Still Up To Their Marxist Tricks

[WillowTree]

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News

Reporting from Washington - At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

The Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, "We better not see you on again," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."










Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News -- latimes.com
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News

Reporting from Washington - At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

The Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, "We better not see you on again," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."


Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News -- latimes.com
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.

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

 

[WillowTree]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

see the problem is that your "believe" button is broken!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

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.

 

[Polk]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

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.

Because we know employers would never ever intimidate their employees.

 

[Otter_Creek]

Good thing ol' Bush didn't pull these stunt's. Can you imagine the outrage from the leftista demoncrap's?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political thuggery, which is what I believe willow is referring to, is part of the teabaggers' act, not the White House.

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.

Because we know employers would never ever intimidate their employees.

What a wonderful opportunity my friend Polk gives us for, as our President, Peace be on him, calls a 'teaching moment.'

1. We conservatives believe that data informs policy. So I will provide data that our friend may not be aware of (sorry to end a sentence with a preposition).

2. Here is evidence that our friends on the left are simply uninformed, and not aware of all that we on the right are.

3. Further evidence that the minions of the left cannot see the big picture. Their manipulators feed them one little bit at a time, and they accept them in that form, as I suspect our friend Polk would be taken aback if the administration said "Hey, let's all be communists from now on!"

4. And, watch this space for further developments, as I predict that Polk will simply ignore the evidence about to be unveiled.


Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 81% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)
Rasmussen found that even workers in companies who were in danger of losing their jobs, it was still only 9%. What do the 81% know about union membership that the 9% don’t? One can only conjecture.

In the 1950s some 1/3 of all private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now only 7.6% of nongovernment workers belong to one. From 1997to 2004, private sector employment grew from 66.1 to 103.6 million, but union membership declined from 14.3 to 8.2 million. (AEAweb: Annual Meeting Papers)
At the same time, unionization of government jobs is five times higher (Union Members Summary) . Could it be that the concern of private companies for profits, and maximizing shareholder value, and workers choosing opportunity over job security explain the disparity? Or, in more loaded terminology, choosing capitalism over socialism.

So, what are the strategies of union organizers? First, they continue to talk like its still 1930, and the many laws that protect workers from management abuse don’t exist. Victimology, the hallmark of the left.

The NLRB received 22, 497 unfair-labor-practices charges in 2008. But of those, 6,210 were filed against unions for “alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.” (http://nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Annual Reports/Entire2008Annual.pdf)

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.”

“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, they're inclined to push for bringing the Employee Free Choice Act up for a vote early next year, believing they have a narrow window to get it passed.”
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

Now, about that euphoniously named “Employee Free Choice Act,” aka ‘card check,’ if you hate capitalism, this is the bill for you! 1) it eliminates secret ballot elections in favor of public ones: just pass a paper around the office, and if a majority of employees sign on, you have a union. Get it: a little talk between you and the ‘organizers.” 2) the bill has no safeguards that mandate what ‘voting’ cards must look like, and 3) it would impose binding government arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach agreement within 90 days of a ‘new’ union being certified. (Arbitration the real threat in EFCA - Newt Gingrich - POLITICO.com)

So, the Feds inform the employer of the ‘new salary and benefits.” Who owns the company? Is this capitalism or communism?

BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING | LABOR; Union Is Accused of Violations - New York Times)

This is what Andy Stern, SEIU president said: “This is not a financial issue. We need to respond t the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity our members created by helping elect President Obama.” Once again, why join a union?


How about it Polk?

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

 

[California Girl]

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.

Because we know employers would never ever intimidate their employees.

What a wonderful opportunity my friend Polk gives us for, as our President, Peace be on him, calls a 'teaching moment.'

1. We conservatives believe that data informs policy. So I will provide data that our friend may not bee aware of (sorry to end a sentence with a preposition).

2. Here is evidence that our friends on the left are simply uninformed, and not aware of all that we on the right are.

3. Further evidence that the minions of the left cannot see the big picture. Their manipulators feed them one little bit at a time, and they accept them in that form, as I suspect our friend Polk would be taken aback if the administration said "Hey, let's all be communists from now on!"

4. And, watch this space for furthe developments, as I predict that Polk will simply ignore the evidence about to be unveiled.


Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 81% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)
Rasmussen found that even workers in companies who were in danger of losing their jobs, it was still only 9%. What do the 81% know about union membership that the 9% don’t? One can only conjecture.

In the 1950s some 1/3 of all private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now only 7.6% of nongovernment workers belong to one. From 1997to 2004, private sector employment grew from 66.1 to 103.6 million, but union membership declined from 14.3 to 8.2 million. (AEAweb: Annual Meeting Papers)
At the same time, unionization of government jobs is five times higher (Union Members Summary) . Could it be that the concern of private companies for profits, and maximizing shareholder value, and workers choosing opportunity over job security explain the disparity? Or, in more loaded terminology, choosing capitalism over socialism.

So, what are the strategies of union organizers? First, they continue to talk like its still 1930, and the many laws that protect workers from management abuse don’t exist. Victimology, the hallmark of the left.

The NLRB received 22, 497 unfair-labor-practices charges in 2008. But of those, 6,210 were filed against unions for “alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.” (http://nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Annual Reports/Entire2008Annual.pdf)

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.”

“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, they're inclined to push for bringing the Employee Free Choice Act up for a vote early next year, believing they have a narrow window to get it passed.”
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

Now, about that euphoniously named “Employee Free Choice Act,” aka ‘card check,’ if you hate capitalism, this is the bill for you! 1) it eliminates secret ballot elections in favor of public ones: just pass a paper around the office, and if a majority of employees sign on, you have a union. Get it: a little talk between you and the ‘organizers.” 2) the bill has no safeguards that mandate what ‘voting’ cards must look like, and 3) it would impose binding government arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach agreement within 90 days of a ‘new’ union being certified. (Arbitration the real threat in EFCA - Newt Gingrich - POLITICO.com)

So, the Feds inform the employer of the ‘new salary and benefits.” Who owns the company? Is this capitalism or communism?

BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING | LABOR; Union Is Accused of Violations - New York Times)

This is what Andy Stern, SEIU president said: “This is not a financial issue. We need to respond t the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity our members created by helping elect President Obama.” Once again, why join a union?


How about it Polk?

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

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."

 

[rightwinger]

Can you explain what makes any of this crap marxist?

I guess this makes Dick Cheney Karl Marx himself!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can you explain what makes any of this crap marxist?

I guess this makes Dick Cheney Karl Marx himself!

Ive noticed in several threads that instead of ignoring salient and dispositive item, you claim not to see the relevance.

Are you playing dumb/

Are you playing?

 

[Polk]

You can drop the smug "if only you were better informed" routine, because your post was loaded down with falsehoods.

 

[Polk]

Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 81% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)

In the 1950s some 1/3 of all private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now only 7.6% of nongovernment workers belong to one. From 1997to 2004, private sector employment grew from 66.1 to 103.6 million, but union membership declined from 14.3 to 8.2 million. (AEAweb: Annual Meeting Papers)
At the same time, unionization of government jobs is five times higher (Union Members Summary) . Could it be that the concern of private companies for profits, and maximizing shareholder value, and workers choosing opportunity over job security explain the disparity? Or, in more loaded terminology, choosing capitalism over socialism.

Getting a lecture on math from someone who can't subtract. That's pricless. Newsflash: 100 minus nine is 91, not 81.

And the rate of unionization has declined because many states passed laws (right to free ride provisions) over that span which effectively outlawed labor unions.

 

[Polk]

So, what are the strategies of union organizers? First, they continue to talk like its still 1930, and the many laws that protect workers from management abuse don’t exist. Victimology, the hallmark of the left.

The NLRB received 22, 497 unfair-labor-practices charges in 2008. But of those, 6,210 were filed against unions for “alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees.” (http://nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Annual Reports/Entire2008Annual.pdf)

6,210 charges filed against unions, over a period during which 16,179 violations were committed by employers. AKA, you're more that twice as likely to have your employer commit a labor law violation.

 

[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.

 

[Polk]

“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, they're inclined to push for bringing the Employee Free Choice Act up for a vote early next year, believing they have a narrow window to get it passed.”
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

Now, about that euphoniously named “Employee Free Choice Act,” aka ‘card check,’ if you hate capitalism, this is the bill for you! 1) it eliminates secret ballot elections in favor of public ones: just pass a paper around the office, and if a majority of employees sign on, you have a union. Get it: a little talk between you and the ‘organizers.” 2) the bill has no safeguards that mandate what ‘voting’ cards must look like, and 3) it would impose binding government arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach agreement within 90 days of a ‘new’ union being certified. (Arbitration the real threat in EFCA - Newt Gingrich - POLITICO.com)

So, the Feds inform the employer of the ‘new salary and benefits.” Who owns the company? Is this capitalism or communism?

BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING | LABOR; Union Is Accused of Violations - New York Times)

This is what Andy Stern, SEIU president said: “This is not a financial issue. We need to respond t the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity our members created by helping elect President Obama.” Once again, why join a union?


How about it Polk?

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

The Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot. That's a lie put out by business interests in an attempt to kill the bill. The bill places the choice where it should be: with the workers. Majority signup to form a union isn't new. It's already a method allowed under current law. The only difference this bill makes is that it allows workers to make the decision instead of the employer. Why is this important? Because employers will always choose an election so they'll have the lead time to apply illegal pressure to organizers. Organizers are routinely fired during this period to set an example to other employers who dare "make trouble" by exercising their legal rights. The arbitration provisions are necessary because even if the illegal attempts to suppress the vote fail, employers often refuse to negotate with the union (a violation of existing law).

 

[PoliticalChic]

“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, they're inclined to push for bringing the Employee Free Choice Act up for a vote early next year, believing they have a narrow window to get it passed.”
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

Now, about that euphoniously named “Employee Free Choice Act,” aka ‘card check,’ if you hate capitalism, this is the bill for you! 1) it eliminates secret ballot elections in favor of public ones: just pass a paper around the office, and if a majority of employees sign on, you have a union. Get it: a little talk between you and the ‘organizers.” 2) the bill has no safeguards that mandate what ‘voting’ cards must look like, and 3) it would impose binding government arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach agreement within 90 days of a ‘new’ union being certified. (Arbitration the real threat in EFCA - Newt Gingrich - POLITICO.com)

So, the Feds inform the employer of the ‘new salary and benefits.” Who owns the company? Is this capitalism or communism?

BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING | LABOR; Union Is Accused of Violations - New York Times)

This is what Andy Stern, SEIU president said: “This is not a financial issue. We need to respond t the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity our members created by helping elect President Obama.” Once again, why join a union?


How about it Polk?

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

The Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot. That's a lie put out by business interests in an attempt to kill the bill. The bill places the choice where it should be: with the workers. Majority signup to form a union isn't new. It's already a method allowed under current law. The only difference this bill makes is that it allows workers to make the decision instead of the employer. Why is this important? Because employers will always choose an election so they'll have the lead time to apply illegal pressure to organizers. Organizers are routinely fired during this period to set an example to other employers who dare "make trouble" by exercising their legal rights. The arbitration provisions are necessary because even if the illegal attempts to suppress the vote fail, employers often refuse to negotate with the union (a violation of existing law).

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can drop the smug "if only you were better informed" routine, because your post was loaded down with falsehoods.

Protocol requires you to then list, hopefully in bullet-points, said errors.

Further, links and quotes would be appreciated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 81% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)

In the 1950s some 1/3 of all private-sector workers belonged to a union. Now only 7.6% of nongovernment workers belong to one. From 1997to 2004, private sector employment grew from 66.1 to 103.6 million, but union membership declined from 14.3 to 8.2 million. (AEAweb: Annual Meeting Papers)
At the same time, unionization of government jobs is five times higher (Union Members Summary) . Could it be that the concern of private companies for profits, and maximizing shareholder value, and workers choosing opportunity over job security explain the disparity? Or, in more loaded terminology, choosing capitalism over socialism.

Getting a lecture on math from someone who can't subtract. That's pricless. Newsflash: 100 minus nine is 91, not 81.

And the rate of unionization has declined because many states passed laws (right to free ride provisions) over that span which effectively outlawed labor unions.

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.

 

[Polk]

“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, they're inclined to push for bringing the Employee Free Choice Act up for a vote early next year, believing they have a narrow window to get it passed.”
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

Now, about that euphoniously named “Employee Free Choice Act,” aka ‘card check,’ if you hate capitalism, this is the bill for you! 1) it eliminates secret ballot elections in favor of public ones: just pass a paper around the office, and if a majority of employees sign on, you have a union. Get it: a little talk between you and the ‘organizers.” 2) the bill has no safeguards that mandate what ‘voting’ cards must look like, and 3) it would impose binding government arbitration if the employer and union fail to reach agreement within 90 days of a ‘new’ union being certified. (Arbitration the real threat in EFCA - Newt Gingrich - POLITICO.com)

So, the Feds inform the employer of the ‘new salary and benefits.” Who owns the company? Is this capitalism or communism?

BTW, while lobbying for the EFCA, the SEIU fired 75 of its 220 employees, ‘cause, you know, they needed that $60 million for Obama, so the employees filed an NLRB unfair practices suit. (NATIONAL BRIEFING | LABOR; Union Is Accused of Violations - New York Times)

This is what Andy Stern, SEIU president said: “This is not a financial issue. We need to respond t the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity our members created by helping elect President Obama.” Once again, why join a union?


How about it Polk?

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

The Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot. That's a lie put out by business interests in an attempt to kill the bill. The bill places the choice where it should be: with the workers. Majority signup to form a union isn't new. It's already a method allowed under current law. The only difference this bill makes is that it allows workers to make the decision instead of the employer. Why is this important? Because employers will always choose an election so they'll have the lead time to apply illegal pressure to organizers. Organizers are routinely fired during this period to set an example to other employers who dare "make trouble" by exercising their legal rights. The arbitration provisions are necessary because even if the illegal attempts to suppress the vote fail, employers often refuse to negotate with the union (a violation of existing law).

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.