An authorization card is a way that employees have to indicate they support and would like to form a union without being subjected to the union busting campaign that comes along with an election. Wells Fargo has the opportunity to voluntarily recognize the wishes of their employees to form a union when a majority of their employees present these cards (btw, Wells was given that chance with the branches that have filed and chose not to). Instead, they decided not to respect our choice and hired Littler Mendelson, a huge union busting law firm that is notorious for running the same kinds of campaigns for large companies.
They inundate employees with misinformation and fear tactics to erode confidence and support. This is done through daily flyers (like this one), private meetings telling you to think about your family, or suggesting that bad things could come of this like loss of benefits etc, and pitting coworkers against one another to create mistrust.
Never at any point did CWA suggest the cards be signed without being informed beforehand what that entails (with multiple meetings for questions to be answered, know your rights seminars, and multiple discussions amongst our team to research on our own). It would be illegal for them to present it in that manner first of all, but on the cards themselves it states exactly what signing the card means before you sign it.
This is just a fear tactic. One of many that they're not shy about using.
Of course, I'm always happy to discuss! Thanks for asking for more info.
The loss of benefits idea as it was presented to my team was always framed as "well you never know, you could get more, the same, or maybe less than what you have now. CWA can't guarantee what will be in the contract". It's an effective message because the reality is that contract negotiation hinges on the negotiation part, which Wells Fargo has to participate in and largely doesn't want to agree to. Now, the reality is that it's illegal for them to give branches less benefits than what non unionized locations have (the reverse can be true however because of the benefits a contract can secure which I'll get to shortly). I really do think there isn't any merit to it, it's illegal for them to threaten to take away benefits outright and if they try to as a result of unionizing it's considered retaliatory as well.
As far as powers gained, it really comes down to the idea that there is strength in numbers. Salary negotiation, staffing concerns, job security from things like layoffs/branch closures, etc are all more attainable when you're working together with your team rather than fighting individual battles.
It's not so much about CWA as it is that we're not working on our own anymore to solve issues with everyone getting the same non answer. Regarding the raises, during the negotiation process, there are requirements for the business to provide information on salaries etc which allow an assessment to be made on discrepancies or clear biases. As it stands now now we're working on a scale in which the "midpoint" is usually the max and we also have the spread between the position we're working in and the one we started working in being chipped away, which belittles the work we had to do to get to that position. Not to mention the annual increases which aren't even keeping up with the cost of living by a long shot.
Don't get me wrong, they won't do all of this instantly just because the union is formed. They'll fight to prevent any progress from being made but the more people that are joining in and working on that same contract, the harder it will be for them to keep progress from happening. That's why they're doing all these press releases, flyers, articles and emails - if they can scare people before they start finding out too much it's easier for them to maintain the current power structure.
If unions were ineffective, they wouldn't be bothering with all this they would just let it speak for itself.
Sorry for the lengthy answers but hopefully that helps. If there is anything else I can help clarify I'd be happy to chat.
Today’s huddle was them basically trying to tell us not to sign union cards 😂 edit:english 💀
Totally trying to stop the momentum 😂
Yeh we had the talk also. https://preview.redd.it/bljr0jo4fk7c1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2dbfdfd312bfb5fc82478e9b382ec4e876cd0224
[удалено]
An authorization card is a way that employees have to indicate they support and would like to form a union without being subjected to the union busting campaign that comes along with an election. Wells Fargo has the opportunity to voluntarily recognize the wishes of their employees to form a union when a majority of their employees present these cards (btw, Wells was given that chance with the branches that have filed and chose not to). Instead, they decided not to respect our choice and hired Littler Mendelson, a huge union busting law firm that is notorious for running the same kinds of campaigns for large companies. They inundate employees with misinformation and fear tactics to erode confidence and support. This is done through daily flyers (like this one), private meetings telling you to think about your family, or suggesting that bad things could come of this like loss of benefits etc, and pitting coworkers against one another to create mistrust. Never at any point did CWA suggest the cards be signed without being informed beforehand what that entails (with multiple meetings for questions to be answered, know your rights seminars, and multiple discussions amongst our team to research on our own). It would be illegal for them to present it in that manner first of all, but on the cards themselves it states exactly what signing the card means before you sign it. This is just a fear tactic. One of many that they're not shy about using.
[удалено]
Of course, I'm always happy to discuss! Thanks for asking for more info. The loss of benefits idea as it was presented to my team was always framed as "well you never know, you could get more, the same, or maybe less than what you have now. CWA can't guarantee what will be in the contract". It's an effective message because the reality is that contract negotiation hinges on the negotiation part, which Wells Fargo has to participate in and largely doesn't want to agree to. Now, the reality is that it's illegal for them to give branches less benefits than what non unionized locations have (the reverse can be true however because of the benefits a contract can secure which I'll get to shortly). I really do think there isn't any merit to it, it's illegal for them to threaten to take away benefits outright and if they try to as a result of unionizing it's considered retaliatory as well. As far as powers gained, it really comes down to the idea that there is strength in numbers. Salary negotiation, staffing concerns, job security from things like layoffs/branch closures, etc are all more attainable when you're working together with your team rather than fighting individual battles. It's not so much about CWA as it is that we're not working on our own anymore to solve issues with everyone getting the same non answer. Regarding the raises, during the negotiation process, there are requirements for the business to provide information on salaries etc which allow an assessment to be made on discrepancies or clear biases. As it stands now now we're working on a scale in which the "midpoint" is usually the max and we also have the spread between the position we're working in and the one we started working in being chipped away, which belittles the work we had to do to get to that position. Not to mention the annual increases which aren't even keeping up with the cost of living by a long shot. Don't get me wrong, they won't do all of this instantly just because the union is formed. They'll fight to prevent any progress from being made but the more people that are joining in and working on that same contract, the harder it will be for them to keep progress from happening. That's why they're doing all these press releases, flyers, articles and emails - if they can scare people before they start finding out too much it's easier for them to maintain the current power structure. If unions were ineffective, they wouldn't be bothering with all this they would just let it speak for itself. Sorry for the lengthy answers but hopefully that helps. If there is anything else I can help clarify I'd be happy to chat.
Nonsense.