georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 03:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Contemptable. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious beneficial effects of secret ballots in eliminating the effects of intimidation by either party, claiming only that the requirement for a secret ballot may annoy a wrorker already in favor of a union (what about the workers who don't favor a union?). Finally you indicate only one "public benefit" of eliminating secret ballots in union organizing effforts - increased unionization.

There is no other plausible interpretation of this than to conclude that you advocate card check precisely because it allows unions to more effectively indimidate the workers they hope to organize and a portion of whose pay they hope top collect for the indefinate future.

In short, you advocate card check simply as a means of achieving more unionization - even at the expense of significantly less free choice on the part of the affected workers.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 03:58 pm
@georgeob1,
Given the history of employers not unions threating the workers for the most part once more your side is just throwing up smoke screens to made it harder for workers to get a union into place.

Kind of similar to showing government approve ID to vote when there had not been any showing that non-voters or repeat voters are a problem in elections.

An excuse to discourage the lower economic levels from voting and not a mean to solve a non-existing problem.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 04:48 pm
@BillRM,
Smoke screen? The right has been clear for decades that they want to eliminate/fence in labor unions. It is not at all clear that they will ever be punished for this activity. I remember at the time that there was going to be a downside for Reagan for going after unions. It never happened. People talked about it for a long time but where the rubber met the road it was a total win......the right loved that he had balls and the left wanted to move on and save what they could.


I figure that Walker is a student of history.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 04:55 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTEDwOdlU8E
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 05:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I figure that Walker is a student of history.


Nazis Germany perhaps Drunk

In any case in the EU when the right wing try to take workers rights away they end up with nation wide strikes and I have a feeling that we are just seeing a tip of the middle class shove back against the far right in the US.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 05:55 pm
@BillRM,
Even in the EU the unions are taking it up the ass....globalization and massive government/private/personal debt don't leave workers many options.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 06:11 pm
6 minutes 15 seconds into video becomes interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY6xHTIbntg
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 06:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
Oh I dont know about that. When people start starving to death and watching their families starve they might just decide if I have to die Im going to take some rich SOB with me. Thanks to the gun nuts this is more than possible.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 06:22 pm
@RABEL222,
I do think you are correct! If I am not mistaken about history, "violence is part of the process of having a paradigm shift in ethics!

I wish this was not the case and if I am not mistaken it takes less than starvation for people to kill and have hatred.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 06:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
globalization and massive government/private/personal debt don't leave workers many options.


You limit globlization and tax the wealth at some sane level that keep them from ending up with all the wealth of the society.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 06:43 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Contemptable. You refuse to acknowledge the obvious beneficial effects of secret ballots in eliminating the effects of intimidation by either party, claiming only that the requirement for a secret ballot may annoy a wrorker already in favor of a union (what about the workers who don't favor a union?). Finally you indicate only one "public benefit" of eliminating secret ballots in union organizing effforts - increased unionization.

There's nothing to acknowledge george. The USSC court has already ruled that no secret ballot is required. That is a fact. Your opinion that disagrees with them is nothing but an opinion that carries no legal weight. Personally, I think a 42 year old Supreme Court ruling takes precedence over your opinion. You can disagree like you do but no one is refusing to discuss the issue if they point out that your opinion has no legal merit.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 06:56 pm
@parados,
There have been many Supreme court rulings on many issues and many of them have been subsequently overturned. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court has already made compulsory unionization through the card check process mandatory? The fact is it has not. That is why the proposed new legislation is being discussed in the first place. Certainly the Court has never ruled that secret ballots in such cases were either forbidden or undesirable.

Are you also suggesting that there is something either undemocratic or otherwise undesirable about a secret ballot among the affected employees for the resolution of such issues? You stiul evade answering my question about the effect of secret ballots in minimizing the effects of intimidation from any source.

At least Cyclo was honest enough to admit that his preference for card check is based on his belief that this procedure will yield more victories for unions.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 07:04 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
There have been many Supreme court rulings on many issues and many of them have been subsequently overturned. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court has already made compulsory unionization through the card check process mandatory

And who is proposing to make it mandatory george? Are we back to this canard from you?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 07:09 pm
@parados,
Still more evasion. The Supreme Court never made Card check mandatory as is being proposed.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 07:11 pm
@georgeob1,
Just more outrageous comments from you. We established it was not going to be mandatory but you turn around and use the same over the top rhetoric.

In order for it to create more union workers it must mean that some that sign card would have to change their minds. Intimidation by employer is as likely as that by union, more likely in my opinion since the employer can threaten the ability of the employee to make a living.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 07:46 pm
@parados,
On "union busting" on Wiki:
Quote:
Union busting is a wide range of activities undertaken by employers, their proxies, and governments, which attempt to prevent the formation or expansion of trade unions. Union busting tactics range from subtle to violent, and from legal to illegal, including sowing discord amongst union members, challenging unions in courts of law, strike breaking, lockouts, propaganda, physical confrontation and intimidation, the sponsorship of anti-union organizations, or preemption through the creation of employer-controlled trade unions.[1][2][3][4]
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 08:40 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Wow, did you really just link to the report generated by the Republican members of the FCIC? With a straight face??!!! Laughing

You have linked to one of the most ignorant and worst-sourced documents I've ever seen; a propoganda piece, put out by the Republican members on the committee only, which represents nothing more than an expression of the same ideology you share. It gives no causal evidence at all to support your position, but simply repeats facile statements over and over again as if they provided true insight into a situation.

I retract my earlier suspicions regarding your intelligence, if you believe this is what passes for evidence to support your position. And if you really want to get into the weeds on this issue, let me know - and I will point out the errors with both their conclusions and yours, in detail.

Just as a sample, I ask:

Quote:
Through the GSEs, FHA loans, VA loans, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA], among other programs, the government subsidized and, in some cases, mandated the extension of credit to high-risk borrowers, propagating risks for financial firms, the mortgage market, taxpayers, and ultimately the financial system.


Begin by explaining how the CRA threatened or added risk to financial firms.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 08:45 pm
@parados,
But a secret ballot effectively eliminates the effects of intimidation from wherever it may arise. The use of cards signed in front of a union organizer invites intimidation, but only from one side. This is why cyclo likes it - it will surely lead to more union successes in organizing. Unions want card check because they consistently lose fair elections.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 08:45 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Still more evasion. The Supreme Court never made Card check mandatory as is being proposed.


Card check still isn't mandatory under the new laws proposed. Employees who wish for a secret ballot can still call for one, and they can do so anonymously if they like. It simply removes the ability for the company to call for one if more than 50% of all employees indicate they wish to form the union.

Details matter and there are truths and falsehoods about positions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2011 08:50 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

But a secret ballot effectively eliminates the effects of intimidation from wherever it may arise.


Do you honestly believe that?

Imagine an employer who told an employee, that if the union went through, that their job would be in danger because of all the added costs. Or that they would lose their job, because the owners would close the plant or store rather than unionize. Or that their health insurance would be dropped. Or they make it clear that life at work will be hellish for the employee.

And they tell many different people this, in private. You don't think that this would affect a vote? I do.

Quote:
The use of cards signed in front of a union organizer invites intimidation, but only from one side. This is why cyclo likes it - it will surely lead to more union successes in organizing. Unions want card check because they consistently lose fair elections.


You could just as easily say that it fails so often because employer intimidation is so powerful a force.

There's two sides to this, but you don't take the concerns of the other side seriously at all. I don't believe you actually think employers intimidate their employees into not voting for unions. Do you?

Or is it nothing but union 'thugs' on one side, who you seem to paint as gangsters or mafia members with your description of them, and valiant, well-meaning members of management and ownership on the other?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 03:11:23