Info on the Employee Free Choice Act

[BoberFett]

Insightful as usual Fern.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided.

Oh come on. People say things like this and still manage to wonder why conservatives don't get taken seriously?

Not all unions are bad. Some are, some aren't. The concept behind unions (collective bargaining) is valid. There are indeed many instances of unions demonstrating corruption, but that's not a legitimate reason to vilify the concept of collective bargaining. Now, when you start getting into the idea of "closed shops" (mandatory union membership in order to hold the job), then I agree that this is a bad thing, but again this is not an inherent part of unions.

ZV

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

Oh look, its someone who has never had a job that involves skilled labor before. Did you ever research why unions started in this country (I'm guessing no).
Look at something like this:
Ludlow Massacre

I can see you reading this and going "Well, they deserved it, fighting back against the benevolent company" however.

The Free Choice Act does not remove the secret ballot, it simply gives another method for beginning collective bargaining. The secret ballot does not go away.

Under EFCA, workers would still have the right to vote in a National Labor Review Board (NLRB) "secret ballot" election if 30 percent of the workforce signs cards, just as they do now. EFCA would change the process of union formation by giving workers seeking to join a union an additional option of winning union representation after a majority of the workforce signs cards, through a new provision to the act (section 9 c 6).

As American Rights at Work points out, this method of union sign-up, known as "majority sign-up" or "card check," is already recognized under current labor law, but only when the employer approves it. EFCA would represent a change in such union drives by removing the ability of employers to withhold recognition and to insist on an NLRB election.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided.

Oh come on. People say things like this and still manage to wonder why conservatives don't get taken seriously?

Not all unions are bad. Some are, some aren't. The concept behind unions (collective bargaining) is valid. There are indeed many instances of unions demonstrating corruption, but that's not a legitimate reason to vilify the concept of collective bargaining. Now, when you start getting into the idea of "closed shops" (mandatory union membership in order to hold the job), then I agree that this is a bad thing, but again this is not an inherent part of unions.

ZV

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

Oh look, its someone who has never had a job that involves skilled labor before. Did you ever research why unions started in this country (I'm guessing no).
Look at something like this:
Ludlow Massacre

I can see you reading this and going "Well, they deserved it, fighting back against the benevolent company" however.

The Free Choice Act does not remove the secret ballot, it simply gives another method for beginning collective bargaining. The secret ballot does not go away.

Under EFCA, workers would still have the right to vote in a National Labor Review Board (NLRB) "secret ballot" election if 30 percent of the workforce signs cards, just as they do now. EFCA would change the process of union formation by giving workers seeking to join a union an additional option of winning union representation after a majority of the workforce signs cards, through a new provision to the act (section 9 c 6).

As American Rights at Work points out, this method of union sign-up, known as "majority sign-up" or "card check," is already recognized under current labor law, but only when the employer approves it. EFCA would represent a change in such union drives by removing the ability of employers to withhold recognition and to insist on an NLRB election.

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided.

Oh come on. People say things like this and still manage to wonder why conservatives don't get taken seriously?

Not all unions are bad. Some are, some aren't. The concept behind unions (collective bargaining) is valid. There are indeed many instances of unions demonstrating corruption, but that's not a legitimate reason to vilify the concept of collective bargaining. Now, when you start getting into the idea of "closed shops" (mandatory union membership in order to hold the job), then I agree that this is a bad thing, but again this is not an inherent part of unions.

ZV

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

Why not? A better deal is better by definition. If I can get more money and the company still makes a profit... I don't see the downside.

A healthy well run company can afford to pay decent wages. What is wrong with good pay?

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

What in the holy hell are you talking about? A job is not a favor your employer is doing for you, it is a mutually beneficial contract. You don't need to feel ANY gratitude towards him whatsoever. The employer is completely taking advantage of circumstances to lower what he has to pay his employees, and yet you think that it's arrogant for employees to return the favor? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. So concentration of capital used as a bargaining advantage is okay, but concentration of labor used as a bargaining advantage is arrogant and unappreciative. Complete and utter bullshit.

Lets turn it around: an employer needs employees to provide his business with the manpower and skills he requires in order to make money. They are the hand that feeds him, and so he should approach people he wants to work for him with an attitude of humility, and when they decide to work for him he should feel some semblance of gratitude.

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to me because I suck. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

You said it's a mutually beneficial contract. I agree. That would imply that once one side believes it's no longer beneficial to them commensurate to their sacrifice, that they may withdraw from said contract. Yet unions seek to levy penalties against employers who do not meet their demands. That doesn't sound like a contract, much less a mutually-beneficial one.

Now we know why you are so bitter.


BTW ever heard of headhunting?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
Do workers need protection from employers? Do they need protection from unions? I believe the answer is 'yes' to both. Too many stories about union corruption and involvement of organized crime. Too many stories of union employees who do NOT feel they get a benefit from the union dues but are nontheless forced to pay them. And we do have instances of workers being the pawns in battles between employers and unions, with the employees being the ones who suffer - neither side is looking out for them. I fear in this day-and-age unions mostly promote themselves (not employees) and are far too involved in politics. I understand lobbying for safe workplaces and other issues directly related to the employees' well being, but I think much of that has been addressed (e.g., OSHA) and to much of their political activism is for unions themselves and not emplyees. The emplyees have become merely their 'ammo' in the political fight and are no longer the benefit of their political efforts.

I believe the author is biased towards unions, several things he said seem very pro-union. Here is a sample:

Unions are good for workers...

The preamble (of the 1936 National Labor Relations Act) declares the law's purpose: "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and ... protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing."

Many employers simply do not accept the law's intention - encouraging workers to organize

In short, the author believes the purpose of the law is to encourage unions, so he wants it strengthened to help form more unions; unions are good thing.

I do not feel that way, my position is that if workers want to unionize it should be a fair process. Not a process that favors unionization, but a process that is fair for the employees. I do not want it to encourage, or discourage unions but be neutral.

So, I cannot agree with anyone who wants the law to favor unions, nor can I gree with those who want it to discourage unions.

Reading through the complaints he raises I see two seprate issues: (1) The process whereby workers indicate whether or not they want a union (the vote), and (2) what happens after they vote to form a union (somehow there are no problems if they vote 'no'?).

The problems under #1 above, and #2, are two different problems and should be handled differently. For some reason the author is trying to claim that fixing #1 by getting rid of a secret ballot in the vote will autmatically fix the problems he lists under #2; yet he offers no explanation how.

Fern, first, use some common sense. The article points out ways the current situation is anti-union - the measures is suggests still need a majority of workers to agree.

So your trying to frame this as something 'unfairly pro union' rather than something addressing problems with fairnesss is pretty baseless.

While there is one issue with the possibility of pressure on people to sign cards, and I'd be fine with addressing that, weigh it against the clear problems there are now against unions.

Common sense: despite unions generally resulting in better pay, in helping workers, the percent of workers in unions is a small fraction of what it used to be.

Hm, why is that? You can make up some answer - 'oh there must be something why workers don't want them', or you can ask honestly.

The article tells you there's a billion dollar industry of organizations who employers bring in to pressure workers not to vote for unions. Hey, that's 'fair'.

The article tells you that 91% of the time, workers are forced to have mandatory one on one meetings with their supervisors where the supervisor pressures them to vote no.

Imagine the next election, the Democratic Party was allowed to pay your bosses to pressure you in one on one meetings that were mandatory, to vote Democrat and to bring in a Democratic pressure group to your workplace. To have you watching videos on why you should vote Democratic.

Imagine they were allowed to say how your plant would close if Democrats didn't win. And imagine Republican voters fell to the 10% levels unions have as a result. 'Fair?

Why is the process so unfair that while it's technically illegal, in 30% of the union votes, pro-union workers were fired - think that creates some intimidation?

So, if you want a 'fair process' as you say, you should recognize the problems with the current system - which the bill corrects.

You claim the article tries to say fixing problems before the vote will fix the problem with th evote being ignored by the employer - no, it doesn't. It discusses them separately, and it has a seperate solution for the second problem, changing from a 'no penalty wait out a year' system to one in which after 120 days of no progress, an independant arbitrator is used. (To the other poster who asked about neutrality, that's not a problem, such neutral arbitrators are used in many business conflicts. Yiour credit card probably uses one.)

The problems he lists:

1. Firing workers who try to organize unions, there is no fine for the employer breaking this rule. (But isn't there a trebling of wages as damages in civil court? If so, that means the unfairly fired employee gets a benefit. Imposing fines does nothing for the employee, only raises revenue for the governemnt.)

If there is no trebling of wages for a worker unfairly fired that should be changed. That is the proper solution, a non-secret balot does nothing to solve this alleged problem.

First, no, the current system requires only that back pay be paid, *if* the worker can get a lawyer, and win in court - it's this bill that would create some minor disincentive, by making them pay triple the back wages. Now, I think that's a pretty minor disincentive; companies are willing to spend a lot of money to block unions, and triple back pay for the organizers being illegally fired sounds like a pretty small amount of money compared to how they already spend a lot - Wal-Mart flies in specialized teams when there's union talk - and it's still pretty intimidating to worlers to have to hope they might win in court, knowing the company's lawyers will look for any justification why they weren't fired for union activities.

As for the fines not benefitting the employee, you don't get the whole point of the fines, to pressure the companies to follow the law which benefits employees. That benefits them.

You say the change to allow cards won't help, but you don't make any case for your claim.

The fact is how badly the current system with the employers using all the means they do against the organizers is not working; I'd give some weight to the union people syaing that this will help. If your best argument is that you don't see why the current system isn't good enough, I'd tell you to re-read how badly it's working, and to give the unions some credit for knowing what they need. As I said, I'll support protections for workers against union pressure - protections already much in place, apparently.

2. Employers threaten to close the workplace if a union is formed. I don't see how this is much different than workers threatening to close down a business by striking?

Well, you can't make an employer remain open. When a union comes in the labor costs, among others, will rise. Some employers will have to close. What are we gonna do, bail themout? In any case, cards will not resolve this. Cards affect only the vote, not what the employer may do after a unionization is approved.

Half the time, they say they'll close - it's an intimidation tactic. But as you say, employers can say that; this bill doesn't do anything about that that I see, except for making it harder for these union busting operations to so easily concentrate their pressure around a fixed vote. Instead, the organizers can have more time for a real discussion, to make their case.

3. Employers dragging their feet - that seems a valid problem. Again, this foot-draging only occurs after the vote; I do not see how cards resolves it. Other solutions are needed because 'cards' can't affect this.

Other solutions that are in this bill. You keep making the point that there are two problems - as if you are saying something different than the bill and article. You're not. There are.

4. Employers campaigning against unionization - what is wrong with that? The unions campaign for unionization, why shouldn't the employer be able to also campaign? This strikes me as some weird thinking on the author's behalf and indicates some real pro-union bias. But again, how will cards do anything here? It won't

The author is confusing the 'card system' with problems it cannot affect and prescribing it a cure when it won't be.

But again, IMO, the author doesn't want a neutral system that favors the employees' choice ovr employers or unions, he wants a law that favors unionization.

Nothing wrong with the current secret ballot, just fix the other unrelated problems.

Fern

As I said above, the current system apparently works to the employers' advantage in using these anti-union pressure firms around a fixed vote schedule.

I showed why the current system is not working well, if you use any common sense about how effectively the companies can pressure the workers now, and the results they get.

If you want to ignore the evidence and ignore common sense, you can keep saying that it's all just peachy.

You agree with some of the bill's provisions, such as the tripe damages and the change to not let employers just ignore the yes votes. Your objection to the rest sounds weak, with 'it's not really needed' type arguments. So I'm not hearing why when you weigh the bill, the good doesn't outweigh any 'unnecessary' provisions.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

Thar seems a fair description, very basic. Any welcome to the 19th century. Your position is the same as the late 19th century position, where the paradigm was that these people being paid barely enough to eat for survival were merely 'signing contracts as equals' with their employers - contracts were treated religiously as if they made the negotiations fair to both sides. After a long period where this was shown to just not work for workers - remember the popular 'cross of iron' campaign at the turn of the century - people recognized how inaccrate the paradigm was and how unequal the power of the bargaining parties, and you had the birth of the progressive movement. Except you. You're still stuck in the old paradigm, because you don't understand how prosperity today for the middle class is rooted in those reforms away fom the old paradigm you use.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant.

That's because you are clueless. Sorry. Any one typical worker is utterly disposable to the company. Look at how things worked under your system - it was 'if you don't like it, go starve', and the power was very disproportionately on the side of the employers. This is why the average wage in America - while hardly high today in the $40K's - was $10,000 at the turn of the 20th century, adjusted for inflation, often working 12-16 hours days six days a week in factories for just enough to eat.

And that's how the owners thought it should be. The idea of paying more than sustinence was considered quite wrong, as I understand it.

You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

This is where you get stuck arguing some ideological fluff without any dealing with the real issues for workers. Do you want a society of poor serfs, or one with a healthy middle class, or do you not care at all which it is, only that your ideology be followed? You should get that clue I mentioned before about how if you want a healthy middle class, you need to take the measures for it to happen - which just so happen to also create the consumer class that fuels economic growth that benefits the wealthy, too. Welcome to the 1930's.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

And without the consumers and the employees, the owner has nothing. Where's his 'gratitude'? You are arguing an irrelevancy. This is about dollars, not emotion.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work."

Unions don't grant a 'right to work'. Workers don't form and walk up to someone with money and say they are ordered to build a factory for them.

They provide a balance of power.

It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative.

True enough, those humble, appreciative CEO's are good role models for arrogant, unappreciative workers. I see the Walton kids behaving humbly all the time.

If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

You don't have a clue, as I said, how it works. You don't just get higher pay because you 'improve yourself'. Again compare the inflation adjusted average wages between today being 5 times higher than a century ago - and today things are not especially good for workers, with the concentration of wealth at the highest levels since before the Depression. When the average was one fifth, was that factory worker going to 'improve himself' into a five-times higher wage? No, you don't get it.

Even Henry Ford 'got it' better than you, when he pioneered paying higher wages by noting that he needed people who could afford to buy the cars he wanted to sell.

There's a reason why our economy and middle class took off at the same time as unions.

But of course the risk is there of ignorance of people who don't understand how it works, who just assume that this nuice middle class situation exists magically.

While I disagree with Eishnhower's allowing things from the CIA overthrow of democracy in Iran for cheap oil to supporitng European colonization of third world countries, he was largely a 'real Republican' from his war with Joe McCarthy, to his appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren (apart from whether he later regretted it), to his private comments about the 'crazies' on the right who wanted to gut social security, to his farewell speech warning of the military-industrial complex.

He was still too 'conservative' for my taste - I prefer Trumans' activism on race issues, for example, to Eisenhower's passivity; I prefer JFK's activism on Medicare to Eisenhower's passivity - but he was a credible conservative, a legitimate choice for the namtion for a conservative. Not the John Birch types who now run the party.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Do you REALLY believe if we did away with unions the the corperations wouldn't pressure the government to ease off on the labor regulations? are you that nieve? Unions still do serve a purpose. unions benefit all, even those not in unions by bringing the standards of all.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Do you REALLY believe if we did away with unions the the corperations wouldn't pressure the government to ease off on the labor regulations? are you that nieve? Unions still do serve a purpose. unions benefit all, even those not in unions by bringing the standards of all.

There are certainly studies clearly showing benefits of unions to non-union workers. When a union raises the compensation for its members, it affects the competitive market rate.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: nixium

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to you. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

That's ridiculous. Of course employers approach you. Have you heard of recruiting? Job fairs? Companies hire people away all the time. This is like saying a clothing shop has all the power because the clothing shop doesn't have to approach people, people approach the shop to buy stuff. A company has to advertise if it wants to attract the best talent there is. If you're really good at what you do, you might have multiple offers at the same time. Are you supposed to be "humble" to what everyone offers and accept any salary without bargaining?

It's one thing to negotiate pay at the hiring table. It's quite another to negotiate it after being hired. That's where I object.

If you aren't in a union, you still negotiate with your employer after you are hired.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Do you REALLY believe if we did away with unions the the corperations wouldn't pressure the government to ease off on the labor regulations? are you that nieve? Unions still do serve a purpose. unions benefit all, even those not in unions by bringing the standards of all.

I made a call for doing "away with unions" in this thread? Don't think so. Do they need to be curbed and totally voluntary? Yes. Eliminated? meh, I wouldn't lose sleep if they went away but I wouldn't actively push for their total elimination. So no, I'm not "nieve"(sp). But there you go again with that spin about Unions "benefit all" because they don't - you've just bought into the union propaganda.
Yes, they brought up the "standard" way back when but now they don't as they seem to be more interested in their own power and money - something they fought against when they were bringing up the "standard" back in the day.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Do you REALLY believe if we did away with unions the the corperations wouldn't pressure the government to ease off on the labor regulations? are you that nieve? Unions still do serve a purpose. unions benefit all, even those not in unions by bringing the standards of all.

There are certainly studies clearly showing benefits of unions to non-union workers. When a union raises the compensation for its members, it affects the competitive market rate.

Ofcourse it "affects" the market rate - through distortion.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Do you REALLY believe if we did away with unions the the corperations wouldn't pressure the government to ease off on the labor regulations? are you that nieve? Unions still do serve a purpose. unions benefit all, even those not in unions by bringing the standards of all.

I made a call for doing "away with unions" in this thread? Don't think so. Do they need to be curbed and totally voluntary? Yes. Eliminated? meh, I wouldn't lose sleep if they went away but I wouldn't actively push for their total elimination. So no, I'm not "nieve"(sp). But there you go again with that spin about Unions "benefit all" because they don't - you've just bought into the union propaganda.
Yes, they brought up the "standard" way back when but now they don't as they seem to be more interested in their own power and money - something they fought against when they were bringing up the "standard" back in the day.

That bolded statement seems to me that's what you implied.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Do you REALLY believe if we did away with unions the the corperations wouldn't pressure the government to ease off on the labor regulations? are you that nieve? Unions still do serve a purpose. unions benefit all, even those not in unions by bringing the standards of all.

I made a call for doing "away with unions" in this thread? Don't think so. Do they need to be curbed and totally voluntary? Yes. Eliminated? meh, I wouldn't lose sleep if they went away but I wouldn't actively push for their total elimination. So no, I'm not "nieve"(sp). But there you go again with that spin about Unions "benefit all" because they don't - you've just bought into the union propaganda.
Yes, they brought up the "standard" way back when but now they don't as they seem to be more interested in their own power and money - something they fought against when they were bringing up the "standard" back in the day.

That bolded statement seems to me that's what you implied.

Or you could have read it as written as it "implied" nothing more than the exact words used.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Do you REALLY believe if we did away with unions the the corperations wouldn't pressure the government to ease off on the labor regulations? are you that nieve? Unions still do serve a purpose. unions benefit all, even those not in unions by bringing the standards of all.

I made a call for doing "away with unions" in this thread? Don't think so. Do they need to be curbed and totally voluntary? Yes. Eliminated? meh, I wouldn't lose sleep if they went away but I wouldn't actively push for their total elimination. So no, I'm not "nieve"(sp). But there you go again with that spin about Unions "benefit all" because they don't - you've just bought into the union propaganda.
Yes, they brought up the "standard" way back when but now they don't as they seem to be more interested in their own power and money - something they fought against when they were bringing up the "standard" back in the day.

That bolded statement seems to me that's what you implied.

Or you could have read it as written as it "implied" nothing more than the exact words used.

if I misread it i apologize, but there are folks who do feel that way.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Of course the union organizers can already form a union, today, without the secret ballot and without this legislation being passed. The only difference between what exists now, and what would exist with this law being passed is that under the current law the EMPLOYER gets to decide if the ballot is secret or not, and in this case the EMPLOYEES (you know, the people who are actually unionizing) get to decide if there is a secret ballot or not.

People are not fighting against this to protect poor joe union member, they are fighting against this because it removes a block to unionization that employers could use.

 

[IGBT]

and what happens in "right to work states" like nevada and others.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Ofcourse it "affects" the market rate - through distortion.

No, it affects it by one of the participants taking an action, the same as anything affects it.

You're so blinded in your ideology to say bad about unions you can't be rational.

Clue: wages are set within the parameters of the market (a million dollars an hour and 10 cents and hour are pretty much out in the US as union wages for reasons that there isn't enough to pay the higher and people would not work before accepting the latter), by a power struggle between the employers and the employees; you call one side of that power struggle 'distortion'.

If you're really against distortion, how about we really get the government out of it - if employees want to threaten to burn down the factory as a negotiation technique, the government doesn't step in and take any action - causing a 'distortion' of the power balance. Oh, wait, that sort of 'distortion' where the government limits their options is ok with you, but when they organize into unions for group negotiations, that's bad 'distortion'.

You're being idiotic. Are consumer boycotts to get a business to change a policy 'distortion' - or are they the market forces in action?

Is all business power that acts in a unifed manner because of the hierarchical power structure not 'distortion', but unified labor behavior is 'distortion'?

Your word distortion is irrational, and merely a 'bad word' for attacking unions because you don't like their helping labor's side of the power struggle.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, they brought up the "standard" way back when but now they don't as they seem to be more interested in their own power and money - something they fought against when they were bringing up the "standard" back in the day.

Sure sounds a lot like 'financial market regulations from the New Deal made sense way back when, but they're no longer needed', in the debate to repeal them. That worked out.

A real conservative, unlike you, CADsortaguy, Edmand Burke, said 'don't tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.'

You are here to say based on nothing but ignorance that the steps that helped take our nation from poor workers to a much stronger middle class are no longer needed.

That's not conservative at all, wanting to go rip out measures because you *assume* that based on the prosperity they helped create, they are not needed.

Let's face it, you simply don't have any agenda for the workers to do well. YOu have the same sort of small-minded ideology that rationalizes poverty that plagues the right today.

The same sort that can back a Tom DeLay as he blocks reforms for virtual slave labor in a US territory, rationalizing all the way about the 'free market'. It's immoral.

You don't give a crap about people, and it shows in your politics and your lack of moral values.

The only defense I see for you doing this is ignorance - that you don't understand the effects of your blind ideology.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Of course the union organizers can already form a union, today, without the secret ballot and without this legislation being passed. The only difference between what exists now, and what would exist with this law being passed is that under the current law the EMPLOYER gets to decide if the ballot is secret or not, and in this case the EMPLOYEES (you know, the people who are actually unionizing) get to decide if there is a secret ballot or not.

People are not fighting against this to protect poor joe union member, they are fighting against this because it removes a block to unionization that employers could use.

Exactly - it's the way it SHOULD be. The EMPLOYER is the one with the checkbook(payroll) and thus should expect a FAIR and SECRET ballot before being forced to deal with someone other than the employees directly. Also it's best for every employee(except the union fluffers who may not win in a secret ballot) for there to be a SECRET ballot so there is no direct pressure on their individual job/family.
To give some moron who needs a union the decision, takes it away from the stake holders - you know - the people with a vested interest in the company.
There is no need to block the absolutely fair idea that there should be a FAIR and SECRET ballot if the company does not want there to be a union. If people who are employed by the company really want a union - a SECRET ballot shouldn't stop a union from being formed - hell, it's secret - no one is going to know how you vote - how much more FAIR can you get than that?
These union thugs and fluffers don't want something that is actually FAIR and where the actual people get to vote -they just want to be able to force their will without a vote.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: IGBT
and what happens in "right to work states" like nevada and others.

nothing except people who don't want to have a union wont have to pay - unless the union thugs push legislation where even people who don't want to be in a union still have to pay dues to one.

 

[glenn1]

I'm fine with this act passing, but just remember that this will just speed up offshoring of typical union-type jobs that much more. Before long, there won't be any employers here to unionize and all the previous industrial zones of the country will look like Detroit.

 

[Triumph]

I'm having trouble understanding how voting in secret, allows the company to intimidate you? And how would voting publicly change this? Seems to me that making your vote public would make it easier to be intimidated by EITHER side (more likely by the union bosses, IMO).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Of course the union organizers can already form a union, today, without the secret ballot and without this legislation being passed. The only difference between what exists now, and what would exist with this law being passed is that under the current law the EMPLOYER gets to decide if the ballot is secret or not, and in this case the EMPLOYEES (you know, the people who are actually unionizing) get to decide if there is a secret ballot or not.

People are not fighting against this to protect poor joe union member, they are fighting against this because it removes a block to unionization that employers could use.

Exactly - it's the way it SHOULD be. The EMPLOYER is the one with the checkbook(payroll) and thus should expect a FAIR and SECRET ballot before being forced to deal with someone other than the employees directly. Also it's best for every employee(except the union fluffers who may not win in a secret ballot) for there to be a SECRET ballot so there is no direct pressure on their individual job/family.
To give some moron who needs a union the decision, takes it away from the stake holders - you know - the people with a vested interest in the company.
There is no need to block the absolutely fair idea that there should be a FAIR and SECRET ballot if the company does not want there to be a union. If people who are employed by the company really want a union - a SECRET ballot shouldn't stop a union from being formed - hell, it's secret - no one is going to know how you vote - how much more FAIR can you get than that?
These union thugs and fluffers don't want something that is actually FAIR and where the actual people get to vote -they just want to be able to force their will without a vote.

Wait, what? You think the employer should have the say as to if and when employees decide to form a collective bargaining unit and the means by which they do it!? Are you insane? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. In what world do you give the opposing side in a negotiation control over how you negotiate? You, like Atreus21, seem to think that the employers are doing the employees a favor by employing them. They aren't.

Oh and to Triumph, while I would agree that a public ballot would make intimidation by either side easier, there have been 42 cases of union intimidation of workers reported in the last SIXTY years. The number of cases of EMPLOYER intimidation of people attempting to unionize are so vast and so wide reaching that it is literally many orders of magnitude larger. So no, you are far far far more likely to be intimidated by your employer than your fellow employees.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: glenn1
I'm fine with this act passing, but just remember that this will just speed up offshoring of typical union-type jobs that much more. Before long, there won't be any employers here to unionize and all the previous industrial zones of the country will look like Detroit.

Ya, why don't we just get rid of all worker protections, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safety law, minimum wage - anything to better compete with overseas labor.

Let's have a race to to the bottom and see who can most quickly reset the standard to slave conditions.

Or, let's look at how to protect our workers and raise others' standards. That's the better approach.

For more than half our nation's history, we paid for government with import taxation, and have long used them to counter things on the other side.

I'd like to see the developed nations use such taxes to push other nations to raise their workers' pay and protections.

I understand economists' point that free trade has efficiencies, but those efficiencies are blind to how much they drag labor down to the least common demoninator.

We need an economic plan that balances efficiencies and worker protection and third world development, not the free trade blind approach that just assaults prosperous nations' labor.

Your argument is the same you always see that attacks labor. Why they don't just make all the concessions? Because we want a prosperous middle class.