I've been watching some of the political machinery involved in this but just don't understand the rational logic of this bill. The EFCA is supposed to make votes on whether to unionize a public thing instead of secret ballot. How exactly is this a *good* thing? All I can see is that it could put pressure on people to vote against what they otherwise would. I understand why unions support it - because it helps them grow, but only through coercing people to vote differently than they otherwise would. Ignoring the benefits to a target constituency, is there anything good about this bill? Am I missing something here?
I am not familiar with the Act, bu that sounds like a political motive not what the Act sets out to do on the face.
This is a summary of the act: In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his or her colleagues. Once 30% of the work force in a particular workplace bargaining unit has signed the cards, the employer may decide to hold a secret ballot election on the question of unionization. In practice, the results of the card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards. If the employer decides to demand an election, and the majority of votes in the election favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees of that particular bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. If enacted, the EFCA would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards. The EFCA would take away employers' present right to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check. The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act Basically, it turns the process of unionizing from a private secret ballot process to one where the union needs 50% of the employees to sign a public card. The problem here is that this means both the union and the employer knows exactly who did and didn't sign, and can put pressure on people to vote one way or another. With the secret ballot system, the ability for either side to pressure people is eliminated. The core of the idea is to make it a public vote.
Well it is apparent what side put their spin in wikipedia. From the Act. If 30% of the employees want a secret election they can have one. Under the Act the employers can't decide that they want a secret election even if a strong majority of the employees don't want it. The reason why the employers campaign centered around the deception of the secret election idea is pretty dishonest when done under the banner of democracy is that the secret elections take months to do, can be delayed almost forever and give the employers time to propagandize against the union and fire the leaders of the union movement, though it is illegal. The remedy is some back pay years later after the union has been defeated. As the employees who are strongest for the union are fired and the other employees see this it is hard to continue. You have to have been involved with starting unions as I have been to understand exactly how the present system is desgned to basically prevent unions from forming.
But the secret election is something that doesn't hurt employees. Except for the delays you described, it doesn't seem there's a reason a union should be against a secret ballot unless they want to coerce people. Am I wrong there? These are definite problems with the current set up. But why not change the rule to make it if that if the employer chooses the secret election route, they have to implement it within 30 days or 45 days or what not? It seems like forcing people to publicly declare their support or objection to a union just puts every employee in a position of facing retribution from one side or the other. This law seems to be good for unions, but bad for employers and bad for employees that want to be left alone.
Add whatever flowerly language and camouflage you want to this bill -- it's all about making unions more powerful and widespread in this country. Can you imagine a faster way to destroy the American economy? Good grief, it's like the auto industry and airline industry wasn't enough -- it's time for the unions to ruin EVERY industry. Low productivity, high wages -- it's the unions' motto. If Obama gets everything he's looking for, what rational business will choose to locate in the US? Higher income taxes, carbon taxes, union workforce, caps on executive salaries... and people think Obama is actually trying to HELP the economy? What planet are these buffoons living on? Open your eyes people -- this is just one more attempt to spread the wealth to people who don't deserve it. What the frick have unskilled, poor people done to deserve my taxpayer dollars? Can ANYONE answer me that? Thanks in advance.
Here is country club Republicanism, "Bush's base as he called them, stripped bear of the camaflage. All folks who don't have MBA's i.e, machinists auto workers, air line pilot, mechanics etc. are just "poor unskilled people" who don't desrve any of the country club set's tax dollars. Time to take the country back from these clowns like Jorge.
There we go again. It's always republicans v. democrats. I don't doubt there are political motives behind an Act like this. But for crying out loud, it's the Congress proposing the Bill, not the president. If you don't like what your congressman is doing, make sure vote his azz out next time. Like it or not, poor people are Americans too, they have their rights too.
Answer the question. What have poor people done to deserve my hardearned dollars? ...and for you to lump all successful participants in the economy as the 'country club set' is disingenuous. It's just cheap demagoguery to imply that people didn't EARN their money. You may not personally associate with these people given the crowd you run with, but let me assure you that there are people out there that work hard and earn (and deserve) a lot of money. Why should these people have to sign over a big chunk of their paycheck to those who don't work hard?
Yet another brain dead Obama-campaign lie. You don't know much about finance or economics if you think this is the case. We had a bad 2008 due to a mortgage market crisis and high energy costs -- hardly the result of any Bush Administration policy decision. Check the libs record of pushing bad mortgages on banks -- again in an effort to give poor people somethin' for nothin'. Well that came home to roost. China and India's growth are what drove energy prices up. The libs tried to keep them up by making it harder to produce oil & gas and coal in the US. But those are just the facts... The American economy had a nice record of achievements over the first 7 years of the decade -- overocoming huge obstacles like 9-11 and the slew of corporate scandals to post some nice growth numbers. Bush's policy decisions were decidedly pro-growth and they worked. It just goes to show how low Obama is willing to stoop to appeal to the brain dead masses (who don't know any better). He lies and says that it was 8 years of a bad economy -- it wasn't. Checked the job growth numbers and budget deficit numbers under Obama lately? This is really the first time in 8+ years that the White House is pushing anti-growth policies (higher taxes, pro-union moves, eco-idiocy, etc).
So it's disingenuous to imply that not all wealthy people work hard for their money, but it's perfectly ok to say that all poor people are unskilled and lazy?
. . .vote the republicans back in office. First thing came to mind . . and it took less than a second Rocket River
I'll try to answer some of the questions based on my experience from over 20-30 years ago-- A unon stewart for about 1/2 years at one job, fired along with my coworkers when the orgainzation closed down when we voted for the union in another job, Labor law class. About 6 months clerking for a union labor law firm. 6 months on retainer with a union to help negotiate a contract. Still have close friends who are union organizers. [/QUOTE] With a skilled union busting law firm they can delay the election often times for months if not years. The employers can force employees go to anti-union propagnda meetings. The companies start intense campaigns to illegally fire any strong union supporters for minor infractions, 5 minutes late or whatever. Basically the employers use the time to coerce the workers into changing their mind. Given the costs, the unions do not go public and try to get card check unless they have a majority support. That would be better than nothing. The next problem is that the companies can basically refuse to have a contract for years and bargain in bad faith. When you have folks like Bush in office the NLRB basically finds no employer action to be bargaining in bad faith. Welcome to the reality of the work force. This will happen one way or another. People tend to get pretty personally involved in the conditions at work and if their co-workers are in their opinion intefering with this, they get pissed. . I agree with this. It really is often: which side are you on. The CEO's or the vast majority of American workers. You can't be a virgin. With present secret elections the employers force all employees to go to anti-union sessions during work time. The unions can't do this, but they fight it out worker to worker with pressure to join. A card check and achieving a union quickly is really going to be less traumatic for most workers although distressing to management who want to do what they want to do. If as many Texans you have no real experience in this, watch the movie "Norma Rae".
I am against this bill. (and by the way, Obama taught Constitutional law not Labor Law or Collective Bargaining.) There is nothing wrong with the current system of secret ballot elections unless you are a Union. Unions have seen their membership decline steadily since the end of WWII when Union membership was at 33% of the workforce. In the 90's it was under 14%. The way Union's currently approach a worker is to ask them to fill out a card stating that they would like to see an election. They say that the worker doesn't themselves have to want a union, but "do they want to stand in the way of other workers who might"? They tell them that the card is not to vote in a Union but to give the Union a "chance at a fair secret election". Good thing is that if a majority of the workers don't want a Union or don't want that Union, they Union loses in a secret ballot. The EFCA would end that. The same guys that are trying to get workers to fill out cards that can lead to an election will pressure them to fill out cards to petition them into to being the collective bargaining representative. It would be like having the Union rep in the voting booth with you. Another opponent likened it to walking into work and having a guy stand outside asking you to sign a petition to get Kinky on the ballot for Governor and they get enough people to sign that Kinky becomes the Governor without a vote. If Unions want their numbers to go up, they should do a better job as collective bargaining agents for others and show that success to other workers they are trying to recruit. This stuff was made secret to protect against harassment by Union reps and retribution from company reps. It needs to stay that way.
I will ignore the rest of your lunatic fringe idiocy and point out that the unions are not looking for your "taxpayer dollars," they are looking to avail themselves of collective bargaining. You need reading comprehension classes in the worst way. I can help you there.
