Workers need free choice act

[SpidermanTuba]

No, workers need to be able to express a vote without fear of retaliation and intimidation.

There is no reason for this to be open ballot outside of giving Unions the names of those that oppose it, so they can intimidate them into a new postion.

What about intimidation by the employer? Does that even exist in your twisted little fantasy land or are you seriously that fucked up?

 

[DiveCon]

No, workers need to be able to express a vote without fear of retaliation and intimidation.

There is no reason for this to be open ballot outside of giving Unions the names of those that oppose it, so they can intimidate them into a new postion.

What about intimidation by the employer? Does that even exist in your twisted little fantasy land or are you seriously that fucked up?

if its a secret ballot, then no one can intimidate, right?

 

[Xenophon]

No, workers need to be able to express a vote without fear of retaliation and intimidation.

There is no reason for this to be open ballot outside of giving Unions the names of those that oppose it, so they can intimidate them into a new postion.

What about intimidation by the employer? Does that even exist in your twisted little fantasy land or are you seriously that fucked up?

Enjoy the neg rep I sent back to you, you little pussy.

 

[manu1959]

there we go again with the old outdated jimmy hoffa mobster/gangster union fairytale bias...some people will never change opinions I guess!

you should try and not join the carpenters union in san francisco.....

 

[Annie]

A recent Survey suggest that as much as 80% of the population have no desire to join any union anywhere at anytime excdcept for their local credit union. Since the Unions can't win fair and square and they Dems need those union dues to have any shot at winning and election guess what there going to try to shove unions down our thraot right along with socialized medicine, and assorted soak the rich schmes that'll wind up leaving the rest of us jobless.

Kausfiles : "Card Check" Not as Bad as Thought! It's Worse.

"Card Check" Not as Bad as Thought! It's Worse.
Where's my Wii? At a 7:30 AM (!) "card check" breakfast debate (podcast available here) I learned the following:

1) In the "card check" bill, if a newly unionized employer can't reach an agreement with the new union, an arbitrator will step in and impose a two-year contract. I thought Jennifer Rubin must be wrong when she said that this arbitrator would be a government employee:

That's what we are talking about here: a government official sent into a private workplace to order, in the absence of a voluntary agreement between labor and management, the employer to abide by a government-dictated contract. If this seems like an appalling intrusion into the operation of private businesses, it is.

This is far more extreme than the National Industrial Recovery Act of the New Deal, which at least allowed industries to devise their own "codes." In the case of the EFCA, the government would be in the position to directly set wages, benefits, and work rules for any business with a union agreement.

That seems like a parody of liberal Washington meddling. It's one thing for employer and union to have to abide by the decision of a mutually selected third party. It's another to have a strange bureaucrat from D.C. come and tell everyone how to run things--not just setting a minimum wage but setting wages and job categories up and down the hierarchy. I figured Rubin was being alarmist.

But it turns out Rubin is right. Or at least she might be right. The arbitration parts of the card check bill are so vaguely drawn that nobody knows who the arbitrators will be. The job appears to be delegated entirely to the Federal Mediation Service. The FMS might decide to use its own employees. It might decide to use arbitrators from the private sector selected along more traditional lines. The two breakfast debaters (Prof. Richard Epstein and attorney Anthony Segall) did seem to agree that, since thousands of arbitrators might quickly be needed for the expected explosion of mandatory arbitration, it's unlikely they would all be newly hired GS-12s. But they don't know...

Links and lots more at site.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No, workers need to be able to express a vote without fear of retaliation and intimidation.

There is no reason for this to be open ballot outside of giving Unions the names of those that oppose it, so they can intimidate them into a new postion.

What about intimidation by the employer? Does that even exist in your twisted little fantasy land or are you seriously that fucked up?

if its a secret ballot, then no one can intimidate, right?

Only the employer can, because they employer pays the paycheck.

 

[DiveCon]

What about intimidation by the employer? Does that even exist in your twisted little fantasy land or are you seriously that fucked up?

if its a secret ballot, then no one can intimidate, right?

Only the employer can, because they employer pays the paycheck.

WRONG, in a secret ballot the employer wouldnt know which way any employee voted

 

[SpidermanTuba]

if its a secret ballot, then no one can intimidate, right?

Only the employer can, because they employer pays the paycheck.

WRONG, in a secret ballot the employer wouldnt know which way any employee voted

As is well pointed out in the editorial at the top of this thread, he doesn't have to, he just tells the employees that if they vote to unionize he'll shut down the entire plant (or restaurant or store or whatever). He doesn't even have to be telling the truth, so long as he can convince them that unionizing would mean they would lose their jobs. Eliminating the employer's right to demand a secret ballot would help to end this.

 

[DiveCon]

Only the employer can, because they employer pays the paycheck.

WRONG, in a secret ballot the employer wouldnt know which way any employee voted

As is well pointed out in the editorial at the top of this thread, he doesn't have to, he just tells the employees that if they vote to unionize he'll shut down the entire plant (or restaurant or store or whatever). He doesn't even have to be telling the truth, so long as he can convince them that unionizing would mean they would lose their jobs. Eliminating the employer's right to demand a secret ballot would help to end this.

he could do that either way

and BTW, its not the EMPLOYERS rights in question, its the EMPLOYEES rights
you dont seem to have a clue what is being discussed here

 

[SpidermanTuba]

WRONG, in a secret ballot the employer wouldnt know which way any employee voted

As is well pointed out in the editorial at the top of this thread, he doesn't have to, he just tells the employees that if they vote to unionize he'll shut down the entire plant (or restaurant or store or whatever). He doesn't even have to be telling the truth, so long as he can convince them that unionizing would mean they would lose their jobs. Eliminating the employer's right to demand a secret ballot would help to end this.

he could do that either way

Not allowing him to reject the results of a card check and demand a secret ballot would eliminate a significantly large time window in which the employer can use collective intimidation tactics to threaten the workers. The union doesn't have any collective intimidation tactics at its disposal - its not paying the worker's paychecks.


I'm not really sure where this principle of all votes having anything to do with anything must be secret or else came from, it appears to be what your argument is based on. The Senate and the House regularly hold non-secret ballots. Many states hold non-secret ballots in the form of party caucuses for the Presidential primary. In fact, the electors for President of the United States were chosen in some states by non-secret ballot for the first 100 years of our Republic. There is in fact nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says anything about a secret ballot.

 

[DiveCon]

As is well pointed out in the editorial at the top of this thread, he doesn't have to, he just tells the employees that if they vote to unionize he'll shut down the entire plant (or restaurant or store or whatever). He doesn't even have to be telling the truth, so long as he can convince them that unionizing would mean they would lose their jobs. Eliminating the employer's right to demand a secret ballot would help to end this.

he could do that either way

Not allowing him to reject the results of a card check and demand a secret ballot would eliminate a significantly large time window in which the employer can use collective intimidation tactics to threaten the workers. The union doesn't have any collective intimidation tactics at its disposal - its not paying the worker's paychecks.


I'm not really sure where this principle of all votes having anything to do with anything must be secret or else came from, it appears to be what your argument is based on. The Senate and the House regularly hold non-secret ballots. Many states hold non-secret ballots in the form of party caucuses for the Presidential primary. In fact, the electors for President of the United States were chosen in some states by non-secret ballot for the first 100 years of our Republic. There is in fact nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says anything about a secret ballot.

your arguments are specious at best
and i have countered them completely

its not the employer that calls for the vote
and those card are only asking "do you want a vote"
the same thing as a petition to put something on the ballot
i might sign the petition, but that doesnt say what way i would vote

 

[SpidermanTuba]

he could do that either way

Not allowing him to reject the results of a card check and demand a secret ballot would eliminate a significantly large time window in which the employer can use collective intimidation tactics to threaten the workers. The union doesn't have any collective intimidation tactics at its disposal - its not paying the worker's paychecks.


I'm not really sure where this principle of all votes having anything to do with anything must be secret or else came from, it appears to be what your argument is based on. The Senate and the House regularly hold non-secret ballots. Many states hold non-secret ballots in the form of party caucuses for the Presidential primary. In fact, the electors for President of the United States were chosen in some states by non-secret ballot for the first 100 years of our Republic. There is in fact nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says anything about a secret ballot.

your arguments are specious at best
and i have countered them completely

its not the employer that calls for the vote
and those card are only asking "do you want a vote"
the same thing as a petition to put something on the ballot
i might sign the petition, but that doesnt say what way i would vote

It isn't like that, actually. If a card check results in a majority of employees signing the card, then unionization occurs without a secret ballot unless the employer demands a secret ballot. Go educate yourself about what you're talking about and get back to me.

 

[DiveCon]

Not allowing him to reject the results of a card check and demand a secret ballot would eliminate a significantly large time window in which the employer can use collective intimidation tactics to threaten the workers. The union doesn't have any collective intimidation tactics at its disposal - its not paying the worker's paychecks.


I'm not really sure where this principle of all votes having anything to do with anything must be secret or else came from, it appears to be what your argument is based on. The Senate and the House regularly hold non-secret ballots. Many states hold non-secret ballots in the form of party caucuses for the Presidential primary. In fact, the electors for President of the United States were chosen in some states by non-secret ballot for the first 100 years of our Republic. There is in fact nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says anything about a secret ballot.

your arguments are specious at best
and i have countered them completely

its not the employer that calls for the vote
and those card are only asking "do you want a vote"
the same thing as a petition to put something on the ballot
i might sign the petition, but that doesnt say what way i would vote

It isn't like that, actually. If a card check results in a majority of employees signing the card, then unionization occurs without a secret ballot unless the employer demands a secret ballot. Go educate yourself about what you're talking about and get back to me.

your full of shit, as usual
fuck off

 

[SpidermanTuba]

your arguments are specious at best
and i have countered them completely

its not the employer that calls for the vote
and those card are only asking "do you want a vote"
the same thing as a petition to put something on the ballot
i might sign the petition, but that doesnt say what way i would vote

It isn't like that, actually. If a card check results in a majority of employees signing the card, then unionization occurs without a secret ballot unless the employer demands a secret ballot. Go educate yourself about what you're talking about and get back to me.

your full of shit, as usual
fuck off

Have you ever even seen one of these cards?

It says "I authorize a local union of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer."


It doesn't say "I want a secret ballot election to determine if the employees at my workplace want union representation" - its not a petition, its a vote for unionization.

 

[DiveCon]

It isn't like that, actually. If a card check results in a majority of employees signing the card, then unionization occurs without a secret ballot unless the employer demands a secret ballot. Go educate yourself about what you're talking about and get back to me.

your full of shit, as usual
fuck off

Have you ever even seen one of these cards?

It says "I authorize a local union of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer."


It doesn't say "I want a secret ballot election to determine if the employees at my workplace want union representation" - its not a petition, its a vote for unionization.

then they have changed them


actually, that looks like the card you do after the union is already representing the rest of the employees and you wish to join

 

[SpidermanTuba]

your full of shit, as usual
fuck off

Have you ever even seen one of these cards?

It says "I authorize a local union of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer."


It doesn't say "I want a secret ballot election to determine if the employees at my workplace want union representation" - its not a petition, its a vote for unionization.

then they have changed them


actually, that looks like the card you do after the union is already representing the rest of the employees and you wish to join

Now you're just full of shit

 

[DiveCon]

Have you ever even seen one of these cards?

It says "I authorize a local union of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer."


It doesn't say "I want a secret ballot election to determine if the employees at my workplace want union representation" - its not a petition, its a vote for unionization.

then they have changed them


actually, that looks like the card you do after the union is already representing the rest of the employees and you wish to join

Now you're just full of shit

no, you remain the one full of shit

 

[Gunny]

from the Toledo Blade letters to the editor.

Judging by his Feb. 14 column, which mischaracterized the Employee Free Choice Act, Roger R. Geiger could benefit from the perspective of a nonmanagement worker who has actually been through a union-organizing campaign.

When coworkers at my long-term care facility began meeting to unionize about six years ago, our boss reacted by putting every possible obstacle in our way.

Despite Mr. Geiger's claim, most union elections bear no resemblance to political elections in a free society. How often in political elections, after all, does one candidate directly control your pay, work schedule, and employment status?

Workers' free-speech rights are regularly squelched during mandatory, one-sided presentations designed to mislead and frighten. It is patronizing for Mr. Geiger to describe these manipulative, captive-audience sessions as a "courtesy." Employers also practice various forms of economic coercion taken straight out of their union-busting consultants' playbook, including favoritism and empty threats of workplace closure. If those tactics fail, current labor law encourages anti-union employers to use drawn-out appeals so they can delay recognizing the will of their workers indefinitely.

Contrary to Mr. Geiger's claim, the Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish elections or "secret ballots." Under the proposed legislation, workers get to choose which way we want to unionize: either by elections or majority sign-up. Current law unfairly lets employers make that choice, instead of the workers who are directly involved.

Studies show the experiences that I've had are typical of what workers undergo during organizing attempts. We need to return fairness to the workplace and true choice to America's workers, which is why Congress should pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Karen Kirkwood

toledoblade.com --

Trade unions and the UN have a lot in common. They both look good on paper, but in reality are a joke of what they are supposed to be.

Scrap 'em and start over with something realistic that actually benefits both employer and employee.

 

[driveby]

Have you ever even seen one of these cards?

It says "I authorize a local union of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer."


It doesn't say "I want a secret ballot election to determine if the employees at my workplace want union representation" - its not a petition, its a vote for unionization.

then they have changed them


actually, that looks like the card you do after the union is already representing the rest of the employees and you wish to join

Now you're just full of shit

did you neg rep anyone with MORE rep than you, pussy ?

 

[michiganFats]

It isn't like that, actually. If a card check results in a majority of employees signing the card, then unionization occurs without a secret ballot unless the employer demands a secret ballot. Go educate yourself about what you're talking about and get back to me.

your full of shit, as usual
fuck off

Have you ever even seen one of these cards?

It says "I authorize a local union of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer."


It doesn't say "I want a secret ballot election to determine if the employees at my workplace want union representation" - its not a petition, its a vote for unionization.

I've seen that card(except mine weren't for the IBEW). If enough of those cards are signed, then an election is authorized. That is all it does.