|
The Problem
In the past three years alone, the Department of Labor investigated 367 union elections for procedural irregularities and ordered that 96 officer elections be rerun. What do those elections have in common with yours? Like you, those unions had successfully conducted elections in the past and never expected that one of their elections would become the target of an investigation.
The vast majority of challenges had one thing in common. The challenged elections were conducted by mail-ballot.
Elections have become increasingly complex over time. The DoL’s interpretation of the LMRDA requirements for voter secrecy, safeguards, controls, observation, accuracy, and accountability has grown stricter as well.
Stricter interpretation of the LMRDA means that, for all practical purposes, it has become virtually impossible to fully comply with OLMS guidelines when conducting elections by mail. There are simply too many procedures, too many manual steps, and too many ways to fall out of compliance.
Why is LMRDA compliance unrealistic for elections conducted using a mail-balloting process?
Running a mail-ballot election is a lot like trying to build a car from salvaged parts. The parts were never designed to work together. You may be able to get your car to run, but it is unlikely that it will ever run smoothly—and your odds of a breakdown are high.
In the same way, mail ballots are the wrong approach for meeting your officer election needs. Sure, mail ballots allow union members to vote, and for years mail balloting was the best solution out there—but it was an approach cobbled together out of processes that were never really designed to go together. Like the car built from spare parts, mail-ballot elections rarely run smoothly and the odds of a breakdown in any given election are high.
Mail balloting works, in theory. But in practice, how confident are you that your team can run a mail-ballot election well enough to protect against a challenge?
|
