ALA-APA opposes privacy

In supporting the Employee Free Choice Act ALA-APA has come out against the right of a secret ballot. From Wikipedia:

(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).


How does this "oppose" a secret ballot?

Right, I can see that.But I don't speak for ALA. Did either of you citizen journalists contact ALA or ask anyone on the Council about it?

In fact, Chuck has already granted the point at issue:After issuing a statement asserting that privacy is "essential" to free association, ALA has endorsed legislation that would abolish an institution that, as Chuck granted earlier, is an "example" of privacy in free association.Announcing an ethical position and then acting contrary to the same position is something that we generally call "hypocrisy."

ALA Council once twisted themselves into a pretzel trying to say that torture was a violation of intellectual freedom. They have no problem trying to make 'cheap points' over 'intellectual dishonest' issues on a regular basis and I think it is quite more than a strawman to hoist the hypocritical bastards on their own petard.

I'm not really sure that's the kind of privacy the ALA does, or has ever, cared about.Have they every made a fuss about a secret ballot before? You position sounds like a preemptive strawman.

Further the law does not abrogate the union member's privacy.The union reps -- one of the interested parties in the matter -- are able to see how each particular member decides. That abrogates the members' privacy.No?

I hope you'll grant that free trade unionism represents a type of free association.


If so, perhaps you'll also acknowledge that privacy in that context is exemplified by the secret ballot ...

It's a example but not a mandatory condition. I have access to the library records of thousands of my patrons. So those aren't private. Or are they?

Privacy doesn't necessarily mean that no one else in the whole universe can see something. It frequently means "no one, who you don't want to, can see something."

Further the law does not abrogate the union member's privacy. The signed documents that authorize the negotiator to speak for them are viewed by the labor relations board which keeps that information confidential. As the "votes" are not revealed to the other part and fail to see who privacy is jeopardized.

And I'm being a ball-buster because I think that you are trying to score a cheap point over an intellectually dishonest issue.

What exactly is hypocritical about this?The first sentence of ALA's principal statement on the subject of privacy reads: "Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association."I hope you'll grant that free trade unionism represents a type of free association. If so, perhaps you'll also acknowledge that privacy in that context is exemplified by the secret ballot, which... the legislation ALA has just endorsed does away with.Clear now?

What it looks like to me is that groups looking to organize can be represented by a negotiator, rather than a vote by the group, if a majority of the membership sign agreements to that effect."Secret ballot" usually means the right for citizens of a government to have their votes kept secret to prevent coersion or bribery. It doesn't mean the voting in private groups or NGOs.Further, ALA's commitment to privacy is generally understood to apply to library records, reading materials and the like.Has the ALA taken a previous position on voting procedures and labor unions before?What exactly is hypocritical about this?

That would be the part where it says "the Board shall not direct an election." Just more delightful ALA hypocrisy.

I'm not a citizen journalist Chuck and I'm more then happy to take them at their word that they support this legislation. If you are the one who doubts them then feel free to ask them.

Subscribe to Comments for "ALA-APA opposes privacy"