parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:39 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

Do you think that a rare movement among the union member employees of a company to get a petition signed to qualify for a recertification election for the union migh not expose the organizers of the effort to some intimidation on the part of the union.

That is no more likely than attempting to organize the union will expose the organizers to intimidation on the part of the corporation.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:46 pm
@parados,
In principle that sounds true, but the fact is the law is very proscriptive about what a company can do or communicate to its workers during an organizing campaign and sets limits on the time it has to do it. No such detailed proscriptions exist regarding union activities during an election.

If the Democrats get their way the employers ability to present arguments against unionization will become even more limited and the time availabe even shorter. In addition they seek to abolish secret ballots and majority votes, limiting the process to "cards" filled out by employees in front of friendly union thugs and even submitted to them.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:47 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Do you believe the election of a New House of Representatives every two years, senators every six years and a new president every four are also absurdities?

But this is not analogous to a union, only who the union reps are and what they may fight for.

georgeob1 wrote:

Even in Wisconsin they have scheduled reelections for state representatives and the governor. They don't appoint them for life and wait for an impeachment.

They don't appoint union reps for life either.

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you think that a rare movement among the union member employees of a company to get a petition signed to qualify for a recertification election for the union migh not expose the organizers of the effort to some intimidation on the part of the union.

I think that if there is real problems, it's easier to get them out in open by not having that vote as a scheduled thing. If there is a intimidation element with what you speculate exists, they already know when to crush it. Otherwise it can happen at any time.

georgeob1 wrote:

You are engaging in absurdities and nonsense here, not me.

You're not engaging at all.

georgeob1 wrote:

Your selection of analogies is also seriously flawed.

You're welcome to that opinion. Granted, that's your opinion, which means you probably aren't interested in supporting it.

A
R
T
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:49 pm
@failures art,
It is sadly clear that you haven't the foggiest idea what you are writing about. You are wrong on every issue.

Not much point in continuing this.

Your analogies are still .... a bit wierd.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:53 pm
@georgeob1,
The last time I heard that statement was from a friend of mine who has a defect in philosophy!

http://www.ocdonline.com/articlephillipson6.php
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:55 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
In addition they seek to abolish secret ballots and majority votes, limiting the process to "cards" filled out by employees in front of friendly union thugs and even submitted to them.

And yet more false statements from you. You just seem to be full of BS.
You haven't shown us a single union that appoints legislators for life.
I doubt you can show us a single bill presented by Democrats that abolishes secret ballots and majority votes. No one has proposed limiting it to card check. You really need to check your facts george because you don't seem to have any.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 09:24 pm
@BillRM,
Thanks for posting that.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 09:26 pm
@BillRM,
If the union mobs are disgusting to all wet, it might be because the teachers wear frumpy, thrift shop dresses.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 09:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The vice president of my chapter of the MCCC is a conservative. I think she was voted in to shut her up.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:36 am
@Irishk,
Thanks for posting that Irish.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 11:46 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
In addition they seek to abolish secret ballots and majority votes, limiting the process to "cards" filled out by employees in front of friendly union thugs and even submitted to them.

And yet more false statements from you. You just seem to be full of BS.
You haven't shown us a single union that appoints legislators for life.
I doubt you can show us a single bill presented by Democrats that abolishes secret ballots and majority votes. No one has proposed limiting it to card check. You really need to check your facts george because you don't seem to have any.


All truthful statements on my part. The Democrats haven't had the political courage to introduce the "card check legislation - even during Nancy Pelosi's tenure as speaker of the House. However the proposal was indeed part of the Democrat platform and I personanlly heard her advocate it in front of a luncheon assembly of cheering California labor union leaders (I have many friends among them - some are pretty good guys and they all live very well indeed).

I never said or wrote that unions appoint their leaders or negotiators for life (although, in fact many of them come very close to doing this). Instead I wrote that the unions themselves solicit and demand permanent government mandated status as the exclusive and monopolistic representatives of the workers in industries and companies they infest - and entitled to demand payment of dues from all members without their consent. Such monopolies are, of course, illegal and deemed as anticompetitive and dangerous to the public interest in the business world, including among lawyers, doctors and others who purport to serve the interests of their clients.

My original statements were clear enough. Your misinterpretation is rather clearly deliberate in a self-serving attempt to construct straw men and illusory contradictions. This, of course, is Parados' chief (and perhaps only) trick.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:04 pm
@georgeob1,
It is your representation of the legislation and meaning of card check that is factually wrong george. Card check does not abolish secret ballots. The legislation actually still calls for it when the number of cards submitted is only 30-50% of the workers. As the legislation exists now, a union can be formed with over 50% of the workers filling out cards. So there really is little change in the way the system works. Card check does not abolish secret ballots. Card check does not abolish majority votes. Card check does not limit the process to cards filled out in front of union thugs. You have presented nothing to support your allegations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check

Quote:
I never said or wrote that unions appoint their leaders or negotiators for life

If you never said that then what was this statement from you? A non sequitur?
Quote:
Would you call a nation that appointed its legislators for life, but had very infrequently used procedures for unseating them ... a democracy?


georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:17 pm
@parados,
Card check would this enable the majority in a 50% sample of the workers (i.e. something over 25% of the total) to unionize a company or plant. Please explain the public benefit of this procedure, compared to the current requirement of a secret ballot with a majority of the total population voting for a union.

If you style that as "little change" in the way "the system works" then I believe you have some explaining to do.

The proposed law would enable union organizers to collect the signed cards from workers. Of course it doesn't explicitly provide for thugs to collect them - that is somnthing the union organizers have repeatedly demonstrated they can do well on their own and without legal sanction.

While card check is cleverly crafted to avoid explicitly stating that majority rule and secret ballots are prohibited, it creates an alternative system that would bypass both - and does so in the complete absence of any objective reason to do so. This is a remedy in search of a problem, very clearly designed to enable union organizers to overcome the democratically expresses will of private sector workers who have been increasingly rejecting their overtures for the past forty years.
parados
 
  6  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:21 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Card check would this enable the majority in a 50% sample of the workers (i.e. something over 25% of the total) to unionize a company or plant. Please explain the public benefit of this procedure, compared to the current requirement of a secret ballot with a majority of the total population voting for a union.

No. Are you really this ignorant? Or are you just so blinded by your opinion that facts don't matter.

More than 50% of ALL employees must sign cards in support of the union. It can't be done with only 25% for the union.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:25 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Card check would this enable the majority in a 50% sample of the workers (i.e. something over 25% of the total) to unionize a company or plant. Please explain the public benefit of this procedure, compared to the current requirement of a secret ballot with a majority of the total population voting for a union.

If you style that as "little change" in the way "the system works" then I believe you have some explaining to do.


I can't help but notice that your explanation of 'card check' doesn't match the description at the wiki site Parados linked to.

Specifically, the linked article seems to claim that in order to invoke Card Check, and bypass a secret ballot, 50% of ALL WORKERS must indicate that they wish to do so - not 50% of some representative sample. Do you have information that shows that this is wrong?

Quote:
The proposed law would enable union organizers to collect the signed cards from workers. Of course it doesn't explicitly provide for thugs to collect them - that is somnthing the union organizers have repeatedly demonstrated they can do well on their own and without legal sanction.

While card check is cleverly crafted to avoid explicitly stating that majority rule and secret ballots are prohibited, it creates an alternative system that would bypass both - and does so in the complete absence of any objective reason to do so. This is a remedy in search of a problem, very clearly designed to enable union organizers to overcome the democratically expresses will of private sector workers who have been increasingly rejecting their overtures for the past forty years.


I think your case isn't bad, but it hinges on your claim that it takes less than 50% of workers to get the thing going. I'm hoping you can provide more information on the matter so I can make a decision as to whether or not I would support the legislation.

Re: the 'thugs' in the union who collect the cards; I see no different between them and the thuggish and heavy hand of various 'management teams' who use very similar methods to keep unions from entering their shops.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:30 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Card check would this enable the majority in a 50% sample of the workers (i.e. something over 25% of the total) to unionize a company or plant. Please explain the public benefit of this procedure, compared to the current requirement of a secret ballot with a majority of the total population voting for a union.

No. Are you really this ignorant? Or are you just so blinded by your opinion that facts don't matter.

More than 50% of ALL employees must sign cards in support of the union. It can't be done with only 25% for the union.

Laughing Laughing Laughing

Let me try to explain it slowly for you. A 50% sample of (say) 40 workers is 20 workers. A majority of that number is anything over 10. 10 is 25% of 40. Thus anything over 25% of the workers could forcibly unionize all the workers in a company.

A triumph of contemporary democracy.

Even with the variants that would require all submitted cards to favor unionization, most provide for minority rule in that less than a 50% sample is required. The comparitive opportunity for thuggery asnd intimidation at the hands of both union and management is nearly eliminated by secret ballot. Why do anything to abolish that? Please answer that question.

I'm waiting for your explanation of the public benefit associated with this legislation and the bad features of the current rule (majority vote in a secret ballot) that it will cure. The only defect of the present system I am aware of is the unions usually loose in secret ballots.

The simple truth is card check is designed to make union chicanery easier and to reverse a 40 year trend of workers voluntarily rejecting forced unionization in secret ballots.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:32 pm
@georgeob1,
But, where's the data showing that it takes a '50% sample' to invoke card check? And not 50% of all workers?

This is a pillar of your argument, you ought to be able to show some evidence for why you keep claiming that is the case.

I can't believe you misunderstood what Pardos' wrote when he just asked you that question.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Here is the quote from the proposed law


Quote:
If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-800

I guess people are free to make up their own meaning of "majority".
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:37 pm
@georgeob1,
Your explanation doesn't explain how a majority of a sample of employees is the same thing as a "majority of the employees in a unit."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 12:39 pm
@parados,
Part of the reason that I respect your arguments, Parados - and I am pointing this out because I think this is a fundamental point of productive online discussion - is your willingness to expend the effort to go to original sources, instead of relying on assertion.

It makes a big difference, because - on the internet - there's no 'authority.' Everything is valid to be questioned. Everyone should be ready to back their arguments up. It's the only way for us to move forward in discussions in any sort of productive fashion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2019 at 02:41:13