to, they may have given up some of the rights and freedoms they would have otherwise had as employees.

That is unfortunate, and can also cause them problems later down the road, because they will not have the protection of a union to guard against unfair treatment by their employer. Unions are not perfect, but they can go a long way toward making sure employees are not mistreated. They can also be used to keep companies in line with fair pay and proper working conditions. Not all employees like unions, of course, but the majority of them generally feel that unions are beneficial.

This is part of the reason that the voting results are suspect. It seems odd that the employees would vote in such large numbers, and that voting against the union would be the outcome of that. That is not to say that anomalies like that have never happened before, but only that it is definitely unusual. If the supervisor had not talked to the employees beforehand, it is very possible that the union would have received enough votes to move forward.

It is not in the best interest of the company to allow that union to go forward, but the company also cannot actively tell the employees how to vote. That would be illegal, and the company has to attempt to skirt around the issue without breaking laws. That was what the supervisor did when he called small groups of employees into his office and gave them information regarding the upcoming vote. It is not difficult to "spin" information to sound like one particular option is much better than the other.

That, in effect, was what the supervisor was doing by having a.