Lucky... 0
Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights?
By
Lucky..., in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
Butters 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.
Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.
Mant/mosts staes are right to work, meaning you cannot be compelled to join teh union in order to work there.
You are right, no one has ever been intimated by unions and no one will ever be intimated by unions if voting is made public.This issue is not about being for or against worker's rights, it is about being against public voting.
No, the issue is about keeping voting secret.
That is what I stated.
QuoteCompanies can;t continue to exploit labor if all cards are on teh tables.
Why not respond to what I wrote about employees feeling pressured to vote for a union who go to management to report such intimidation? The company would absolutley love this individual and make him/her the posterchild for such an issue, discipline anyone who supposedly intimidated him/her. It just would not happen.
Out on the picket lines is a bit different, but that's after the establishment of a union, this issue is not addressing post-union establishment.
To say that the establishment of a union has nothing to do with worlkes rights is, well, predictable.
I can't agree with you because I know union members who have admitted to creating a hostile work place for non union employees and discouraging them from talking to management. Both companies and unions can be corrupt. The best option for the employee is to be allowed to vote for or against a union anonymously.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
Lucky... 0
QuoteI can't agree with you because I know union members who have admitted to creating a hostile work place for non union employees and discouraging them from talking to management. Both companies and unions can be corrupt. The best option for the employee is to be allowed to vote for or against a union anonymously.
Discouraging them from taking management jobs? WTF, why would hat person care? Do you consult with your co-workers when deciding to take a job or not or get a promotion?
If a co-worker told me to or not to take a position I would ell that person to FU in no uncertain terms. Why do you want an annonymous vote? Unaccountability? It's kinda obvious who is for what anyway, peope usually wear these things on their sleeves.
Secretive administrations........ lemme guess, you voted for Bush, right?
Butters 0
QuoteQuoteI can't agree with you because I know union members who have admitted to creating a hostile work place for non union employees and discouraging them from talking to management. Both companies and unions can be corrupt. The best option for the employee is to be allowed to vote for or against a union anonymously.
Discouraging them from taking management jobs? WTF, why would hat person care? Do you consult with your co-workers when deciding to take a job or not or get a promotion?
I highlighted the word you appear to have read incorrectly.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
Butters 0
QuoteSecretive administrations........ lemme guess, you voted for Bush, right?
At what point did I state I was a Repulican (or a Democrat)? I did not because I am not. Why, because so many people with political affiliations disregard logic and reason in order to blindly follow their political party.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
Gawain 0
QuoteThe term, "right to work state" is generally misinterpreted, it means that you cannot be compelled to join a union in order to work at a company. I think most states are RTW states, so any args against unions are moot in RTW states?
Only a little less than half the Union has "Right to Work" state laws. Even then, employees of airlines and railroads are not covered by those laws. Despite that, arguments for or against unions are not moot in either state environment.
QuoteNow, how is it that the gov can overregulate unions to the point of handcuffing them? Aren't we a capitalist nation?
Yes, however the Unions are regulated due to the brutal practices in the past. Also, the fact that more than half the country is a "forced union" environment practically mandates it. It's a trade off. The unions get compulsory financial support as a result. Even in the regulated environment, unions ride roughshot over employees forced to join the organization.
QuoteIf so, quit nulifying people's right to organize. Truth is, kids, we are not a free nation, free market, etc. They want us to buy into that BS, but it certainly is not true.
Unions have a real place in some skilled labor environments and their existence is needed. In many ways it helps the companies they work for too. However, it should be the choice of the employee individually whether they choose to support a union (and thus be supported by a union).
QuoteA bill to allow workers to form unions by signing up, instead of voting, advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday as the Bush administration threatened to veto it.
All it does is allows for workers to publicly submit cards and be counted for more open elections, somethng this admin deas not like - open elections. It still requires over 50% to pass.
It also increases the chance of fraud. "Jimmy Jones" happens to be on vacation the week of a sign-up, and all of the sudden--Jimmy's name is on the sign-up sheet. Who did that?
QuoteThe Democratic-controlled House Education and Labor Committee voted along party lines, 26-19, to approve the bill, which would require employers to recognize unions after a majority of workers have signed pro-union cards or a petition.
Right, and to keep voting secret is a way to skew the vote and to keep the work force individual.
It's a two way street. Businesses rarely stoop to the levels some union events do to make a point. During my time with a Fortune 10 company (before the Army), about half of the field force was union (about 80,000 employees).
During some re-engineering in the mid-90s, union workshop locations had to endure childish schemes used to disrupt the process, like stink-bombs in the Central Offices, mis-wiring of switch-gear, etc. This is because a segment of the union did not support the re-engineering effort. Even though their employees were still getting top pay and benefits. Their jobs weren't even changing all that much, just the process by which they would do certain work.
QuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.
That's a joke, the company intimidates union organizers or pro-union workers, not the other workers intimidating workers. This is pathetic.
And Unions don't? Unions, for all their goodness, are a strong-arm organization too. That's their job, and that's what they were founded upon. Think of what happens to the individuals that have to cross a picket line to support a family. Union protection only goes so far.
Quote"Our administration rejects any attempt to short-circuit the rights of workers," Cheney told the business-friendly National Association of Manufacturers. "We will defend their right to vote yes or no by secret ballot, and their right to fair bargaining."
This is teh theme of the thread, is anyone stupid enough to believe this? This admin wants to protect the worker by keeping the process secret?
Why not? It's how we elect our leadership from a small-town Selectman to State-Rep to Senator to President.
Quote"Let the employees decide if they want an election or if a majority wants sign-up with no veto by the boss," committee Chairman George Miller (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat, said as the panel began drafting the legislation.
Right, let it happen w/o delays and bureaucracy, that's what the dems want, the repubs want to bog i down and keep it secret. Is anyone stupid enough ti believe that Chenney has the worker's rights at heart?
I'm dubious to this point, as California is a forced-union labor state. So, this does give an unfair advantage to the organizers. Unions begin with a resentment and a pot of coffee and a meeting place. Not everyone is pissed off and sees everything as unfair. If a small business of 100 employees holds a sign-up for a union, and 51 approve it, the other 49 would be forced to join the union (in California). In a RTW state, say Virginia, that company is now forced to support a protected arrangement for 51 employees, the result will be that the job force of the remaining 49 will be cut to some degree.
QuoteBackers of the bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, argue that the election process is inherently unfair because union organizers can be denied access to the workplace, while bosses can require workers to attend anti-union meetings.
It's currently real fair, huh?
It's not up to the union how a non-union business conducts itself. I'm not certain on this point, but I don't think UAW holds meetings on GM, Ford or Chrysler property.
QuoteIf a fellow wrorker leans on you, just say fuck off, but if management leans on you, they can fire you for no reason, which is what happened to me. Are tehy trying to push on us that fellow workers can cause eneough stress on people who reject unionization? Couldn't that worker go to managemen and be protected, over-protected? Of course, there is no real fear of worler intimidation.
Have you ever seen a volatile union environment? I had to cross a line that had guys dressed like gorillas (Tampa 1996)...GORILLAS!! You don't think there was a message there??
QuoteThe bill also would for the first time make labor law violators subject to civil penalties and require that unions and companies unable to reach agreement on a first contract submit to binding arbitration.
Still giving the gov, thru the courts, the right to settle things early.
One more thing to clog up the process. If a company rejects a union workforce, it should be allowed to do so. That savings you enjoy at Wal-Mart would disappear in weeks if they went union.
QuoteAGAIN, HOW IS IT THAT WE HAVE A FREE MARKET WHEN BUSH ORDERED NW AIRLINES FLIGHT ATTENDANTS BACK TO WORK OR HAVE THE CONTRACT BE TERMINATED?
BEFORE 911, BUSH DID TEH SAEM WITH 2 AIRLINE'S MECH UNIONS, A FED JUDGE REVIEWED IT ON APPEAL AND SAID HE DOESN'T SEE HOW THEY HAVE ANY POWERS TO DO SUCH THINGS BUT WILL BACK TEH PRES ANYWAY.
i'M JUST SAYING TO QUIT THE HORSESHIT RHETORIC ABOUT WHAT A GREAT, FREE COUNTRY THIS IS WHEN IT IS NOT.
Airlines and railroads, and ATCs are not subject to the standard laws. President Reagan did the same thing with the Air Traffic Controllers in 1981. Over 10,000 ATCs were fired and barred from federal service.
The President may do this in line with the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The courts have always interpreted these powers broadly.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteI can't agree with you because I know union members who have admitted to creating a hostile work place for non union employees and discouraging them from talking to management. Both companies and unions can be corrupt. The best option for the employee is to be allowed to vote for or against a union anonymously.
Discouraging them from taking management jobs? WTF, why would hat person care? Do you consult with your co-workers when deciding to take a job or not or get a promotion?
I highlighted the word you appear to have read incorrectly.
OK, along the same lines equally, the guy who dissents the union is likley the guy who talks to management, who then becomes management him or herself at a later date. Address the point I made where the union dissenter tells management that he/she is feeing bothered by the drive, specific individuals say things to them, the company will put a fucking end to that and make the victim/the issue the posterchild for why the unions are sooooo bad. This shit doesn't go on in a wholesale platform.
The company looks for these issues to surface so they can try to arge how the unions are unbearable. I don;t believe for a second that there would be tollerance for that.
Butters 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI can't agree with you because I know union members who have admitted to creating a hostile work place for non union employees and discouraging them from talking to management. Both companies and unions can be corrupt. The best option for the employee is to be allowed to vote for or against a union anonymously.
Discouraging them from taking management jobs? WTF, why would hat person care? Do you consult with your co-workers when deciding to take a job or not or get a promotion?
I highlighted the word you appear to have read incorrectly.
OK, along the same lines equally, the guy who dissents the union is likley the guy who talks to management, who then becomes management him or herself at a later date. Address the point I made where the union dissenter tells management that he/she is feeing bothered by the drive, specific individuals say things to them, the company will put a fucking end to that and make the victim/the issue the posterchild for why the unions are sooooo bad. This shit doesn't go on in a wholesale platform.
The company looks for these issues to surface so they can try to arge how the unions are unbearable. I don;t believe for a second that there would be tollerance for that.
Address the point I made where the union dissenter does not tell management that he/she is feeling bothered by the drive because of fear from their coworkers.
PS: There is a reason that voting is done anonymously.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteSecretive administrations........ lemme guess, you voted for Bush, right?
At what point did I state I was a Repulican (or a Democrat)? I did not because I am not. Why, because so many people with political affiliations disregard logic and reason in order to blindly follow their political party.
Right, people who are Republican are often for:
Abortion
Gay rights
Higher taxes
Social services
Worker's rights
etc
etc
etc
I'm not saying you either way, I'm saying that the Repub Party constantly takes shots at labor and teh Dem support labor, that simple. Can you refute that?
Butters 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteSecretive administrations........ lemme guess, you voted for Bush, right?
At what point did I state I was a Repulican (or a Democrat)? I did not because I am not. Why, because so many people with political affiliations disregard logic and reason in order to blindly follow their political party.
Right, people who are Republican are often for:
Abortion
Gay rights
Higher taxes
Social services
Worker's rights
etc
etc
etc
I'm not saying you either way, I'm saying that the Repub Party constantly takes shots at labor and teh Dem support labor, that simple. Can you refute that?
At no point did I state any political party was more concerned than any other politcal party when it comes to worker's rights. I was merely pointing out that the article you are using to make the statement that Republicans aren't concerned with workers rights actually shows that Republicans are concerned with worker's rights, in particular the right to vote anonymously.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
kallend 1,673
So Unions are not perfect! Neither are corporations, as Enron, Tyco, and others have shown.
Unions wouldn't exist if there were no need for them. History shows that there is a need for them, to level the playing field between corporations and workers. History shows that corporations severely abused workers before unions developed, and having the financial resources, were able to get (pay) government to take their side.
On the whole, unions help ensure some equality in bargaining power between corporations and employees. The equilibrium isn't always perfect but it tends to be self-correcting.
Unions wouldn't exist if there were no need for them. History shows that there is a need for them, to level the playing field between corporations and workers. History shows that corporations severely abused workers before unions developed, and having the financial resources, were able to get (pay) government to take their side.
On the whole, unions help ensure some equality in bargaining power between corporations and employees. The equilibrium isn't always perfect but it tends to be self-correcting.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sundevil777 94
QuoteOK, along the same lines equally, the guy who dissents the union is likley the guy who talks to management, who then becomes management him or herself at a later date. Address the point I made where the union dissenter tells management that he/she is feeing bothered by the drive, specific individuals say things to them, the company will put a fucking end to that and make the victim/the issue the posterchild for why the unions are sooooo bad. This shit doesn't go on in a wholesale platform.
You describe only one scenario, and assert that it will be the reality for all instances. I say that is not reasonable.
Some managers might want the 'dissenter' to just go away, because that manager would have more work to do. It means a confrontation with the union, therefore more work/grief for management. Some managers might welcome such a confrontation, but certainly not all. Why do you assume that managers are any different from other people - just wanting to get through the work day without extra problems.
You also specifically assume that dissenters will join the ranks of management "at a later date". Voicing concerns to management is not enough to get a job as a manager by itself, you assert it is.
Don't you think union goons can get their revenge, whether that person will be, "at a later date", management or not?
When a union has so much power that they can intimidate a company to not being able to use replacement workers during a strike, then I contend unions have too much power. Companies might as well just be forced to be bought out by their unions if that is the case, because the union can enforce any demand they want. The only thing limiting a union's ability to stay on strike is their ability to continue paying their represented workers. Some unions have a lot of money for that purpose.
Why is non-secret voting needed?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
willard 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.
Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.
Mant/mosts staes are right to work, meaning you cannot be compelled to join teh union in order to work there.
Those states that are closed shop and have unions in them enjoy far better benefits than their counterparts and if a person wants to, they can suck up and become management.
22 states have RTW laws. That is less than half, not even close to most. Also, railway and airline industries are exempt from these laws. That means even in a RTW state, one can be forced to join a union to work in those industries.
Which is why I wrote many/most. I was unaware of the numbers. Be curious to see a cite that details which are RTW and not if ya have one handy.
I am aware of teh federal railway unions too. All I was saying is that these stats are out of te picture as far as being relevant in this issue.
So if you are correct, 28 states have closed shop laws. Let me ask you this, do you think union shops pay better than non-union and have better seniority protections?
The internet is full of resources to answer those questions. Giving you links to those resources is not in my job description, sorry. And the guy whose responsibility it is to give you those links is on his lunch break. Speaking of breaks, my coffee break is coming up. I've only got ten minutes to take a dump before my break starts!
willard 0
QuoteWhy do you want an annonymous vote? Unaccountability? It's kinda obvious who is for what anyway, peope usually wear these things on their sleeves.
Because it ain't nobody's Goddamn business how I vote!
Whether someone thinks they can guess how I voted is moot.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.
Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.
Mant/mosts staes are right to work, meaning you cannot be compelled to join teh union in order to work there.
Those states that are closed shop and have unions in them enjoy far better benefits than their counterparts and if a person wants to, they can suck up and become management.
22 states have RTW laws. That is less than half, not even close to most. Also, railway and airline industries are exempt from these laws. That means even in a RTW state, one can be forced to join a union to work in those industries.
Which is why I wrote many/most. I was unaware of the numbers. Be curious to see a cite that details which are RTW and not if ya have one handy.
I am aware of teh federal railway unions too. All I was saying is that these stats are out of te picture as far as being relevant in this issue.
So if you are correct, 28 states have closed shop laws. Let me ask you this, do you think union shops pay better than non-union and have better seniority protections?
The internet is full of resources to answer those questions. Giving you links to those resources is not in my job description, sorry. And the guy whose responsibility it is to give you those links is on his lunch break. Speaking of breaks, my coffee break is coming up. I've only got ten minutes to take a dump before my break starts!
I didn't demand a cite, just asked if you had one handy. If I were a neo-con I would demand a cite. I found several:
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
They have a map of all states, color-coding the RTW. Guess what? Shockingly it appears all the RTW states are also red states!!! I didn;t check it against last years election, but it appears that all RTW are also red. I know, it totally supports my contention that Repubs are not for worker's rights, but I;m sure the other side will pick an obscure arg and make it 100% of their focus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_To_Work
This is great stuff. Someone mentioned the Taft-Hartley Act of 47, I find it was passed in objection to Truman.
Prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act by Congress over President Harry S. Truman's veto in 1947, unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a "closed shop," in which employees at unionized workplaces are required to be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under the law in effect before the Taft-Hartley amendments, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.
Further supporting my contention that Repubs are not for worker's rights.
I now see why neo-cons hate Wilkipedia, they have a map of RTW states in Red!!!
Why not, same thing. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e1/Righttowork.gif/400px-Righttowork.gif
This sums it up:
None of the 22 right-to-work states have an average annual pay level above the national average.
Nuff said.
willard 0
Soooo...let me see if I get this straight.
According to what you have said, repubs want workers to have a choice between joining a union or not joining a union at a particular shop. Dems want all workers at that shop to be union members and be forced to pay union dues, regardless of their personal wishes.
Repubs want union voting to remain as a secret ballot, protecting a workers right to privacy. Dems want those votes to be made publicly, in a way that all can see who is and who isn't backing the unions.
Repubs want jobs in non-union plants to remain secure and affected as little as possible by strikes at union plants. Dems want union influence to go all the way to non-union shops, i.e. union goes on strike, non-union shops are severly affected.
So how is it that you figure Repubs are against workers rights and Dems are for workers rights? It seems that Dems are more for union influence than for worker rights.
Unions aren't neccessarily a bad thing. But the more they intrude upon the rights of those who don't wish to be a member of a union the worse their public image becomes. Personally, I'd rather make $12.50/hr in a non union shop than $20.00/hr in a union shop. Sure I'd take home less money. But I would know that I earned it through an honest days work and not because the shop was intimidated or mandated to pay me a higher wage.
After all the whining Dems did about Bush's "illegal" wiretaps, I am surprised those same people are complaining that his administration is doing something to protect the privacy of the citizens.
According to what you have said, repubs want workers to have a choice between joining a union or not joining a union at a particular shop. Dems want all workers at that shop to be union members and be forced to pay union dues, regardless of their personal wishes.
Repubs want union voting to remain as a secret ballot, protecting a workers right to privacy. Dems want those votes to be made publicly, in a way that all can see who is and who isn't backing the unions.
Repubs want jobs in non-union plants to remain secure and affected as little as possible by strikes at union plants. Dems want union influence to go all the way to non-union shops, i.e. union goes on strike, non-union shops are severly affected.
So how is it that you figure Repubs are against workers rights and Dems are for workers rights? It seems that Dems are more for union influence than for worker rights.
Unions aren't neccessarily a bad thing. But the more they intrude upon the rights of those who don't wish to be a member of a union the worse their public image becomes. Personally, I'd rather make $12.50/hr in a non union shop than $20.00/hr in a union shop. Sure I'd take home less money. But I would know that I earned it through an honest days work and not because the shop was intimidated or mandated to pay me a higher wage.
After all the whining Dems did about Bush's "illegal" wiretaps, I am surprised those same people are complaining that his administration is doing something to protect the privacy of the citizens.
Lucky... 0
QuoteAccording to what you have said, repubs want workers to have a choice between joining a union or not joining a union at a particular shop.
That's your skewed interpretation for your convenience.
QuoteDems want all workers at that shop to be union members and be forced to pay union dues, regardless of their personal wishes.
Same as above. Why be ridiculous? If you have an issue to make, show some logical deduction. How is it that I have stated the above 2?
QuoteRepubs want union voting to remain as a secret ballot, protecting a workers right to privacy. Dems want those votes to be made publicly, in a way that all can see who is and who isn't backing the unions.
We've had our fill of secretive BS elections, so we want things to be above board. I'm thinking a man is willing stand for what he believes, a coward runs from teh truth, so if it makes elections more honest, why would a man fear that? Also, what if the atmosphere at that shop was anti-union, you would be in the majority.
QuoteRepubs want jobs in non-union plants to remain secure and affected as little as possible by strikes at union plants. Dems want union influence to go all the way to non-union shops, i.e. union goes on strike, non-union shops are severly affected.
Did you just skip right over that passage I posted about all 22 RTW states having lower wages than the national averge? Tisk, tisk..... selective reading?
QuoteSo how is it that you figure Repubs are against workers rights and Dems are for workers rights? It seems that Dems are more for union influence than for worker rights.
How do you think workers get benefits? They get them thru unionization. All 22 RTW states having lower wages than the median income, so doesn't taht speak volumes about worker's rights/benefits?
QuoteUnions aren't neccessarily a bad thing. But the more they intrude upon the rights of those who don't wish to be a member of a union the worse their public image becomes.
Great, then allow an honest vote to register that and they can go away of the people choose that.
QuotePersonally, I'd rather make $12.50/hr in a non union shop than $20.00/hr in a union shop. Sure I'd take home less money. But I would know that I earned it through an honest days work and not because the shop was intimidated or mandated to pay me a higher wage.
Bahahahahahahaha, and the righties love you for that. They also would rather pay you 12 bucks and hve you happier for it, hiding behind some antiquated, poor-n-proud philosphy.
QuoteAfter all the whining Dems did about Bush's "illegal" wiretaps, I am surprised those same people are complaining that his administration is doing something to protect the privacy of the citizens.
It was actually the whining Repubs who had a lot to do with your Nazi's wiretaps too, so it wasn't a left/right issue. To ensure an honest vote accounting, the foregoing of privacy in that realm is worthwhile. Furthermore, I don;t recall them saying the vote wouldbe public, just that the submission of cards would suffice as a vote, so nothing says they have to be broadcast. But if you think there is any privacy with unionization and the feelings who has of it, you're dreaming. People generally make it very aware as of how they feel.
Keeping votes secret and dragging out the process only impedes unionization, doesn't benefit privacy, but taht is the rationale of the union-haters.
sundevil777 94
QuoteWe've had our fill of secretive BS elections, so we want things to be above board. I'm thinking a man is willing stand for what he believes, a coward runs from teh truth, so if it makes elections more honest, why would a man fear that? Also, what if the atmosphere at that shop was anti-union, you would be in the majority.
That is funny. It doesn't make elections more honest. It simply allows for intimidation. You apparently have had your fill of secret elections. Cowards? Running from the truth? This is more than your usual share of bullshit.
QuoteKeeping votes secret and dragging out the process only impedes unionization, doesn't benefit privacy
Of course it impedes unionization, because it impedes intimidation. A secret ballot is necessary for privacy. Kinda like 1=1, the identity principle.
You ask a lot of questions of other people, how about addressing the questions I put to you in post #66?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
SkyChimp 0
QuoteGot nothing to do with workers rights
Just follow the money...........
Word!
Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!
SkyChimp 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.
Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.
Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union.
Willard had it correct! Union = Mafia LOL
Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!
willard 0
QuoteIt was actually the whining Repubs who had a lot to do with your Nazi's wiretaps too, so it wasn't a left/right issue. To ensure an honest vote accounting, the foregoing of privacy in that realm is worthwhile.
Ok, I see. Privacy is only important when you think it is important. Glad we have that straight. As far as calling people Nazis, I think you should study a little history and find out just what a Nazi is. Bush may have done some really stupid things, but he is far from being a Nazi.
QuoteFurthermore, I don;t recall them saying the vote wouldbe public, just that the submission of cards would suffice as a vote, so nothing says they have to be broadcast.
What the unions want, according to the article, is to be able to have a sign-up sheet to collect signatures. Easy to tell who is against the union; they didn't sign. Some privacy.
QuoteBut if you think there is any privacy with unionization and the feelings who has of it, you're dreaming. People generally make it very aware as of how they feel.
As I have stated before, you are free to think how I vote, but how I actually voted is nobodys business but mine. My experience has been that when voting is done on union issues, people say one thing and quite often vote another. Nothing wrong with that, it's their right.
QuoteKeeping votes secret and dragging out the process only impedes unionization, doesn't benefit privacy, but taht is the rationale of the union-haters.
Doesn't benefit privacy??? You have got to be kidding! What the unions propose totally eliminates privacy!
If you chose to work as a member of a union, that is your right. If a company choses to negotiate with a union, that is their right. But your rights don't extend to telling someone else that they have to join a union or work for a certain wage. If I want to work for minimum wage that is MY business, not yours. If you live in a RTW state and don't like it....move or try to get it changed.
I was a teamster member, I didn't like it, so I chose not to be a union member. If you don't like that, tough. Go cry to your union boss about it. I am responsible for my own happiness, not yours.
You guys are stuck in the Jimmy Hoffa days, welcome to the 21st century. Amazing, the sam people still think the Dems are the tax-n-spenders too
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites