Still Up To Their Marxist Tricks

[Polk]

Second, instead of improving workers’ benefits, unions have become political action committees: take money from workers to give to politicians to help them get elected, and then politicians pass laws that make ‘capitalism’ moot. SEIU President Andy Stern: “We spent a fortune t elect Barack Obama- $60.7 million, to be exact- and we’re proud of it.”

And? Money used for union PAC committees are independent of membership dues. Anyone who contributes to the union PAC does so knowing that the money is going to be used to support pro-labor politicians.

See, now you're resorting to the "Libral Libretto"

Rule 6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’


You know very well that I said:
"Second, instead of improving workers’ benefits, unions have become political action committees: take money from workers to give to politicians to help them get elected, and then politicians pass laws that make ‘capitalism’ moot. SEIU President Andy Stern: “We spent a fortune t elect Barack Obama- $60.7 million, to be exact- and we’re proud of it.”

You are trying to conflate my statement with actual political action committees. Sneaky, but transparent. My point is that the entire union movement is to camoflage political action.

And I even gave that great SEIU example, completely documented in the post, of firing workers and claiming they needed the money to support President Obama!

Boy, you're really slipping.
When you came back, I was hoping for a better workout.

Your claims that union dues were used for finance political advertising is not true. If you have evidence of that, you shouldn't be talking to me, you should be talking to the FBI, since it's illegal to use union dues for political advertising.

 

[Polk]

Polky-

Glad to see you return to the fray!

I must remember to remove you from the category of lefties who ignore and play dumb.
Congrats!

And thanks for catching the 100-9 error. I don't know how I could have.

Now for the joust.
Your post is far more of an exaggeration than mine. While it is true that "The Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot..." I'm sure that a bright fellow like you can guess what will happen.

No? Then read the following:
"Organized labor's highest legislative priority is the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). EFCA replaces secret ballot elections—the method by which most workers join unions—with publicly signed union cards. While eliminating secret ballots is extremely unpopular, many EFCA support*ers argue that the legislation merely gives workers the choice between organizing using secret ballots or pub*licly signed cards. This argument is false; nothing in the legislation gives workers any control over union organizing tactics. Though EFCA still allows for secret ballot elections under unusual circumstances, stan*dard union organizing tactics ensure that publicly signed union cards will dominate the recognition pro*cess. As a result, the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act effectively eliminates secret ballot elections."
Employee Free Choice Act Effectively Eliminates Secret Ballot Organizing Elections

Surely you cannot, with a straight face, continue the charade, or you must then argue that the $400 million given by big labor was a charitable contribution.

Ball's in your court.

I'm not saying that there won't be cases where the use of signup cards to form a union results in abuse. I'm simply stating the alternative is far worse. To say it eliminates the secret ballot though is fundamentally dishonest. It's still an option if the employees want it. Labor organizations helped support Obama's campaign because they felt that would increase the probability of EFCA passing. It wasn't a gift and I'd never claim it was. It's because he supports their position on the piece of legislation they see as most important.

Polky, your arguments are showing weakness.

Come on, man up.

Scenario. The organizers come around with the clipboard, suggesting that you sign up, you know, "like everyone else in the factory."
And you say, what, "Oh,no,I demand a secret ballot!"

I don't think so.

Or at least folks with less backbone than you (just tryin' to help you out) would just sign up to get the enforce- er, organizers out of their face.

Did you get this part:
"Though EFCA still allows for secret ballot elections under unusual circumstances, stan*dard union organizing tactics ensure that publicly signed union cards will dominate the recognition pro*cess. As a result, the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act effectively eliminates secret ballot elections."

Wanna try again?

It's not unusual circumstances. The process for employees to request an election is quite simple. And you're still ignoring the fact that not only to employers apply illegal pressure against those attempting to organize, they have a much stronger influence. A coworker trying to get you to sign a union card may be mad at you if you don't sign up. Your employer can fire you. That's quite a world of difference.

 

[Polk]

Touche on the math.

But you lose on the precipitous drop in union membership, as your indication that workers would choose to work in union-free worksites prove my point , not yours.

And, if you cannot show said laws "which effectively outlawed labor unions.' then the only honorable thing for you to do is admit you are wrong. Waiting.


Or- would you like to claim what is regularly the left-wing fall-back position, as stated in my "Liberal Libretto:"

Rule 3. Always assure the opposition that you know what is better for the proletariat, even if there are polls that claim the opposite.
a. Assure the compliant that you are only looking out for their best interests, as in “look, it’s not about me…”
b. Claim the public has been ‘brainwashed,’ and politicians bought.

Math mistakes happen. My tone was only because of the snarky tone you took re: my education (which was a mix of public and private, depending on the level). Can we just agree in the future to treat each other in a more respectful manner?

Workers aren't making a choice to work in union-free worksites. They don't get a choice. Right-to-work laws effectively outlaw labor unions. They don't do so in practice, but they have the practical effect of doing so. If all workers are entitled to the benefits of the union's collective bargaining even if they aren't a member, no individual has the incentive to join the union. The result is that even though workers would be able to increase their bargaining power by unionization, no individual has the incentive to do so, creating a collective action problem.

"Workers aren't making a choice to work in union-free worksites. They don't get a choice. Right-to-work laws effectively outlaw labor unions."

Whaaaaat?

And here I thougt you lived in America???

And which gulag are you writing from??

See, now you're going for that old liberal victimology thesis. This is , what is the term?
Oh, yeah. Baloney.

I believe the concept you are looking for is 'kidnapping."

Everyone I know quits and finds work elsewhere when they don't like the conditions.

Remember what I said originally, about you folks making believe we're still in the 1930's? Bingo.
And your understanding about right to work is faulty. At the least, workers must pat the equivalent of the cost of bargaining to any union at the site where they work.

No gulag. "Right-to-work" laws are some of the genius regulation thrust upon us by the conservative renaissance of the latter half of the century.

 

[Polk]

I think I gotcha again.

My original post on this topic was a counter to the smug "Because we know that employers would never ever intimidate their employees."

Know who said that? Right...you.

So I have correctly documented that 38.4% (is my math getting better?) of the cases were brought by employers, and since it would be beneath your intellect to claim that there are only twice as many employees as employers, it would seem that there should be far more NLRB complaints by employees.

I'll guess that there are 100 employees for every employer, but let's stipulate, say 10 to one. Certainly ther should be more than two to one charges by employees.

Nicht wahr?

That's working on the assumption that all cases brought against unions were brought by employers, is it not?

So you're sticking to equal numbers of employers and employees?

Or that employees are claiming that that the union members are claiming coersio by their union?

I think that's called 'clutching at straws."

I've never stated that the number of employers and employees are the same. It's obvious that some of the claims against unions are filed by employees.

 

[MaggieMae]

And in a related story, an analyst on NPR made the mistake of criticizing President Obama (Peace be on him) and was forced to apologize.

You know NPR, the public radio station that all of us pay for.

"It's pretty unremarkable to describe the Obama White House's growing enemies list -- the insurance companies, Chamber of Commerce, Fox News -- as "Nixonian." But there's one place where, if you venture such an opinion, you'd better be prepared to apologize -- quickly and profusely."

NPR analyst compares Obama to Nixon, issues full apology | Washington Examiner

So? Was it the White House who asked Rubin to apologize or was it the listeners who complained. The latter.

I get it: it's going to be the "I don't get it, I can't connect the dots."

Now, if you were rdeanie-weenie, or wingy, I could believe that you don't get the point. But I know that you see

1. that the listeners didn't call Rudin directly, management did

2. that the reliably liberal NPR, paid partly with federal funds collected from liberals and conservatives, doesn't allow freedom of expression if it exposes a liberal President

3. would not even consider any apology if the President was a Republican

4. that the events would be quite different if the President in question had been George Bush; it would be more like 'I was only telling the truth.'

Now tell me that I am not correct.

Responding to both of your posts, I thought my first response to you was crystal clear. "Anonomous people" aren't exactly trustworthy was my message. The second simply was a nudge to find out if the White House (which was the accusation) actually asked this Rubid guy to apologize or if he did it because of backlash. What's not to get? Why should I go into a lengthy diatribe, like you do, to make simple points?

As for the Yankees, whoopie. I couldn't care less.

 

[MaggieMae]

On June 20, 2007 WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today called for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. For decades, the process of a work force becoming unionized has been based on a secret-ballot election. First, workers with interest in a union sign authorization cards. If 30 percent sign, the National Labor Relations Board schedules an election that the government agency supervises. A majority vote allows in a union. If this bill wins, and it will under an Obama administration, union officials would be allowed to hover over a worker seeking his signature on a card. How many would be able to resist the intimidation? Nothing subtle here.
Obama has signaled that he would sign onto a new “fairness doctrine,” which would curtail right-wing views expressed on radio. But no such restrictions for the left-wing print media or main stream broadcast TV. Repression?
The Obama campaign has supported ACORN, which fraudulently registers multitudes of individuals who are judged to vote Democrat. In effect, repressing the opposition.
Remember, Obama is a Chicago politician, from Cook County, often called “Crook County.” This may explain the above.

Good grief, you people are downright hilarious...

Don't be afraid Mag.

Spit it out.

Who are 'you people' and what's with the date?

Is this more to your liking:
"Will Obama Revive the Fairness Doctrine? [Michael G. Franc]


Those of us who fear a revival, directly or indirectly, of the Fairness Doctrine need to be aware of the following exchanges that occurred during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s January 15th confirmation hearing for Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder. The first comes from the senior Republican on the panel, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania:

SPECTER: Mr. Holder, there had been suggestions for a revival of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and my question to you is do you think that as a matter of public policy, the so-called Fairness Doctrine ought to be reinstated?


HOLDER: Senator, that's a toughie. I've not given an awful lot of thought to. If I could perhaps submit an answer to you in writing, I would have an opportunity to think about that. I wouldn't want to commit myself to something and not give you the benefit of what is my best thinking on that.

And this exchange occurred between Holder and Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions:

SESSIONS: In an April 2004 speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal group, you were at — where you asked the audience what it could do to bring about a liberal renaissance, which is a legitimate political effort to promote your beliefs.


And you singled out the media and criticized them for impeding liberal views and said, and quote, “In a short term, this will not be an easy task with the main stream media somewhat [cowed] by conservative critiques and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner. And you know what I mean there. The means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.”
Will Obama Revive the Fairness Doctrine? - Michael G. Franc - The Corner on National Review Online

I guess you'll sputter something about seeing no connection between AG Holder and President Obama.

Is the date January 23, 2009 OK with you Mag?

You need some serious help. Choke on this, from your very own FAUX reporting:

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival - FOXNews.com

 

[MaggieMae]

Ahhhh, the SEIU, champions of the underdog.... the guys who beat up a black guy selling flags at a protest meeting. Whose own President said (and I quote) "We use the power of persuasion. If that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power."

Please link where and when Obama ever made such a statement.

Maggie, what is wrong with you tonight?

You been drinkin'

The post clearly refers to Andy Stern, President SEIU, and is standard boilerplate language used by union rabble rousers.

See:

"Walter Reuther (1907-1970), president of the United Auto Workers, wrote in January 1958 about auto contract talks: “In practice this means that collective bargaining decisions must be based upon economic facts rather than economic power, for only as the power of persuasion replaces the persuasion of power can collective bargaining be made a socially responsible and constructive force.”
The Big Apple: “Only as the power of persuasion replaces the persuasion of power can collective bargaining…”

And since President Obama's (short) career is intertwined with ACORN, SEIU and other blue collar organizations, you can probably find similar language from him.


WHO ARE YOU, AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH MAGGIE???

Ah, I see, it wasn't a DIRECT quote from "President" Obama, but from the union "President"?? Correct? My bad.

I might ask you, however, who's doing the drinking (or doping). It's always been my experience with drunks that until they crash, they're terribly wordy. That would be you, not me.