Warren Buffett Comes Out Against Employee Free Choice Act: ‘I’m Against Card Check’
Warren Buffett Comes Out Against Employee Free Choice Act: ‘I’m Against Card Check’
This morning on CNBC, billionaire investor Warren Buffett — who is a progressive on many economic issues — struck a decidedly non-progressive stance on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA):
CNBC: Some say that EFCA and card check would narrow the disparity [between the haves and have-nots]. In other words, having unions have more of a say, have more companies unionize. Is that a good idea, or do you think as a business owner, it would be a negative for the economy?
BUFFETT: I think the secret ballot’s pretty important in the country. I’m against card check to make a perfectly flat statement.
CNBC’s Joe Kernen gleefully declared that he “liked” Buffett’s answer. Butffett did concede, however, that “by and large, the people who are in unions have not been well-treated by the tax code that we’ve had over time.” Watch it:
Unfortunately, Buffett is adopting the right-wing’s misleading talking points on the Free Choice Act. The proposed bill — as the name indicates — would not end secret balloting in labor elections, but rather provide a choice. It would offer an alternative fairer path for workers to unionize by enabling them to form a union by getting a majority to sign cards of consent (the “card check”), instead of having to undergo a full unionization campaign (which are often subject to employer intimidation).
The importance of the legislation is simple and clear. Sixty million U.S. workers would join a union if they could because union workers on average make 30 percent in more in wages than non-union workers and are more likely to have health insurance.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and other business interests have spent millions of lobbying and advertising dollars to oppose the bill, disseminating false myths about its impact and claiming it would be a “job killer.” Unfortunately, the massive public relations spin effort is having some effect. “I’m not sure we have the votes” to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said yesterday.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hmm. Warren Buffett.
Folk hero, or capitalist pig? A bit of both?
I look forward to the pendulum’s swing that brings unions and labor the gains capitalism has enjoyed for the last forty years. Never will I forget the propaganda of how unions have ruined this country, begun in the late 70s by Republicans under Carter, when the UAW went on strike and it was revealed how much money the floor workers at GM were making.
They didn’t reveal how much Roger was making, though. That took Michael Moore.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:36 amNow that corporations have played a major part in bringing our standard of living down, the union movement can gain some resurgence and get our wages back up to a living standard.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:46 amIf it’s coming from Warren Buffett, I’m not sure you can chalk it up to conservative talking points.
Unions are important, but without the secret ballot, doesn’t it open up the issue to intimidation?
March 9th, 2009 at 10:48 amLabor has not done enough to frame the issue. I was hearing about this for months before I discovered that it does away with a secret ballot if over 50% of the employees in a shop or business sign cards indicating their willingness to join a union.
That’s kind of a no-brainer, isn’t it? At that point, the result, is it’s fairly contested would be a foregone conclusion.
Of course, the “fairly contested” part is the crucial aspect.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:49 amThanks for your concern, b-cup.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:49 amI’m shocked I tell you, shocked! Warren Buffett against allowing employees to actually have input into their working wages and conditions. Buffett and other major corportte powers have been working to keep jobs in America by lowering employee wages and benefits to that of a third world country. Now is the time for American workers to make a stand.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:52 amUnions aren’t going to be of much value as long as corporations can move facilities to non union states or out of the country. The Service Employees International Union works because the employers can’t move the jobs. Unions for manufacturing wind up like those people in Chicago at Christmas, when the owner buys a plant in another state and moves the work to cheaper labor. Once in a while, a company has spent a lot of money on upgrading their equipment and a union can have them over a barrel for a few years. Once more money can be made by moving, the plant closes and the jobs are gone. You can’t get workers to vote for a union with ANY kind of ballot if their job will be gone in a year or two.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:54 amIm with Backup on this. I don’t really understand a whole lot about the Employee Free Choice Act. I doubt Buffett is a labor scholar on this issue either. Can someone please give a quick breakdown on why a ‘card check’ would offer more protection than the way things work now?
March 9th, 2009 at 10:55 amIf it makes sense to do away with the secret ballot for labor unions, would it also make sense to do away with the secret ballot when we choose our representation in Congress and in the White House?
March 9th, 2009 at 10:55 amWhile the intent of the act sounds great, the reality as always is markedly different. My wife works at a hospital that SEIU wants to unionize. They are the ones using intimidation, etc. They obtained an employee list with confidential contact info and phoned people at home and they like to stage “sit ins” in the employee lunch cafeteria.
Oh, and the Card check?? Well, they make it look like a simple registration card for having attended the meeting and print the disclosure that it is actually a ballot in about 1 pitch font on the back. Then it is never mentioned again during the meeting.
It gets wearisome seeing how the SEIU and other unions play this “poor little us” being abused by the big bad companies. If people want to join a Union, let them, but why do the Union need to resort to dishonest tactics in the name of “fairness”?
March 9th, 2009 at 10:59 amI’m disappointed that Buffet didn’t actually answer the question.
“…having unions have more of a say, have more companies unionize. Is that a good idea, or do you think as a business owner, it would be a negative for the economy?”
Mr. Buffet never stated whether wider unionization would be a positive or a negative for the economy. He stated only his personal feelings against the “card check” aspect of voting to authorize unions.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:59 amAs long as you can assure that the ballots cast represent the will of the workers, the votes should be cast in secret.
If votes are cast in secret, you get the true will of the voter.
If that anonymity is removed, you get something less than the true will of the voter.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:01 amThe Free Choice Act does interfere with the two-percenters plan to McJob the US. I have to believe it is a “conservative on the brown-acid” position. Serfdom that is. The problem? Without free money via unregulated credit, or real wages who’s going to buy the garbage that fuels their fiefdoms?
March 9th, 2009 at 11:04 amStop buying into their talking points.
backup et al, the secret ballot is not being done away with. An alternative OPTION which the workers can choose is being promoted. This alternative provides workers a way to vote to have a union without calling a meeting for a vote, a meeting that management can attend and be an intimidating presence.
Your “if” is a nonsensical as saying “If it makes sense for management to demand workers to bring their lunch in buckets, then woouldn’t it also make sense to pay management with buckets of money?”
March 9th, 2009 at 11:05 amb-cup,
Keep repeating the wingnut talking points.
My parrot would be proud.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:09 amWhoa! A capitalist opposed to unions! This is news!
You should thank unions for the forty hour work week, pensions, paid vacation and health care benefits and a decent standard of living for working people these last 60 or so years. How likely are capitalists to give these to workers without a fight?
March 9th, 2009 at 11:11 amAnother false comparison from b-cup.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:11 amAn “economic war”??? So, who do we want to surrender?
Warren should join Jimmy for a few margaritas and cheeseburgers in paradise, rather than continue to spout this nonsense.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:16 amEveryone seems to forget that (1) having a union by majority sign-up is already the law, it’s just that employers can veto it, and (2) there is no secret ballot for getting rid of a union.
It’s really obnoxious for business to pose as the heroic defender of the secret ballot.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:18 amJust to make sure I have this straight…
What the ‘card check’ does is present a petition with 51% of the employees saying ‘We’re unionizing’ in place of organizing a vote.
It doesn’t seem like a terrible idea. The proponents on this should shout from the rooftops “YOU CAN STILL GO SECRET BALLOT IF YOU WANT”
March 9th, 2009 at 11:21 amWhen a city council votes they don’t do so in secret. When Congress votes they don’t do so in secret. When boards of directors vote they don’t do so in secret. Tying the question of whether a workplace to be unionized with how we run our national elections is just stupid.
Shame on Warren Buffett for not giving this issue enough consideration to warrant a serious answer.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:22 amThe EFCA doesn’t take away the “secret ballot” as the article states. What it does is allow the “majority sign-up” or “card check” which balances the playing field.
As this link to Americans Rights at Work shows;
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/secret-ballots-arent-enough.html
The EFCA is needed because the laws and corporations are stacked against union organizing and the wants of the American public as this link shows;
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/10keyfacts.cfm
And it doesn’t take away the “secret ballot” as shown here;
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/78785
“THE TRUTH ABOUT EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE: Despite conservatives’ claims to the contrary, the EFCA preserves the secret ballot election process established by the National Labor Relations Board. The law simply guarantees that workers also have the option to form a union through a “card-check” system in which a union would be recognized if a majority of workers signed a petition testifying to their desire to organize. Under current law, workers can only form a union via the card-check system if their employer agrees to allow it. Otherwise, the employer can insist on a union secret ballot election. Unfortunately, as Madland notes, “Employers legally can force workers to attend anti-union meetings, including ‘one-on-one conversations’ with supervisors” and “workers often are pressured by employers to reveal their private preferences for the union.” “This takes the ’secret’ out of the ’secret ballot,’” Madland writes. Even more disturbing is that in “25 percent of organizing campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because they want to form a union” and “even after workers successfully form a union, in one-third of the instances, employers do not negotiate a contract.” The EFCA would strengthen penalties for such labor law violations and prevent employers from delaying first-contract negotiations. While conservatives suggest that the EFCA card-check system is “anti-business,” “in a recent survey of employers who had used majority sign-up agreements, a majority reported that the agreements resulted in improved relations with the union, enabling management to achieve other bargaining or business goals.”
March 9th, 2009 at 11:29 amdeebaser, that’s my understanding of how its meant to work. I see it as equivalent to going to the poll on election day or sending in an absentee ballot. Both are legitimate methods of voting.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:29 amThanks for the links/info PLC/gdunn. Im a little embarassed that I haven’t read up on this as much as I probably should have.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:30 amThat’s an excellent observation, PLC. Really sound way of framing it.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:44 amHey, Warren Buffet has his, why should he be against the little guy getting some? But, then again, if the little guy gets some, that leaves less for him. Remember, this is the guy who went on T.V. talking about how his lower middle-class income secretary pays a higher percentage of income tax than he does. Do you think that he volunteered to up his percentage, as a show of fairness?
To those who think Card Check is such a terrible thing, answer me this. Why is it ok to de-certify a union in a workplace by way of card check, but, not ok to certify a union in a workplace by the same method? Bill SO-CAL, tell me, was your wife required to attend a mandatory meeting, called by the SEIU, in order to browbeat and threaten her into joining a union? That’s the way major corporations such as Wal-Mart operate. Threats, intimidation, and job loss are real in these virulently anti-union operations. But, then again, so are low wages, hazardous working conditions and extremely costly ( if any) benefit plans. As far as companies moving their operations to cheaper labor climates, they will do that any time they think that they can find cheaper labor. The idea that a miserable job is better than no job is a sham. I wonder if the slaves thought that working under a master who only beat them occasionally was better than one who did so on a regular basis? Ask the coal miners in Hardin County, Kentucky if they would like to go back to work for J.H. Blair under the conditions they had in the ’60’s.
There’s a very good reason for the existence of unions. It’s for the protection of the working class and the betterment of society as a whole. The rise of the middle class is directly related to the rise in unionism, as is the decline.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:52 amPresident Obama, himself, should say, to the congress AND the people, that ‘corporate interests are hiring hordes of “Republican political operatives” to fight against the Free Choice Act.‘
SOMEbody needs to make a stir with that fact…
March 9th, 2009 at 11:54 amPLC. you could be right. But, someone needs to get to Buffett and clue him in.
I don’t know all the nuance of card check vs. secret ballot, but the idea of secret ballot seems to eliminate the possibility of intimidation.
Buffett is well respected. I find it hard to believe that he is that uninformed about the issue.
Again, if that is what it is, someone needs to explain it to him. Because, people that don’t have the time to investigate it, are likely to trust him.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:01 pmYes, Warren, we’re going to roll the rich. Get used to it.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pmIt does not take away the secret ballot,read the whole you morons.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pmRead the whole act.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pmrmwarnick wrote: “It’s really obnoxious for business to pose as the heroic defender of the secret ballot.”
No less obnoxious than the unions posing as the heroic defenders of the workers. Unions today exist to enrichen and empower the Union leadership while they masquerade as the protectors of the downtrodden worker.
I’d have no issue with the card check method IF it was done openly and clearly. But right now that is not what happens in many cases.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pmNot surprising that Buffet is against Employee Free Choice. The dude is a corporate capitalist.
Another example of CNBC “journalism.” These guys and all the so-called business channels are so pro-corporate it’s rediculous.
Finally, Backup et al., read what the Employee Free Choice Act actually proposes before you make ignorant (or misleading) comments. For one thing, passage of the act does not do away with the secret ballot, just offers another method, which is needed because of delay/intimidation tactics often used by management to prevent a vote.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pmI don’t know what Bill-SOCIAL is talking about. Unions follow the legal process regarding card check. I know, I’ve been involved in it as an organizer. It is done legally, openly and clearly. I’m not sure what you mean by it being done “openly and clearly.”
The current problem is most companies don’t agree to card check and once the employees have signed the cards and they are turned into the NLRB, the Companies get to terrorize their employees daily until they vote on the union.
Just check out, “Confession of a Union Buster” by Martin Jay Levitt. He lays out pretty clearly what the companies do.
Anyway, every drive I was a part of, between 70-80% of the workforce signed cards to join the union. After the cards were sent to the NLRB and a date was set for a “certification election”, pro-union employees (especially the leadership) were fired, the workers had mandatory anti-union meetings at their workplace they had to attend and mandatory one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors. The workers were threatened with plant closings, told they couldn’t wear pro-worker attire and the pro-union employees who were left were coerced and intimidated by the Company.
If the EFCA was a law, all of the places I was at would be union today. Since, it was not and all the power rests with the Company, very few organized. The companies, without a check of power, have ALL the POWER over the workers.
The EFCA is a start at levelling the playing field.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:57 pmThe cozy relationship between lobbyists and government will be the long term destruction of this country. Because of this cozy relationship, we are in this economic mess. If lobbyists didn’t have the ability to pass the bill authored by Phil Gramm, we could of mostly avoid this mess! If we didn’t have lobbyists pushing for absolute free trade, we wouldn’t of seen millions of jobs go overseas. If we didn’t have this cozy relationship, we would of seen a universal health care system, if we didn’t have this cozy relationship, we wouldn’t be so dependant on fossil fuels today.
Literally, every problem we have in this country can be traced to the cozy relationship between corporate lobbyists and government.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:22 pmNicely put gdunn.Guys like Buffett are very scared on unions for no good reason at all other than money.What they don`t want to quantify is our spending that makes this economy of ours work, so they would rather marginalize us and our spending.According to the dept. of Labors bureau of statistics the U.S. ranks 17th out of 20th in unionized wages with our top 20 trading partners but we rank number 2 in productivity,17 out of 20 is really sad but yet these clowns like Buffy say we can`t compete on a global scale is ridiculus.Also according to this article I read Health care, wages for supervisory and managerial positions and the overvalued dollar are what is hurting our manufacturing and not high wages payed to unionized workers.The EFCA levels the playing field for labor and it is also enhancement of current labor laws and it does not get rid of the secret ballot.This is only the tip of the iceberg for these and the will stop at nothing , just take a look at the Nw and Delta airlines merger and what Delta is trying to do because Nw is all unionized and only the pilots are for Delta.Delta is trying to mesh above the wing and below the votes when we have two crafts with two separate votes and Delta is trying to convince the all ready stacked against labor National Mediation Board to Delta`s view of one craft when in fact we are two crafts.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pmWe’ll grumble a little and let the banks and financial corporations take billions of our taxpayer dollars, but we’ll grill the auto industry for doing the same. We allow all sorts of deregulations and loopholes for companies to screw over workers, and here we are again, raking the unions over the coals for an expansion of options for them?
The misinformation/propoganda of the right versus the working class has been so successful, it’s scary. EFCA is just another example of this.
I’d like serious examples from people who talk about the union leadership as just a self-interested party exploiting workers, who just coincidentally get a 30% wage increase and possible benefits access. Sounds to me a lot like the conservative strategy to discredit “governement beauracracy,” just to get it out of the way- so the real capitalist exploitation can begin.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pmSecret ballot my ass. It is my understanding that a majority of workers have to sign cards requesting a union. Is that correct? If so, why should the workers have to jump through two hoops? If a majority has already said they want a union, WTF, give them the union.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pmI’m still neutral on the issue of Unions. On the one hand, the IDEA of a union (and advocate for the employees) is a good thing. On the other hand, I’ve seen too many corruption and intimidation problems stemming from Union bullying to say any union is ‘good’ without evaluating them on a case by case basis.
If Unions were as good as their advocates say they are, then why aren’t unions mandatory across the board? After all, your employer HAS to take out social security and withold your taxes. In theory, those are our problems as employees.
I don’t particularly like the idea of someone coming to my company saying “Because a bunch of people have come to the decision to unionize, you have to join the union or you will be laid off.” Of course this doesn’t happen all that much but it does happen, and the Teachers unions periodically try to get non-union members to pay dues. That doesn’t strike me as fair.
As for Warren Buffet being a conservative or corporate shill, who knows? I don’t think he gives a rat’s ass about conservatives or progressives. What he’s trying to do is make the companies he invests in do well. A lot of times, that means things like reducing unemployment and making sure the workers are happy, especially now when those issues are threatening corporate profits as well as middle class wages. If he thinks this bill is going to the wrong way, then he deserves to be listened to more than any politician does. In the end, though… It doesn’t really matter WHY he’s against the bill. The most important question is “Is he right?” and “Why?”
March 9th, 2009 at 1:33 pmgdunn:
I’ve been involved in two union campaigns in my life. One I was for and another against. One won and the other lost.
The EFCA does not level the playing field. It gives a distinct advantage to the Union trying to get into the shop.
Right now, if 30 percent or more of the workers sign union cards – now these aren’t secret – then the company either has the choice to accept the union and begin negotiation or (more thank likely) set a date for a secret ballot and the campaigning for or against the union begins. The company has the advantage. They ALWAYS choose the secret ballot.
With EFCA, if it passes, the union would need 50 percent plus 1 card signed and the union is in. The union could also opt to have a secret ballot but why in the world would they? They would be automatically in! This stuff about secret ballots not going away is just a lie.
If, under the EFCA, they union got less than 50 percent they could ask for a secret ballot and a campaign would begin like we currently do now under the law.
But – and let’s be honest – unions will not waste their time unless they have 50 percent or more wanting a union. It’s an easier campaign and clearly the workers want it. That’s the point that people against EFCA are trying to make. It would essentially eliminate the secret ballot.
Under EFCA the workers would only have to sign the union cards and that’s it. Most disturbingly, the cards are not private and the union and co-workers can intimidate and publicly call out people that have signed or not signed the cards. This is not fair. These votes should be secret. Just like all voting in America.
Right now Companies have the advantage but with EFCA the unions would. Is that fair? Would you agree that any vote affecting you personally should be made in private and not something that can be gotten by intimidation or peer pressure?
I’m a big-time liberal but this EFCA is something the unions are pushing through because it makes life much better for unions not necessarily the people they represent. What if a bad union gets into your work place? You’re stuck with them. If people go and sign cards on a whim when others ask them then they’re their and nearly impossible to replace with another.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pmBill-SOCAL, You must be a Reich Wing troll, we need unions now more than ever, your rhetoric about Unions today exist to enrich and empower the Union leadership while they masquerade as the protectors of the downtrodden worker is truly a typical troll attitude towards unions.Unionized worker wages in this country are quite low compared to other country`s around the Globe.Unions as you might have forgotten have gotten children out of the work place and into schools,unions gave us the forty hour work week,pensions,work safety,vacations and most important of all unions gave us the middle class of this country.I gladly pay $50 a month in dues for my representation and a CBA compared to an at will employee of a greedy corporate structure.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:37 pmFelix and Swordsbane prove my point. There’s always this anecdotal ‘hearsay’ about union intimidation, but the numbers can speak for themselves as far as the positives for workers. I don’t doubt there isn’t corruption in a lot of upper level union mgmt., but if workers wages and benefits are consistenly improved, why would there even be a debate about the rightness of the unions having the upper hand? If we’re so scared about corruption and self-interest, why do people have such apathy for our current corporate-leaning model? This the misinformation campaign/bias against workers and their rights.
Do we need to trot out every worker right that the unions have given us?
History speaks for itself, and I for one would like to see what real union power can do again in this country.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pmThere is one truth in the work-place:
If you have a boss, you need a union.
Anything and everything that contributes to that result is important. Anything and everything that doesn’t, isn’t.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pmFelix, you make some good points, but in this day and age when workers of shapes and sizes and color are being exploited by greedy corporate execs who can`t seem to get enough money to line their pockets is desipcible.As I stated above in one of my long rants we are 17th out of 20 in unionized wages with our top 20 trading partners but we are number two in productivity, what gives here?Health care, the over valued dollar and supervisory and managerial pay is killing our manufacturing not unions whatsoever.Unions if anything have made us more competative and productive.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pmum… that statement says that the union preserves the secret ballot but they don’t have to use it? How in the world does that preserve the ballot if you can just not use it and use card checks instead.
Listen we as progressives need to think a bit here. Is this law leaning more toward unions? Is this Employee free choice act really give people free choice? Or how about a private vote since the card checks are public?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pmIf Unions were as good as their advocates say they are, then why aren’t unions mandatory across the board? After all, your employer HAS to take out social security and withold your taxes. In theory, those are our problems as employees.
They aren’t mandatory because it is not in a business’s profit interests to give greater wages and benefits to workers, which unions consistently advocate for. It is their reason for being. Why do you think companies go overseas and pay 15 cents to a 9 year old in a 3rd-world country? All they care about is profitability, not the rights of their workers. Companies have used every tactic- intimidation, firings, etc. to make sure that their workers are not unionized, because they don’t want to deal with a collective power that wants more of their profits. Your statement is so ridiculously naive, it hurts.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pmIs anyone else tired of hearing what wealthy people think? This point resonates with me since Mr B as his fellow fat cats has had zero experience actually working a real job like the the rest of us.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pmListen we as progressives need to think a bit here. Is this law leaning more toward unions? Is this Employee free choice act really give people free choice? Or how about a private vote since the card checks are public?
Felix- yes. Leaning towards the unions provides more for the workers, hands down. If people are not comfortable with the card check, they are not forced to sign them. They can go to the secret ballot should they want one. This is an additional option that people will have. I don’t think your factoring just how well companies have learned the system, used intimidation, and have kept unionization down.
If a person is presented with higher wages, secure benefits, but with union dues (obviously not higher than the raised wages and benefit value, not to mention security), as opposed to the misinformation of companies, then they will have their right to vote. If they (usually stupidly) vote against unionization, they still have to deal with the majority of people who will more than likely want a union.
We as progressives want workers’ rights, including the right to vote, but with the reality of a democratically selected system. We go along with the majority. It’s a compact. The difference here is that people say that compact is union intimidation, when it is a majority vote by the workers.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pmFelix, you don’t seem to discuss the reality of the companies currently having total control to coerce, harass and intimidate employees who sign up for a union election.
Let’s be real, 30% of the workforce has to sign a petition that can be filed to the NLRB for a union vote. It never happens to get a union certified, it’s typically takes 70-80% of the workforce to sign a petition just to get a chance to get a union certified. On the other hand, you only need 30% to get a vote to have a union decertified (which is typically what happens). Is that fair? But, you still need 50% + 1 to actually decertify the union.
BTW, decertification elections are the way you get rid of “bad unions.” But, I really think you mean “bad leadership.” Also, there are union elections, if you feel there are bad leaders, get rid of them, vote them out. Whereas, in Corporations, when you have a bad leader, you can’t vote them out.
It seems you want to continue the current system of not leveling the playing field. I would like to see a level playing field. By allowing workers the ability to truly organize
The secret ballot will still exist. That is not being taken away. However, that is what the right wing is using as their talking point and it is not valid.
So, I guess the real question is one of fairness. If 50% + 1 sign cards and say they want the union, that is fair. If 50% + 1 have a secret ballot and vote in the union, that is fair.
What isn’t fair is how the current system is set up to be totally in the Companies corner. Are you saying that allowing the Company six weeks to terrorize its’ employees is fair? Yet, allowing 50% +1 of the workforce to sign cards saying they want to join a union is not fair? How does that make sense?
Now, for those unfamiliar with union organizing there currently is a process. First, the employees get their co-workers to sign cards saying they want a union. You need to get at least 30% of your co-workers to sign the cards. For most union organizing drives, the union requests between 70-80% of the workforce sign the cards.
Secondly, once this occurs, the cards (or petition) are sent to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB then contacts the Company for a list of names to verify the names on the petition (thereby notifying the company of the organizing drive–if they already didn’t know–which is highly doubtful).
Next, when it is official the NLRB sends a note to the Company and the Union that there will either be an election or not (not valid signatures typically) and set a date typically 6-12 weeks later.
Then, the Company brings in anti-union experts (if they haven’t already) and proceeds to put its employees through 6-12 weeks of stick and/or carrot. The union can contact the employees offsite, which they usually do. However, the Company gets these workers for at least 8 hours a day and it is typically anti-union indoctrination and coercion/intimidation.
If that doesn’t work, that’s where the “carrot” comes in. If the scare tactics don’t work, the Company will relent and provide overtime, promotions, wage and benefit increases just to keep the union out. The “carrot” is extremely rare, although I have seen it–once.
So, by allowing “majority sign-up” the only thing the EFCA really does is not allow the companies to terrorize its’ workforce until the date of the “union election.”
March 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pmI am starting to think you are not a “liberal” as you claim Felix. Let’s see, the EFCA still allows the secret ballot or a majority sign-up. So, if the majority wants to sign cards to join the union, you are saying they shouldn’t be allowed to, they have to have a secret ballot?
I think if a majority signs up, it’s a majority. Putting them through a vote which they do not want doesn’t make sense and only plays into the hands of the Companies.
On the other hand, Companies give their workers options too, vote against the union or lose your job. I guess that’s not secret, because it is pretty outspoken.
Anyway, thanks for giving more rightwing arguments under the auspices of being a liberal. That’s the safe way to approach sites such as this one.
But, through this I finally understand your point–If a majority of workers in the workplace want a union and sign cards to that effect they still have to go through a hellish and brutal process carried out by the Company and their anti-union cabal for a period of 6-12 weeks with threats, coercion and intimidation to still determine whether they want the union or not through a vote.
Therefore, this secret ballot canard is really a ruse to not allow the majority to have what they want. It really is a smokescreen to allow companies to continue their anti-union intimidation tactics by pulling the heartstrings of “secret ballot.”
March 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pmI noticed that the only people that have become completely opposed to the AFCA are the ones that will never even have the opportunity to join a union.
But they absolutely join the Chamber of Commerce and the Association of Business Alliance et al.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pm“There’s always this anecdotal ‘hearsay’ about union intimidation”
If it’s anecdotal ‘hearsay’ when my mother helped protest EVERY YEAR when her teacher’s union did in fact try to slip non-member dues in when no one was looking, or that people would come to our door all the time wanting to talk to her about joining the Teachers Union, threatening to pressure the school to fire non-union members… then you’re right, it’s anecdotal, so I guess it’s not worth mentioning is it.
The fact that they ARE doing this isn’t the real issue. It’s the fact that there is no regulation in place to keep them from doing it. Before we go and make unions even more powerful (regardless of whether you think they already ARE very powerful or not) I think we need to figure out how long a leash they will get, because even if these things aren’t a problem NOW, you can bet they will be when they DO get enough power. That’s just human nature.
Contrary to popular belief, there ARE employees out there that are at the same time not in a Union, and not being screwed by their employer, but in any job, no matter how good it it, there are always going to be people who think the company is screwing them. If I have a choice between working for my wages or because everyone unionized I’m facing the idea of working for my wages AND paying union dues, then I’m against the union, and I want the option to keep working without joining the Union. THAT’S how you give the employees power, by giving them options. End of story.
“They aren’t mandatory because it is not in a business’s profit interests to give greater wages and benefits to workers, which unions consistently advocate for. It is their reason for being. Why do you think companies go overseas and pay 15 cents to a 9 year old in a 3rd-world country? All they care about is profitability, not the rights of their workers. Companies have used every tactic- intimidation, firings, etc. to make sure that their workers are not unionized, because they don’t want to deal with a collective power that wants more of their profits. Your statement is so ridiculously naive, it hurts.”
My question (not a statement) is valid, and you’re reply was to state that they aren’t always good because if they were mandatory, than companies would go over seas.
And it IS in a companies best (business) interests to make sure the employees are happy, or at least not unhappy. Unhappy workers lower productivity. The companies that learn this do well. If we rewarded them more often instead of propping up companies that are circling the drain but who’s CEOs are generous to the political coffers during election years, then maybe we wouldn’t need unions so much.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:36 pmThanks for setting them straight gdunn! My father was a butcher in a union that dealt with all of the supermarket chains, and I’d watch him at the picket lines on TV when I was a kid. Because of that union my dad’s job was secure, my family had health insurance, and his retirement is now relatively stable. The conservatives have temporarily won the messaging of unions= bad/intimidation/corruption, but in these times where we’ve all been screwed by corporate interests, I hope that changes.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pmJimmy Hoffa Rest in peace!
(I think he was for card check and voted the wrong way!)
March 9th, 2009 at 2:53 pmyou know swordsbane- since we both have a little anectdotal evidence under our belt, we can call that one a draw.
I agree your question of regulation is valid. But I still maintain that the negative results from a ‘rampant’ union are still far less than the negative results of a ‘rampant’ corporation, and we can’t expect perfection. Looking at union regulation without the negative lens conservatives have given us is a problem that needs a remedy first.
Union dues aren’t more than the wage/benefit/security the union is advocating for. You would have to deal with the majority of your peers that have democratically selected a union. That’s democracy for you.
And I still completely disagree with your last paragraph. Businesses will do all they can to get you for the lowest dollar, JUST to the point of insurrection. How is that fair? I think you have a faith in the scruples of good business people, when we have before us a history of repeated abuses against workers in any way imaginable.
but you aren’t willing to give that same good faith to the unions? with that same look at history, with what the unions have given us?
this is where I think people have been bought and sold into a negative view of unions.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pmUnder the status quo, employees already have to do a card check in order to get a vote on the union. The union circulates cards and when at least one third of the employees in the shop sign up, the ball goes into the employer’s court. At this point, the boss has a choice to make: Recognize the union right off the bat, or call a NLRB election. If the employer chooses option one, you’ve just had unionization by card check, no secret ballots required!
However, if the employer wants to fight the union, she’ll demand the election. That gives the employer weeks or months to cajole and threaten the employees, up to and including firing the ringleaders. The employees are a captive audience. Moreover, the penalties for union-busting tactics under the current law are trivially small and no deterrent to a dedicated union-busting boss.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pmAnd I still completely disagree with your last paragraph. Businesses will do all they can to get you for the lowest dollar, JUST to the point of insurrection. How is that fair? I think you have a faith in the scruples of good business people, when we have before us a history of repeated abuses against workers in any way imaginable.
As I said.. there are companies out there that A) Do the right thing when it comes to their employees and B) profit from it. Telephone and Data Systems is a good example. They continually win awards for being one of the best places to work. They are financially better off than some of the big boys that are struggling through the recession. This in an industry where corporations aren’t worried about unions.
And yes… there ARE a lot of companies out there that do everything they can (including screwing their employees) to have a better bottom line. Even though it doesn’t always work, we REWARD them. Wells Fargo got an award for being one of the worst places to work. They’re on the “Too Big To Fail” list, which means all they have to do is shout “ouch” and we give them money. You don’t think the execs at Wells Fargo don’t know what they’re doing? THAT’s what’s not fair.
Unions have fundamental problems that sometimes get in the way of the good they’re doing. I’m just saying that maybe we should fix those problems before handing them a bigger gun.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:36 pmAt this point, the boss has a choice to make: Recognize the union right off the bat, or call a NLRB election. If the employer chooses option one, you’ve just had unionization by card check, no secret ballots required!
You mean it’s up to the employer to simply recognize the union (something they wouldn’t want to do if they have a second option) or take a second option… which means a secret ballot that fewer people can find out if the results are rigged. How often do employers pick option one here?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pmUnions have fundamental problems that sometimes get in the way of the good they’re doing. I’m just saying that maybe we should fix those problems before handing them a bigger gun.
As I said before, the positive outcomes of union advocacy still outweigh these ‘fundamental problems.’ I still maintain that you have a prejudice against unions that is imbalanced to your rosy view of businesses. I believe this is due to successful conservative messaging.
I do agree that there are good businesses, as your examples. A lot of that conduct is the result of union presence and threat, and that’s another positive outcome of their existence.
But there are many that aren’t so good, as you concede, and that is where union presence is needed. If these ‘bad’ businesses have no entity opposing them (getting around govt. regulations as they always so easily do, using their money to lobby for their interests), then why would you want to wait to perfect union management, when it can still have real benefit to the workers?
The bigger gun of union power will give more to American workers than it will take away.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pmIn most corporations, it isn’t in it’s best interests to pay workers more money or give them decent benefits. The corporations exist for the bottom line and to reward their shareholders.
Since the New Deal and the Wagner Act which brought a greater number of workers into unions, non-union companies paid better wages and provided decent benefits to keep unions out. Unions were a great perk for non-union workers for a long time until Reagan did an all out assault on the working class. Real wages have declined since the Republican assault on organized labor on most every worker throughout the USA.
If you have a good company that treats you well and provides a good wage and benefits today without a union, pinch yourself and count yourself extremely lucky.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pmA question for swordsbane. Did your mother join the Teacher’s Union? Or, did she refuse, but go ahead and take the benefits and pay raises that were won in negotiations? That’s the thing that really burns my ass about anti-union workers. They will cuss unions all day long, but they sure won’t turn down the benefits. There is a word for those kind of people. SCABS!
March 9th, 2009 at 5:06 pmbackup, in all due respect,
the process of de-certifying a union requires the same process. If 50% + 1 of the members want it, then the secret ballot is bypassed, much as the Employee Free Choice Act would do so when it comes to unionizing. If you worry about voter intimidation when it comes to unionizing, you have to worry about it in cases of decertifying. Of course the conservatives never bring that up, because anything to do away with a union easier, they will accept with gleeful joy. The same process to make a union, they will fight with the hypocrisy that has come to represent their views.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pmI believe this is due to successful conservative messaging.
I think you got your tinfoil hat wound a bit too tight. My politics is ‘colored’ by the idea of fairness and freedom, specifically in this case, the freedom to say “No.. I’m not going to try to force my employer to give me more money.” If you’re saying that the problems I mentioned don’t exist, well then there isn’t much I have to say to you. If you say they DO exist, then the responsible thing to do is to fix them, and to fix them BEFORE you do something that could make those problems worse by giving more power to the unions. As I said, even if you don’t think these problems are big enough now, this particular bill WILL make them bigger. The only argument is how much. I prefer not to trade one for the other.
Point of fact fergus;
March 9th, 2009 at 5:25 pmNo, she didn’t join the union and no, non-union members do not (or at least did not, she’s retired now) benefit from whatever the union did. Even if she did, she did not ask for those benefits, and I don’t believe you should be forced to pay for something that you don’t want or something that was slipped into your pocket while you weren’t looking. Some union advocates think that is okay. They’re wrong.
Just wait until Obama puts another friendly face on the National mediation Board, the Reich will absolutely $hit themselves.Just take a look at the Nw and Delta airlines merger, Delta is trying to get the NMB to put above the wing and below the wing crafts together when we should be seperated, if we have seperate crafts we have a seperate vote above and below the wing.This NMB is corporate driven and Delta`s plan might succeed if it weren`t for the I.A.M and it`s hard work for the rank and file of Nw Airlines and the folks at Delta that want to be unionized.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pmSwordsbane, are you saying that she didn’t receive the same health benefits package or pay rate that was negotiated for union teachers? Or, are you saying that she was quite happy doing the same work for less money than her co-workers?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:00 pmSwordsbane, you stated “even if she did, she didn’t ask for those benefits…” The question would then be, even if she didn’t ask for them, did she accept and use them?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pmSwordsbane, are you saying that she didn’t receive the same health benefits package or pay rate that was negotiated for union teachers? Or, are you saying that she was quite happy doing the same work for less money than her co-workers?
Not important. You don’t put money into someone’s pocket, then call it stealing and force them to get another job if they don’t thank you and start giving some of it back. If the mafia did that, they’d call it a protection racket. They’d be right too.
and yes, she did earn less than union members and was happy with her salary, or at least not unhappy enough to live by the union rules to change it. Like I said, we should all be permitted to make that decision for ourselves.
Swordsbane, you stated “even if she did, she didn’t ask for those benefits…” The question would then be, even if she didn’t ask for them, did she accept and use them?
As I said: you don’t stuff money into someone’s pocket and then accuse them of stealing. It’s not about getting as much money and benefits as possible for each and every employee. It’s about getting ADEQUATE money and benefits. Sometimes, the union gets it wrong. Opting out should not be only one step removed from committing a crime. Each and every one of us should be free to use the unions or have nothing to do with them as we see fit, and not be fired or unemployable because of either decision.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:21 pmMr. Buffet knows what he says is a lie. All this act does is allow people to discuss and decide whether of not to have a union. It does not force or coerce. It allows employees to talk about it without getting fired. That is all it does and he and the rest of the Republicans know this.
What angers me is how we have all profited by unions even if we do not belong to one. Without all the gains we have obtained by the work and deaths of union organizers we would still be working in substandard conditions. Slave wages, no vacations, no health care of any kind, unsafe conditions, and not even a lunch hour. Employers would not be accountable for anything they could fire without cause etc.
Unions got all these things for us. Now corporations want to turn all that back. Way back to what was the golden age for the barons and the wealthy but not for anyone else. This is what the Republicans want. Back to the two classes. Rich and poor with no middle class. A place where only the top 2% prospered. And they want us to smile, be grateful for crumbs that we earn and to shut up of course.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:32 pmWhat angers me is how we have all profited by unions even if we do not belong to one. Without all the gains we have obtained by the work and deaths of union organizers we would still be working in substandard conditions. Slave wages, no vacations, no health care of any kind, unsafe conditions, and not even a lunch hour. Employers would not be accountable for anything they could fire without cause etc.
Then your anger is misplaced. Each union is run differently. Some… maybe most have a lot to offer to their members, but maybe I don’t need it. If you ask me, I might join even if I don’t need a raise or more benefits or whatever. If you demand I join, I WILL refuse and my conscience will be clear. If you make it mandatory or I’ll lose my job or take some of my money for fees even if I don’t join, then I’m on the side of the employer and I’ll fight you, because the way I was raised, that’s extortion.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:43 pmIt was a simple question, Sword–Did she use the benefits or not? Don’t be republican about it. Just answer the question. Was she a SCAB, or not?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:47 pmNo tinfoil needed, swordsbane. I work in PR and I know messaging, and you’re going to look more foolish than you already do if you deny that the Republicans are masters of controlling media and information.
The conservative’s last flimsy argument- to take it to some level of ‘personal choice’ and ‘freedom’ that the evil liberal is taking away from them. Those damned liberals, they want to take away the beauty of the free market! The free choice to unionize or not…oh wait. That’s the name of the bill, and we’re arguing over an ADDITIONAL option for unions for people to democratically opt for a union OR NOT.
As I’ve already stated, it still comes down to a democratic vote, that you have to go along with. If you don’t like it, then you can go live in the middle of nowhere and don’t give your kids social security numbers or whatever you wingnuts do. Of course you’ll still use every public resource- road/water/etc., but hey, you’re such a rugged individualist… we don’t want to cramp your style.
The rest of us will work together, organize, be in communities, and look out for each other, which is ultimately what unions do, warts and all.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:07 pmFor home-care workers in Oregon and their clients, the SEIU has been a godsend. Home care workers without health insurance is a very sorry situation that has been remedied, thanks to the union.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:10 pmt was a simple question, Sword–Did she use the benefits or not? Don’t be republican about it. Just answer the question. Was she a SCAB, or not?
I did answer that question. I can’t help it if you didn’t read it.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:22 pmRealness Says:
No tinfoil needed, swordsbane. I work in PR and I know messaging, and you’re going to look more foolish than you already do if you deny that the Republicans are masters of controlling media and information.
The conservative’s last flimsy argument- to take it to some level of ‘personal choice’ and ‘freedom’ that the evil liberal is taking away from them. Those damned liberals, they want to take away the beauty of the free market! The free choice to unionize or not…oh wait. That’s the name of the bill, and we’re arguing over an ADDITIONAL option for unions for people to democratically opt for a union OR NOT.
As I’ve already stated, it still comes down to a democratic vote, that you have to go along with. If you don’t like it, then you can go live in the middle of nowhere and don’t give your kids social security numbers or whatever you wingnuts do. Of course you’ll still use every public resource- road/water/etc., but hey, you’re such a rugged individualist… we don’t want to cramp your style.
The rest of us will work together, organize, be in communities, and look out for each other, which is ultimately what unions do, warts and all.
Then I hope the implication was not as it seemed; that a conservative argument swayed my decision, because the hate I have for republicans and conservatives is that if any of the one’s in politics showed up at my door, I would punch them in the face without even wondering why they were there.
So it is reasonable to conclude that I came up with these ideas independently, on my own, or at least from some other source, so you can save your argument for where it applies.
And if you’re wondering, no. I would treat democrats differently. I would ask why they were there first. If I didn’t like the answer, THEN I’d punch him/her/them.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:29 pmThat’s the name of the bill, and we’re arguing over an ADDITIONAL option for unions for people to democratically opt for a union OR NOT.
The argument, as I understood it was that the contention of the opponents to the bill is (among other things) that it would make it easier for unions to pressure non-union members into joining. The contention for supporters is that it would not.
I find that entirely relevant to a discussion of the pros and cons of mandatory union membership, since some of the people here seem to think that (or imply that) mandatory membership is okay. I do not, and I was stating my reasons because of some of the people here who questioned me on it.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:35 pmAs a Progressive minded business owner of a Union shop, and a former union rep., I have only one BIG concern with this legislation. Forget the card check or the secret balloting. Forget “Free Choice” or not. This legislation contains a requirement for Federal arbitration if contracts cannot be agreed upon with in 90 day’s of employees agreeing to unionize. I’ve been involved with over 100 contract negotiations of wich 40% of them took upwards of 6 month to a year. Every time arbitrators stepped in, it ended negative for the unions and the employees. Please don’t get stuck in the liberal and conservative talking points. READ this bill and make your decision.
As for me, I’m still split as to what is best.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:32 pmblue dog: It is NEVER a good idea to bring the government into a dispute unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. Government regulation is one thing, but Federal Arbitration is quite another. Make no mistake, I DO think that the government and the corporate world are on each others sides in this. Unions were created because the government wasn’t doing it’s job. In the end, the government PERMITTED unions to function, but they weren’t created by them, nor would the government have created unions on their own for any reason.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:44 pmYour absolutely right!!!! The scariest thing about this bill is it give the govenment more control over the union/employee base and the business. This is a dissaster waiting to happen and could lead to the destruction on organized labor. “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”
March 9th, 2009 at 8:58 pmPlease. I have read the bill. Swordsbane- go back to World of Warcraft, or wherever you got that name, and Blue Dog- just like your moniker: Republican in Democrats clothing. Both of you have a premise that government involved would be detrimental, just like a typical conservative, who just wants to dismantle what little control the government has.
The arbitration and mediation periods both have definite time limits. The only thing that’s been tying it up now, Blue Dog “union organizer,” is the employer, who can do so now under present laws with no teeth. This will actually expedite the process.
There is also currently no law having enough teeth against companies for unlawful firing. EFCA would remedy that, with required federal injunctions against companies with reasonable cause to believe there’s been an illegal firing or discrimination.
Please try and continue to have your misinforming propaganda be the last word on this thread, its kind of pathetic.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:54 ambackup Says:
If it makes sense to do away with the secret ballot for labor unions, would it also make sense to do away with the secret ballot when we choose our representation in Congress and in the White House?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stop LYING. Stop being such a gullible propaganda parrot and regurgitating what Rush or whatever screechmonkey is pulling your strings tells you to think. The employees can still have a secret ballot if they want one but if a majority of them sign the card they dont HAVE to. That is they dont HAVE to let their company fire the union organizers and have meetings where the intimidate them and bully them into changing their minds. Just stop LYING. Only a complete MORON would compare this to a Presidential election.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:45 amNo less obnoxious than the unions posing as the heroic defenders of the workers. Unions today exist to enrichen and empower the Union leadership while they masquerade as the protectors of the downtrodden worker.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cough those cases up or show yourself as a liar and a fool. You are just another weasel who carries water for power and wealth either because you are stupid and brainwashed or because you are a butt kissing sychophant hoping to get some crumbs off the table.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:50 amswordsbane Says:
I believe this is due to successful conservative messaging.
I think you got your tinfoil hat wound a bit too tight. My politics is ‘colored’ by the idea of fairness and freedom, specifically in this case, the freedom to say “No.. I’m not going to try to force my employer to give me more money.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is all I needed to read. I just scratch my head at people so brainwashed that they put their employer ahead of their family. Just tell your daughter you are sorry you couldnt afford that prom dress or to send her to college but you just didnt want to make your employer pay you more money. Who would put their family first when they LOVE their chains and give their loyalty to their BOSS instead of their family. You are a lost cause. Vote against the unions. Why make a good wage, have good benifits a pension. Instead make sure your employer can afford his mansion, Rolls Royce and summer home in Barbados. Tell your wife when you are eating dogfood once you retire that at least you made sure your EMPLOYER was could live like a Roman Emporer since THAT was your priority. You remind me of the scene in Animal House when Kevin Bacon was being initiated in his underwear being spanked by Nedermeyer and screaming thank you master may I have another. Once Vietnam and among REAL MEN, Nedermeyer was promptly KILLED BY THEM. Please try to find a clue SOMEWHERE.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:03 amI support unions,and think that they have been torpedoed by R. Reagan and the overly powerful business magnates of today, but we should not forget the rampant corruption and violence within the unions in the past. This is what turned America in general, against them and allowed Reagan to get away with his Flight Controllers union raping. A major aspect of union corruption has been intimidation. Whatever must be done to stop that, should be done, for the ordinary union members’ sake.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:17 amSecret ballots are important, and will be better for unions in the long run. Unions will be on the uptick with the depression upon us; then the pendulum will swing too far if we do not learn the lesson of excessive union intimidation.
Eugene Debs, you should address the point: secret ballots or not. Most of us are not against unions, just that they be voluntary and run well.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:20 amHighPlainsJoker-
Honestly, I would like links and examples of excessive union intimidation. And how this stacks up against excessive employer intimidation. I want to know. I don’t think it was just coincidental that American ‘turned against unions’ in the Reagan era. I am saying that there are political strategies that include media distortion of facts and specific cases of union abuse of power. It’s like the evening news that only shows the worst of the days news: murders, kidnappings, etc., and not getting a real sense of crime rates and facts.
How is it far-fetched that a corporate run media would not be slanted towards an unflattering picture of unions- for decades? People need to start thinking critically about their information.
Again, I would like your evidence.
I am thoroughly excited by the pendulum swinging towards the workers, because they are the real Americans that have made this country great, and they deserve better.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pmFacts about EFCA:
Today if 50%+1 of union members sign cards to decertify their union and present them to management, the union is gone, no election. EFCA dosen’t change that.
Today if 30% of members sign cards to decertify a union, an NLRB election is held. EFCA dosen’t change that.
Today if 30% of a bargaining unit sign cards to form a union, an NLRB election is held. EFCA dosen’t change that unless;
50%+1 of a bargaining unit signs cards to form a union then the company must recognize and negotiate a first contract. The comapny cannot reject the will of the workers and demand an election.
Now, after EFCA,after a card check recognition, if the unsupportive bargaining unit members wish to have an election to demonstrate the union viability, only 30% would have to sign cards to mandate an NLRB election.
The true intent of EFCA is to remove the Company from effecting the outcome of the workers wishes.
The fact that the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufactures, and Bernie(EFCA will destroy civilization) Marcus are hell bent on defeating EFCA shows how intent they are in maintaining the corporate advantage of influencing and defeating union certifications by delay, intimidation, mandatory anti union meetings, closure threats, and illegal firings, while hiding behind the thin veil of(company demanded) secret ballot elections.
If anyone believes that they are in this fight for workplace democracy, you’re delusional.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:22 pmEugeneDebs, Realness, why is it impossible to disagree with you without being labeled a conservative drone? It is clearly possible to support an idea authored by a democrat without actually being one. It is also possible to oppose an idea authored by a democrat without being a republican or a conservative. If name calling is what you would like to do, I can give you an email address to send all your insults to if it will make you feel better. Otherwise, don’t spend time telling me who or what you think I am. It’s not going to make me go away or affect my arguments (except explanations like this) You’re time will be much better spent telling me why I’m wrong.
1) I’m NOT against unions. Let me say that again: I’m NOT AGAINST UNIONS. There is nothing in any of my comments that says so and plenty that says I think unions are a good idea
2) There is a difference between saying that there are problems with unions and saying that they have too much power. I don’t believe they have too much power, and I do believe that their influence should be expanded. I am simply saying that the problems they DO have should be addressed before doing that. That’s it. If those problems were addressed, I’d happily support this bill as is. As I said before, if you do not agree with me that unions have real problems, then we should just stop wasting each other’s time.
I know tempers run hot where issues like this are concerned, but I stand by all the statements I made. If you want to make inferences beyond what I said, please do me the courtesy of asking me what I meant first, even if you don’t believe my answer. Not doing so makes you sound like a rabid dog. Try being civil. You’d be surprised how far you get.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:36 pmRight, and dismissing arguments with “tin foil hat” references makes you seem the high example of fairness and civility. Don’t be a hypocrite. I stand by my statements as well that concern for union wrongdoings should exist, but is in no way equal or proportionate to employer wrongdoing.
People feel passionate about this issue because a great deal is at stake for the American worker, the very real shrinking of the American middle class. There is a lot of anger on this site because real progressive legislation continues to be denied.
Dismissing people who you’ve just insulted as ‘rabid dogs,’ is disingenous. You are not a victim, but part of the problem.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pmSwordsbane bragged about his mother refusing to join a union in her workplace. (#63 & #67) He brags that he doesn’t want or need more money from his employer. (#63) Jack London wrote an essay about people who are willing to do the same work as their co-workers, only for less money. He called them SCABS! After reading and re-reading Swordsbanes missives I can only agree with Londons description. Unions work for the good of the entire membership, while SCABS think only of themselves. Not their families, not their communities, not for society; only themselves. They are selfish and dangerous to their fellow man. Swordsbane may have been raised to believe in being a SCAB, but, that doesn’t mean he has to live as one. He is doing that of his own free will, which, I guess, is his right. Just as despising him for it, shunning him for it, and exposing him for it is my right. And I will exercize that right.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:15 pmBEGONE SCAB!
Fergus: The story about my mother was about her being PRESSURED to join. The union was harassing her. It was in response to someone saying that Unions DON’T harrass non-union members. Granted it was anectodal evidence but it was NOT bragging. And I don’t know why you’d have to ‘expose’ me. I’m not hiding anything.
If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that if I don’t want to be in a union, I should quit my job. Is that right? If I don’t quit my job and still don’t want to join the union, I get called a scab and harassed into joining the union, either by the union or it’s members? Is that what you’re saying? Is that the kind of behavior you’re condoning? All because you think it would be better for everyone if I joined?
March 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pmDismissing people who you’ve just insulted as ‘rabid dogs,’ is disingenous.
Wrong again. What I said was:
If you want to make inferences beyond what I said, please do me the courtesy of asking me what I meant first, even if you don’t believe my answer. Not doing so makes you sound like a rabid dog.
Is it so insulting to ask that you ask me before jumping to conclusions? I qualified that so that IF you are going to jump to conclusions, you SOUND like a rabid dog. If you automatically infer that I’m calling anyone a rabid dog, you are wrong, and guilty of what I was talking complaining about.
Please try to keep my words in context.
On the other hand, Eugene Debs comment:
Stop LYING. Stop being such a gullible propaganda parrot and regurgitating what Rush or whatever screechmonkey is pulling your strings tells you to think.
Is just insulting. Even assuming backup was wrong, calling someone a liar when you don’t know if they’re lying or just mistaken is insulting, period. But then he turns right around and says backup was a “gullible propaganda parrot” which is also insulting, but if true would make backup mistaken, not a liar. Then calling the source of backups info a “screechmonkey” that is “pulling his strings” is not only an insult, but a useless insult, being irrelevant to the discussion and not something Eugene Debs could possibly know anyway.
Right, and dismissing arguments with “tin foil hat” references makes you seem the high example of fairness and civility. Don’t be a hypocrite. I stand by my statements as well that concern for union wrongdoings should exist, but is in no way equal or proportionate to employer wrongdoing.
I’m not dismissing anyone, or I wouldn’t have bothered after my first sentence. Possibly the tinfoil hat comment was unwarranted, but I didn’t think it was an insult. Everyone has a tinfoil hat, even me. It’s the paranoia that makes everyone think that if someone disagrees with them, then they are in league with the enemy. It can be compensated for by thinking about what you’re going to say before you say it, but it’s just human nature. It’s pretty much the only political constant.
On the other hand, you seem content to dismiss my arguments because of who you think I am rather than their merit. Stick to picking my argument apart without pointless accusations about who’s feeding me lines, who I work for, or how much conservative propaganda you think I’ve swallowed.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pmHigh Plains Joker. YOU should address the point instead of regurgitating the old tired propaganda about union corruption and violence. Historically the violence was ALWAYS in response to much higher and more violent action by companies and when is the last time you can point to any real violence by unions. It is a fantasy. Sure there is some union corruption anywhere you get money you get corruption but I belong to a well run union well policed BY our union and am sick of the red herrings we hear everytime the subject of unions comes up. Corruption has nothing to do with card check and any real pattern of violence is nothing more than a fantasy. I have been a union member for more than 30 years. A large union and have seen very little corruption and ZERO violence.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pmswordsbane Says:
Fergus: The story about my mother was about her being PRESSURED to join. The union was harassing her. It was in response to someone saying that Unions DON’T harrass non-union members. Granted it was anectodal evidence but it was NOT bragging. And I don’t know why you’d have to ‘expose’ me. I’m not hiding anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The US has had BY FAR the most violent labor history of ANY industrial nation and the huge majority of that violence has come from COMPANIES not unions. Yeah its anectdotal and most likely ancient history.
If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that if I don’t want to be in a union, I should quit my job. Is that right? If I don’t quit my job and still don’t want to join the union, I get called a scab and harassed into joining the union, either by the union or it’s members? Is that what you’re saying? Is that the kind of behavior you’re condoning? All because you think it would be better for everyone if I joined?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At the point your shop is represented BY a union and you dont want to join you become a parasite. Getting the benfits of being IN a union without making the sacrifices your fellow workers are making to HAVE a union. Yeah you should quit if you had an ounce of integrity rather than take a free lunch off of those paying the dues and standing up to the company for the benifits you are then enjoying.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pmSwordsbane, you’ve hit the nail right on the head. If you’re working in a union shop and don’t want to join the union, then, yeah, quit your job. If you happen to be one of those unfortunates who live in a Right-To-Work (for less)state, such as Oklahoma, and are allowed to SCAB in your workplace, then, again, yeah, you should be harassed. That is exactly the kind of behavior that I’m condoning. You know going into the job that it is a union shop, or that it has been organized after you went to work there, and you still insist on being a scab, you are undermining the whole concept of collective bargaining–One for All, and, All for One. Not every man for himself. You choose to be a SCAB then you earn what you have coming. Disgust, disrespect, harassment, intimidation. You get it because you and your beliefs threaten the welfare of your co-workers. No sympathy, no slack, and no relief. Why? Because, you are a SCAB!
March 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pmswordsbane Says:
On the other hand, Eugene Debs comment:
Stop LYING. Stop being such a gullible propaganda parrot and regurgitating what Rush or whatever screechmonkey is pulling your strings tells you to think.
Is just insulting. Even assuming backup was wrong, calling someone a liar when you don’t know if they’re lying or just mistaken is insulting, period. But then he turns right around and says backup was a “gullible propaganda parrot” which is also insulting, but if true would make backup mistaken, not a liar. Then calling the source of backups info a “screechmonkey” that is “pulling his strings” is not only an insult, but a useless insult, being irrelevant to the discussion and not something Eugene Debs could possibly know anyway.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is pure projection on your part. I KNOW what I am talking about I study these things. EVERYONE has a tinfoil hat or is paranoid? You are able to say this HOW? Did you read EVERYONES mind with your amazing mind reading powers or did you just pull this assumption directly out of YOUR ASS? It ISNT a political constant that everyone is paranoid though it MAY be a political constant that rightwingnuts see in everyone else their own faults and THINK they are universal. You can only speak for yourself. You dont speak for me that is certain. Retire your amazing mind reading powers THEY. DONT. EXIST.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:26 pmAt the point your shop is represented BY a union and you dont want to join you become a parasite. Getting the benfits of being IN a union without making the sacrifices your fellow workers are making to HAVE a union. Yeah you should quit if you had an ounce of integrity rather than take a free lunch off of those paying the dues and standing up to the company for the benifits you are then enjoying.
So if I’m working at a job and the company goes union, then my choices are quit or join? That’s extortion. (definition: exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority.) Of course that depends on what you think “undue exercise of authority” is, but I think threatening your job counts.
You choose to be a SCAB then you earn what you have coming. Disgust, disrespect, harassment, intimidation. You get it because you and your beliefs threaten the welfare of your co-workers. No sympathy, no slack, and no relief. Why? Because, you are a SCAB!
You can’t use the idea that I should be harassed as the reason why I should be harassed.
What, exactly, am I undermining by not being in a union? It doesn’t hurt you (assuming you’re in a union) If the employer wants to fire you and hire more people like me who will work for lower wages, then that’s where your problem is. That doesn’t happen because I need to earn a living and don’t want TWO bosses. That happens because the employer wants to cut costs at the expense of the workers. How is that any different than firing non-union people because they won’t do what the union says? People have gotten so used to unions that they don’t even question if the same goals can be achieved some other way.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:34 pmswordsbane Says:
Half of my post dissapeared into the nether. I said NO he is LYING. It isnt too much to ask if you are going to comment ON a thread that you have READ THE ARTICLE WHICH CONTAINS THIS DIRECTLY
Unfortunately, Buffett is adopting the right-wing’s misleading talking points on the Free Choice Act. The proposed bill — as the name indicates — would not end secret balloting in labor elections, but rather provide a choice. It would offer an alternative fairer path for workers to unionize by enabling them to form a union by getting a majority to sign cards of consent (the “card check”), instead of having to undergo a full unionization campaign (which are often subject to employer intimidation).
How is this a mistake when it is shown to be incorrect RIGHT THERE WITH LINKS? I KNOW he got it from a screechmonkey because that is what we have been hearing from them since day one and IT ISNT TRUE. He cannot have come up with it by checking it out on his own SINCE IT ISNT TRUE. What part of it isnt true DONT you understand? Since checking it out wont get you there what is the alternative way to get such MISINFORMATION? He heard it from the screechmonkeys that make this a staple LIE on the subject either first or second hand but it CAME FROM A SCREECHMONKEY it is just that simple.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:35 pmswordsbane Says:
So if I’m working at a job and the company goes union, then my choices are quit or join? That’s extortion. (definition: exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority.) Of course that depends on what you think “undue exercise of authority” is, but I think threatening your job counts.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes if you had integrity you would quit. I see you want a free lunch on the employees who DO make the sacrifices for the benfits you would then enjoy that makes you a parasite and I think a specially hot corner of Hell awaits those who take advantage of those willing to do the hard thing to make things better for their fellows by taking the advantages and not doing their part. I know what extortion means. I doubt the concept exists you could illuminate for me in any way. Threatening your job is EXACTLY the kind of intimidation that the COMPANIES use to thwart the formations OF unions. If you WANT to be a parasite you really should expect others to SEE you as a parasite and TREAT you as a parasite. Then again how can I reason with someone so brainwashed that they dont WANT to make their employer pay them more money because he doesnt CARE about his family rather he cares about assuring his BOSS makes his payments on that third home in Aspen. Little Jenny can do without her prom dress and your wife can live in poverty when you retire because Ferarris dont pay for themselves.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:42 pmI am a member of a closed shop union. You cannot GET my job without joining the Union. I live in a Right to Work (cheap) state and even here you cannot work my job without joining the Union.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pmThis is pure projection on your part. I KNOW what I am talking about I study these things. EVERYONE has a tinfoil hat or is paranoid? You are able to say this HOW? Did you read EVERYONES mind with your amazing mind reading powers or did you just pull this assumption directly out of YOUR ASS? It ISNT a political constant that everyone is paranoid though it MAY be a political constant that rightwingnuts see in everyone else their own faults and THINK they are universal. You can only speak for yourself. You dont speak for me that is certain. Retire your amazing mind reading powers THEY. DONT. EXIST.
Okay. I’ll bite. What DID you mean when you said this:
Stop LYING. Stop being such a gullible propaganda parrot and regurgitating what Rush or whatever screechmonkey is pulling your strings tells you to think.
What argument did it support? How did you know he was lying and not mistaken. How did you know someone was pulling is strings?
As to how do I know everyone is paranoid? You might well have asked me how do I know everyone dislikes someone. Honestly, I guess I have to admit that it might not be true, but it is true in so many cases, you’d have to go a long way before you find someone who may NOT dislike SOMEONE, and you can make the statement “everyone dislikes SOMEONE” unless someone can prove otherwise.
Notice I didn’t say “everyone is ruled by their paranoia” I was referring to the general mistrust everyone has about someone or something. You mistrust someone or a group of someone’s and you naturally are more inclined to believe that they are responsible for bad things that happen unless you’re sure they aren’t.
How am I able to say this? Exhibit A: This blog. The idea that if someone disagrees with a progressive, they must be a conservative (shill/dupe/troll/drone) is all over Think Progress. I see it all the time, and except for a few who actually seem to BE trolls or conservatives, most of the time, there is no evidence to support it. I’m not saying that the suspicion is wrong. I admit to having those suspicions too. It’s jumping to the accusation without any further evidence that is wrong, or at the very least counter-productive.
You say: You can only speak for yourself.
Granted, and if you can honestly say you didn’t suspect me of being a conservative, then you may be right. If you did suspect me of being a conservative, then to still be right, you would have to have some evidence of me being a conservative beyond the fact that I disagree with what you say. I’m not asking you to PROVE I am a conservative. I just would like you to back up what you say.
And if you’re only ‘evidence’ is that I sound like one, explain why this should be treated as evidence, or even relevant to any discussion.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pmswordbane
I already answered the first part of your post above HOW I knew it was a lie instead of a mistake and how it is only logical that either first or second hand it came from a screechmonkey. What I suspected isnt relevant. I didnt ACCUSE you of being a conservative. I didnt USE that as an argument in any way so the rest of your post is simply irrelevant to the discussion. As to your last missive since I didnt accuse you of being a conservative it wouldnt even make SENSE for me to introduce any evidence you WERE a conservative. Really what the heck are you talking about?
March 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pmEugeneDebs Says:
swordsbane Says:
Half of my post dissapeared into the nether. I said NO he is LYING. It isnt too much to ask if you are going to comment ON a thread that you have READ THE ARTICLE WHICH CONTAINS THIS DIRECTLY
Unfortunately, Buffett is adopting the right-wing’s misleading talking points on the Free Choice Act. The proposed bill — as the name indicates — would not end secret balloting in labor elections, but rather provide a choice. It would offer an alternative fairer path for workers to unionize by enabling them to form a union by getting a majority to sign cards of consent (the “card check”), instead of having to undergo a full unionization campaign (which are often subject to employer intimidation).
How is this a mistake when it is shown to be incorrect RIGHT THERE WITH LINKS? I KNOW he got it from a screechmonkey because that is what we have been hearing from them since day one and IT ISNT TRUE. He cannot have come up with it by checking it out on his own SINCE IT ISNT TRUE. What part of it isnt true DONT you understand? Since checking it out wont get you there what is the alternative way to get such MISINFORMATION? He heard it from the screechmonkeys that make this a staple LIE on the subject either first or second hand but it CAME FROM A SCREECHMONKEY it is just that simple.
You’ll have to repost this. If you were trying to repost something I said, it doesn’t look like it came out right. I don’t know what you’re trying to say. My comment on what you said was an example of insulting speech, not the relative merits of anything Buffet (or even backup) had to say.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pmYes if you had integrity you would quit. I see you want a free lunch on the employees who DO make the sacrifices for the benfits you would then enjoy
How does non-joining the union give me a free lunch?
that makes you a parasite and I think a specially hot corner of Hell awaits those who take advantage of those willing to do the hard thing to make things better for their fellows by taking the advantages and not doing their part. I know what extortion means.
How is something wrong done to you by someone else made right by you doing it to me?
I doubt the concept exists you could illuminate for me in any way.
I don’t understand this.
Threatening your job is EXACTLY the kind of intimidation that the COMPANIES use to thwart the formations OF unions.
Again, how is that different from intimidating me into joining your union?
If you WANT to be a parasite you really should expect others to SEE you as a parasite and TREAT you as a parasite.
I’m only a parasite if I’m taking from you. I’m taking from my employer in exchange for doing him a service.
Then again how can I reason with someone so brainwashed that they dont WANT to make their employer pay them more money because he doesnt CARE about his family rather he cares about assuring his BOSS makes his payments on that third home in Aspen. Little Jenny can do without her prom dress and your wife can live in poverty when you retire because Ferarris dont pay for themselves.
This is just name-calling. You have no idea what I do for my family, how much I earn or even if I’m in a union or not. If you want to KNOW something about, ask me. Otherwise please keep your speculations to yourself.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:14 pmswordbane
I wasnt going to address this as it was addressed to someone else but I think I will
What, exactly, am I undermining by not being in a union? It doesn’t hurt you (assuming you’re in a union) If the employer wants to fire you and hire more people like me who will work for lower wages, then that’s where your problem is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of COURSE it does. You are TAKING the benifits OF being in a union without doing your part to support the mechanism that GETS you those benifits it is exactly the same thing as regularly to someone elses dinner which THEY PAY FOR. IF the boss wants to fire people and hire those who work for less the union with holds its labor so they cant MAKE money. If YOU would undercut that it makes you a SCAB by definition. There is nothing lower than someone who would stab his fellows in the back to carry water for wealth and power. You would undercut your fellow workers and then kiss rich butt to make YOUR living when your fellows also have to make a living and are trying to make a better living for ALL THE WORKERS. You put yourself above everyone else. Then after 20 years of working for your employer when he fires YOU because you have no union protection to give your job to his shiftless nephew (everyone not under a contract is an at will worker and can be fired for ANY reason not protected by civil rights acts) Your only option is to snivel and WISH you hadnt been so gullible. I know of TWO people that EXACTLY that happened to one had worked for 17 years the other 22 years.
That doesn’t happen because I need to earn a living and don’t want TWO bosses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Man you dont understand ANYTHING about unions and just swallow the silliest nonsense. The Union works for ME, I dont work for IT.
That happens because the employer wants to cut costs at the expense of the workers. How is that any different than firing non-union people because they won’t do what the union says?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Have you gone insane? The unions do not send out commands. WE are the Union they have no ability to fire ANYONE. I have never HEARD of one that does. They have a right to say IF you dont belong to a closed shop union you cant have the job but Unions dont fire people they make sure the employer doesnt fire people for no good reason.
People have gotten so used to unions that they don’t even question if the same goals can be achieved some other way.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Because it CANT. Power concedes NOTHING without a demand NOTHING. The bussiness of bussiness is maximizing profits, THAT is what they teach in bussiness school. IF a CEO decided he should increase benifits and wages beyond what he had to he would be FIRED by the board of directors and replaced with someone who would, you know, MAXIMIZE PROFITS.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:16 pmswordsbane Says: 102
Are you kidding? You asked how I knew it was a lie instead of a mistake. How can it be a mistake when it is shown RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE that it isnt true. The article he is commenting on
March 10th, 2009 at 4:19 pmswordbane
I already answered the first part of your post above HOW I knew it was a lie instead of a mistake and how it is only logical that either first or second hand it came from a screechmonkey. What I suspected isnt relevant. I didnt ACCUSE you of being a conservative. I didnt USE that as an argument in any way so the rest of your post is simply irrelevant to the discussion. As to your last missive since I didnt accuse you of being a conservative it wouldnt even make SENSE for me to introduce any evidence you WERE a conservative. Really what the heck are you talking about?
I’m afraid that won’t work. To know he was lying, either he’d have to tell you, or you would have to somehow know that he knew what was the truth and then said something different. Finding something you “know” to be true and assuming that he also knows this is unwarranted.
In any case, calling someone a liar at all is, at best, rude, and usually insulting no matter what your evidence. The part about him being a “gullible propaganda parrot and regurgitating what Rush or whatever screechmonkey is pulling your strings tells you to think.” is simply insulting. Period.
That’s it. I quoted you as an example of needlessly insulting speech. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with either of your arguments about the bill being right or wrong.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pmswordsbane Says:
How does non-joining the union give me a free lunch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is that a JOKE? you cant be this dense. You would be taking the benifits, higher wages, better benifits, a pension WITHOUT contributing your union dues and your solidarity. You GET without giving
How is something wrong done to you by someone else made right by you doing it to me?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No one is doing anything WRONG to you by expecting YOU to contribute to the very thing bringing you benifits. No more than someone is doing something WRONG by expecting you to pay for your electricity.
I doubt the concept exists you could illuminate for me in any way.
I don’t understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Giving me the definition of extortion was being condescending I was returning the favor.
Threatening your job is EXACTLY the kind of intimidation that the COMPANIES use to thwart the formations OF unions.
Again, how is that different from intimidating me into joining your union?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is different because the UNION is only expecting you to do YOUR part to support the very thing that brings you the benifits of HAVING the union. The only real relationship you have with your employer is that he pays for your time and labor threatening to fire you for wanting a union IS ILLEGAL see the Wagner Act
I’m only a parasite if I’m taking from you. I’m taking from my employer in exchange for doing him a service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes we know how much more you care about your employer than you do your family you have already established that. You ARE taking. Taking the benifits higher wages better benifits usually a pension from being IN a union and you dont want to contribute that is the very definition of being a parasite.
Then again how can I reason with someone so brainwashed that they dont WANT to make their employer pay them more money because he doesnt CARE about his family rather he cares about assuring his BOSS makes his payments on that third home in Aspen. Little Jenny can do without her prom dress and your wife can live in poverty when you retire because Ferarris dont pay for themselves.
This is just name-calling. You have no idea what I do for my family, how much I earn or even if I’m in a union or not. If you want to KNOW something about, ask me. Otherwise please keep your speculations to yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You dont get to tell me what to do. I will make any argument I choose. I couldnt care less if you like it or not. This is the logical conclusion to make of someone who argues against a union by saying he doesnt WANT to make his employer pay him more money that he is putting his employers profits above his family
March 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pmswordsbane Says:
I’m afraid that won’t work. To know he was lying, either he’d have to tell you, or you would have to somehow know that he knew what was the truth and then said something different. Finding something you “know” to be true and assuming that he also knows this is unwarranted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your argument is ridiculous. He was commenting on THIS ARTICLE what I posted was IN THOS ARTICLE. It isnt too much to assume that he READ THE ARTICLE HE WAS COMMENTING ON. THis is actually pretty simple. I didnt go LOOKING for this and found it IT IS IN THE ARTICLE HE WAS COMMENTING ON.
In any case, calling someone a liar at all is, at best, rude, and usually insulting no matter what your evidence. The part about him being a “gullible propaganda parrot and regurgitating what Rush or whatever screechmonkey is pulling your strings tells you to think.” is simply insulting. Period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is simply TRUE period. I am under no obligation to refrain from calling someone LYING a liar because it offends your delicate sensabilities.
That’s it. I quoted you as an example of needlessly insulting speech. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with either of your arguments about the bill being right or wrong.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
And I showed why your argument was ludicrous. You seem to think I have an obligation to conform to YOUR sense of decorum and by doing so let someone get away with LYING. Feel free to think this way but I think its ludicrous on the face of it. You call someone telling a lie a liar.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pmOkay, having just read the last parts of this thread- Swordsbane- you aren’t even arguing any point anymore, you’re playing Ms. Manners on a blog (even though you forgive yourself a little easier than everyone else on here). If you feel someone was rude or insulting, then write it all down on your personal blog or diary.
The fact remains- people disagree with your assertions about unions and EFCA, and they have very good foundations for those disagreements, that go far beyond talking points, reactionary paranoia, etc. This is a progressive blog- the majority will be for increasing union power- FULLY AWARE of union imperfections. Your concern has been noted.
Your disagreement is logged in and noted, but you aren’t adding anything to any dialogue with your rhetorical nitpicking.
To everyone else- I think the productive part of this conversation ended a long time ago, and swordsbane is now fully playing the victim with all propriety apparently on his side. There are far greener pastures of intelligent dialogue elsewhere.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pmAre you kidding? You asked how I knew it was a lie instead of a mistake. How can it be a mistake when it is shown RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE that it isnt true. The article he is commenting on
So it’s in the article, so it must be true? Or are you saying that since it’s in the article, he must have read it? All without asking him about either? Wow.
Just don’t name-call. Is that so hard? Was there some message on the home page that said “You must be juvenile when posting comments here”?
EugeneDebs #107:
Could you please show me where I said it was okay to take benefits if you’re not in a union? In the example of my mother, she was NOT recieving the pay or the benefits of the union members. I said that in comment #67. fergus asked if she was receiving union benefits in comment #70 and I again answered it in #73. This is what I meant by jumping to conclusions.
Now please go back to comment #87 if you are still unsure of my position. I hope that clears up any confusion, but I will be more than happy to answer any questions that you might still have after.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pmFacts about EFCA:
Today if 50%+1 of union members sign cards to decertify their union and present them to management, the union is gone, no election. EFCA dosen’t change that.
Today if 30% of members sign cards to decertify a union, an NLRB election is held. EFCA dosen’t change that.
Today if 30% of a bargaining unit sign cards to form a union, an NLRB election is held. EFCA dosen’t change that unless;
50%+1 of a bargaining unit signs cards to form a union then the company must recognize and negotiate a first contract. The comapny cannot reject the will of the workers and demand an election.
Now, after EFCA,after a card check recognition, if the unsupportive bargaining unit members wish to have an election to demonstrate the union viability, only 30% would have to sign cards to mandate an NLRB election.
The true intent of EFCA is to remove the Company from effecting the outcome of the workers wishes.
The fact that the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufactures, and Bernie(EFCA will destroy civilization) Marcus are hell bent on defeating EFCA shows how intent they are in maintaining the corporate advantage of influencing and defeating union certifications by delay, intimidation, mandatory anti union meetings, closure threats, and illegal firings, while hiding behind the thin veil of(company demanded) secret ballot elections.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:03 pmBuffet just came up short under Bill Gates for the richest man in the world at $37B.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:07 pmTry the best homepage
one world one goverment
sikis
April 19th, 2009 at 12:35 pmporno izle
porno videolar
porn videos