How does Unionization in the USA work? I can't seem to be able to find and simple explanation as to how unionization in the USA works. I watched the documentary &quot;American Factory&quot; and the workers basically rejected unionization plans. My question is, how often can unionization votes be held? If one vote fails today, can another vote be held tomorrow? And then ad-infinitum until it passes? If not, how often? Who is in charge of organizing the vote to form the Union in the first place? If a vote to form a union passes today, can another vote be held tomorrow to disband the union? If not, when can a vote to disband the union be held, and who is allowed to organize such a vote? Also, the worker population of a company is constantly changing. Basically like the Ship of Theseus. I think, none of the founding members of the UAW union in 1930 are alive today. But the union is still alive and well. So, was there any vote in the interim 90 years to reaffirm the union? Or is it that once a union is formed, it is un-disbandable? I also read about Stabucks workers forming unions. So when a union is formed, a company is no longer allowed to hire any worker outside of the union? So if there is this really great talented person whom Starbucks wants to hire. But this person wants to negotiate directly with Starbucks and does not want anything to do with the Union. Then this person cannot be hired?
First of all, the question seems to misunderstand what &quot;union elections&quot; are about. They do not involve forming or joining a union. Under 29 USC 157 all employees have the right to form or join any union at any time. No election is needed. 29 USC 159 provides that: Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities The above section is part of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, as amended and updated. It is found in [Chapter 7 of 29 USC] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/chapter-7) A union is formed as the voluntary act of its members. A union generally has a constitution that controls its operations. This will specify under what conditions the union will be dissolved. An individual may leave a union at any time. Elections, such as those mentioned in the question, are held by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when employees desire that a union become the designated collective bargaining representative for a bargaining unit (which is a group of employees deemed to have a &quot;community of interest&quot;). There is considerable flexibility in just which employees shall be designated as a bargaining unit. In the event of a dispute, this is resolved by the NLRB. (see 29 USC 159(b)). Elections may also be held when there is a desire by some workers to change representatives. A petition requesting a representation election can be filed by a union, a worker, or an employer. Under 29 USC 159(a) the representatives for a bargaining unit: &quot;shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment&quot;. That is what representation elections are about. A union, or other organization, is supposed to be recognized or designated as the bargaining representative for a bargaining unit (BU) only if a majority of the workers in that BU who make a choice want that representative. In addition to being certified by the NLRB after winning an election, a union can be recognized as the representative voluntarily by the employer on the request of a majority of the employees. Or such a request can trigger a secret ballot election. My question is, how often can unionization votes be held? Representation elections are normally held no more often than once a year in any BU. Specifically, 29 USC 159(c)(3) provides that: No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held. Cases recently in the news where a second election has been ordered or proposed in a shorter period of time involve cases where it has been held, or alleged, that the previous election was not valid because of unfair labor practices. An election can also be held to decertify the bargaining representative, or to substitute a new representative. In all these cases a majority of the workers voting must agree for any change to be made. The &quot;no more than once per year&quot; rule applies to all these elections. If there are more than two choices on the ballot (for example, if several different unions are proposed, perhaps along with &quot;no union&quot;) and no one choice gets a majority, a runoff is held between the two choices with the largest number of votes. This is specified in 29 USC 159(c)(3) All representation elections are held under the authority of, and are regulated by, the NLRB. So when a union is formed, a company is no longer allowed to hire any worker outside of the union? This is not correct. That is what is known as the &quot;closed shop&quot;, and it is illegal under the NLRA. Arrangements that are legal (when they are part of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)) under the NLRA are: The &quot;union shop&quot;. On being hired, an employee must join the union within a specified time (which must be at least 30 days, but may be longer). This is specifically permitted by 29 USC 158(a)(3). However, many states have by state law prohibited union shop agreements. An &quot;agency shop&quot;. No employee need join any union, but any employee must pay the designated bargaining representative a fee (normally less than the union membership dues) for its efforts in representing the workers of that BU, and that worker specifically. Some states have by state law prohibited or limited agency shop agreements. An &quot;open shop&quot;. No worker need pay any dues or fee to any union or other representative., But if the representative is a union, its policies are set by the union members, and to become and remain a union member, a worker must pay union dues. Aside from any shop agreement included in a CBA, 29 USC 158(a)(3) provides that it is an unfair labor practice (ULP) for an employer: by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization ... It is also a ULP (under 29 USC 158(a)(2)) for an employer to: dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it ... The provisions of the NLRA and some proposals that have been made to change it are summarized and explained in &quot;The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): Union Representation Procedures and Dispute Resolution&quot; from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). This report goes into more sub-topics than this answer calls for. As far as I can tell, it correctly describes the current law. See https://www.everycrsreport.com/about.html for more info.
This document from the Michigan Sec'y of State says that &quot;A US citizen who has never resided in the US and has a parent, legal guardian or spouse that was last domiciled in Michigan is eligible to vote in Michigan as long as he or she has not registered or voted in another State&quot;. You then use the Federal Post Card Application or the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, which you can get here.
The CEO, with his lawyer have tried to convince me that this only apply to current client and any past clients that I have work on. Is this true? No. It will be true only if they make that clarification in the clause or a properly added amendment. The clause currently has no indication that it is limited to "current client and any past clients that [you] have work[ed] on". The CEO's &amp; lawyer's refusal to amend the clause so as to make it consistent with their attempts [to persuade you] would be a red flag. Their inconsistent representations to you suggest that they are not planning to honor the covenant of good faith on which all contracts are premised. Should I expect the CEO to offer a fair contract or is this something you read and negotiate? You should require a contract that seems fair to you. And by "to you" I mean that it has to be in line with your expectations regardless of the average conditions in the labor market. Negotiations are not binding. They are merely a preamble to a contract, and that contract is binding. This is why you should reject a contract that falls short of your requirements. Some clauses are unlawful and/or void and unenforceable as unconscionable or for contravening legislation (unlawful clauses can and do arise even if drafted by attorneys). Thus, although you might not have to worry about those clauses in particular, the company's mere attempt to include them in a contract should alert you of the high risk of ending up with other abusive terms &amp; conditions which are binding and enforceable nonetheless.
It depends on whether state law allows the use of drop boxes. Many states do -- in 2016, a little over 15% of ballots nationally were returned to drop boxes. Several states require drop boxes; some specify how many are required. (As far as I can tell, no state requires a drop box in every precinct.) For example, Washington, which is a &quot;vote by mail&quot; state, allows voters to either mail ballots back, or return them to a drop box. The law requires the county to provide: &quot;a minimum of one ballot drop box per fifteen thousand registered voters in the county and &quot;a minimum of one ballot drop box in each city, town, and census-designated place in the county with a post office.* In Washington general elections, between 40-50% of ballots are returned to drop boxes -- in 2016, 57% were. Predictably, the use of drop boxes has been in the news recently.
Because an "Order, Resolution, or Vote" is not the same as a Bill, and does not become a law. Thus the procedure for presentation, leading to signing, pocket acceptance, veto, or pocket veto, does not apply to Orders, Resolutions, or Votes. Therefore it is repeated to indicate that it applies to those legislative acts also. A "Vote", in the sense used here is a legislative decision or action that is neither a Bill nor a resolution. For example, the decision on when to adjourn to, that is, when Congress will come back into session after an adornment, is a Vote. A "Bill" is a proposed law. If it is passed by Congress and not vetoed, or if any veto is overridden, it becomes a law. Other legislative actions do not become laws, but otherwise go through much the same procedure. Note that some legislative actions do notneed the "Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives". For example, when the House votes on a new Speaker, it is a vote of the House only, and neither the Senate nor the President has a say.
It would depends on the laws of the particular state, since each state has its own laws pertaining to voting. The law in North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-275(7), says that it is unlawful For any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so, in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any primary or election The corresponding jury instruction says what it means to have an intent to commit a fraud: Intent is a mental attitude seldom provable by direct evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. You arrive at the intent of a person by such just and reasonable deductions from the circumstances proven as a reasonably prudent person would ordinarily draw therefrom. Specific intent is a mental purpose, aim or design to accomplish a specific harm or result. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date the defendant voted more than one time in the same election event, the (name election event or contest),and that defendant did so with the intent to commit a fraud, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you do not so find, or if you have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty The prosecution would presumably construct an argument that the defendant intended that is vote be counted twice, and if they can prove that intent, then the jury should convict. Defense could argue that the intent was based on a reasonable belief that their absentee ballot was not counted thus disenfranchising defendant, and defendant acted with the lawful intent that their vote be counted, once. Because NC law contains procedural provisions to filter out double-voting, defendant can reasonably have a non-criminal intent, even if they are mistaken about the efficacy of those safeguards. However, the Ohio law does not carry an intent element: (A) No person shall do any of the following: ... (2) Vote or attempt to vote more than once at the same election by any means, including voting or attempting to vote both by absent voter's ballots under division (G) of section 3503.16 of the Revised Code and by regular ballot at the polls at the same election, or voting or attempting to vote both by absent voter's ballots under division (G) of section 3503.16 of the Revised Code and by absent voter's ballots under Chapter 3509. or armed service absent voter's ballots under Chapter 3511. of the Revised Code at the same election; This doesn't even require that you know that you are voting twice. So it depends on the particular law of the state.
Prior to the 14th and 15th amendments, the US Federal Constitution and the Federal laws passed under it neither allowed nor denied anyone the right to vote. The decisions on who would and would not be allowed to vote, including for members of Congress and for President, was wholly in the hands of the sates, and were regulated by the various state constitutions and laws. A few states permitted women to vote, and at least one permitted free blacks to vote, at least for a period of its history. The Federal government had nothing to say on the matter. In at lesat one case the US Supreme Court refused to consider such a question. That was the case of Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849) which grew out of the Dorr Rebellion The state of Rhode Island, had retained its pre-revolutionary charter (dating from 1663) as its constitution, and required the ownership of a significant amount of landed property as a qualification to vote. The Wikipedia article on the rebellion (linked above) states: By 1829, 60% of the state's free white men were ineligible to vote (women and most non-white men were prohibited from voting). In 1841 a group led by Thomas Wilson Dorr held a convention to draft a new state Constitution, (known as the &quot;People's Constitution&quot;), and held ratifying votes on the draft. They declared that it had been approved by a majority of those qualified under the old laws as well as a majority of those voting and qualified under the new rules, and that it was therefore the valid constitution of the state. The old (charter) government said this was invalid and illegal. Attempts to establish the new government by force failed. However, a revised state constitution that greatly expanded voting rights was passed and took effect in 1843. Luther v. Borden was a case of trespass against members of the militia acting under the charter government, brought by a supporter of Dorr. The plaintiffs brought extensive evidence (over 150 pages) intended to establish that the Dorr or &quot;People's&quot; constitution had been validly ratified by a majority of voters, and that the old constitution had improperly restricted voting rights. The case went to the US Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Taney wrote in the majority opinion: The plaintiff contends that the charter government was displaced, and ceased to have any lawful power, after the organization, in May, 1842, of the government which he supported, and although that government never was able to exercise any authority in the State nor to command obedience to its laws or to its officers, yet he insists that it was the lawful and established government upon the ground that it was ratified by a large majority of the male people of the State of the age of twenty-one and upwards, and also by a majority of those who were entitled to vote for general officers under the then existing laws of the State. ... The point, then, raised here has been already decided by the courts of Rhode Island. The question relates altogether to the constitution and laws of that State, and the well settled rule in this court is that the courts of the United States adopt and follow the decisions of the State courts in questions which concern merely the constitution and laws of the State. Besides, if the Circuit Court had entered upon this inquiry, by what rule could it have determined the qualification of voters upon the adoption or rejection of the proposed constitution unless there was some previous law of the State to guide it? It is the province of a court to expound the law, not to make it. And certainly it is no part of the judicial functions of any court of the United States to prescribe the qualification of voters in a State, giving the right to those to whom it is denied by the written and established constitution and laws of the State, or taking it away from those to whom it is given; nor has it the right to determine what political privileges the citizens of a State are entitled to, unless there is an established constitution or law to govern its decision. {emphasis added} Thus, until the passage and ratification of the 14th and 15th amendments, which forbid states to deny the vote based on race, national origin, and a few other grounds, the Federal Constitution had nothing to say on the point. States were required to grant the right to vote to women by the 19th amendment in 1920, and the 26th (1971) prohibited denial on the ground of age to anyone 18 or older. The 24th (1964) prohibited denial for failure to pay a poll tax or any other tax. The 14th amendment has been held to guarantee the equal weight of votes, in what was at first known as the &quot;one man, one vote&quot; rule (later &quot;one person, one vote&quot;) and has been used to overturn individual and group denials of voting rights. But there were no federal voting rights in the years before 1865. I am not aware of any writings by any of the &quot;founding fathers&quot; (say the members of the Constitutional Convention) that seriously discuss the possibility of a female President. But they did consider and endorse the possibility of a person being elected president who might not be qualified to vote in some of the states. They declined to impose, or permit Congress to impose, a property, or other variable, qualification on the president, even though many of the original states had property qualifications for voters. Options for this were proposed and voted down in the Convention's drafting process.
Labor Code §70 states that (1) Where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union forthwith. so yes, it is legal to deduct union dues. There is no requirement to notify a prospective employee that they will be required to be a member of a union. The employer is required to inform you of deductions for taxes and union dues, under §254, when they pay you, which is why you know that you were a member of a union. That is what labor law gives you, but a union contract could impose other obligations on the employer. It is a matter of public record that a certain workplace is unionized, so you can find out, they just don't have to volunteer that information. There is no statutory limit on union dues, that is a matter set by the union.