Poll shows 6 in 10 Americans don't care if they lose their job

Superfreak said:
Yes, I do believe that in the case of the secret ballots the workers are being protected by the Chamber and NOT the unions. The Chamber does not gain from their position. The UNION does.

WHY are the unions so scared of the secret ballot Dung? Could it be because they aren't winning as many of the votes as they want?
Click to expand...


SF - I'm not playing this game with you again. The secret ballot is not the issue at all and I'm not going to accept your framing of the issue as being about secret ballots. Not doing it again. Just move on, please.

The idea that the Chamber of Commerce, which probably hasn't supported a single worker friendly regulation since its inception, is against the Employee Free Choice Act because they want to protect the rights of workers is just plain laughable. Seriously.
 
Dungheap said:
Why should we add the pension and health insurance that retired workers earned when they were working to the pay and benefits of current assembly line workers? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The point you are trying to make kind of makes sense, but it ignores the fact that, had management properly planned for the retirement benefits of workers by making contributions to a fund at the time the retirement benefits were promised instead of falsely believing that they could always use their present income to pay retiree costs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Moreover, Toyota and Honda have no comparable legacy costs because they have no legacy, not because their management properly planned for promised benefit costs.
Click to expand...

So you do see that this is the #1 reason that we are going to lose our auto industry to foreigners? Regardless of how badly management fucked up, and they did just as our us government fucked up with social security, we cannot compete in this industry with those liabilities on the books. Giving them money now to stay as is with union intact and benefits still owed to retired workers is a band aid. Why not just take the retired workers and put them in medicare or va systems bust the rediculous life time union medical deal and let them reorg. Its the only way to save it.
 
Dungheap said:
SF - I'm not playing this game with you again. The secret ballot is not the issue at all and I'm not going to accept your framing of the issue as being about secret ballots. Not doing it again. Just move on, please.

The idea that the Chamber of Commerce, which probably hasn't supported a single worker friendly regulation since its inception, is against the Employee Free Choice Act because they want to protect the rights of workers is just plain laughable. Seriously.
Click to expand...

So you don't think the ironically named "free choice act" eliminates the need for a union to be authorized by a secret ballot?

"The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is legislation in the United States which aims to "amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes."[1] Under current labor law, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees if it is elected by either a majority signature drive, the card check process, or by secret ballot NLRB election, which is held if more than 30% of employees in a bargaining unit sign statements asking for representation by a union. If enacted, this bill would require the NLRB to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed cards, the card check process.[1]

Pursuant to the bill, a union can demand that an employer begin bargaining within 10 days of certification of the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for an appropriate unit of employees via the card check. [1] In addition, if the union and employer cannot agree upon the terms of a first collective bargaining contract within 90 days, either party can request federal mediation, which could lead to binding arbitration if an agreement still cannot be reached after 30 days of mediation. [1] Where government arbitration determines terms of the agreement, employees would lose their current right to ratify the terms of the agreement. [1] Finally, the Act would provide for liquidated damages of three times back pay if employers were found to have unlawfully terminated pro-union employees. [2] The EFCA also would impose a $20,000.00 penalty upon employers for each employer violation of the proposed legislation if the NLRB and/or a court deems the violation willful or repetitive. [1] [3]"


you are a naive fool if you truly believe the intent of the 'free choice' act is anything but the elimination of the secret ballot. Or do you really think the unions are going to hold an election when they don't have to?
 
Chapdog said:
So you do see that this is the #1 reason that we are going to lose our auto industry to foreigners? Regardless of how badly management fucked up, and they did just as our us government fucked up with social security, we cannot compete in this industry with those liabilities on the books. Giving them money now to stay as is with union intact and benefits still owed to retired workers is a band aid. Why not just take the retired workers and put them in medicare or va systems bust the rediculous life time union medical deal and let them reorg. Its the only way to save it.
Click to expand...


1) Social Security isn't really a relevant comparator. First of all, there is a SS Trust Fund. I'm not going any further with it.

2) "Regardless of how badly management fucked up" is probably the stupidest thing you've written on this thread considering your virulent anti-union animus. The reason the Big Three cannot compete is because management fucked up so badly. There is no "regardless." The "regardless" is the fucking root of the problem.

3) The union and management have been working to get those legacy costs off the books of the Big Three by doing what they should have done a long fucking time ago and setting up independent funds to manage the costs of retirees. It's a fixable problem but it costs money. And pretending that lifetime medical the pension benefits are "free" is total ignorance. It's deferred compensation. It was earned a long time ago when the retirees were employees.
 
Superfreak said:
So you don't think the ironically named "free choice act" eliminates the need for a union to be authorized by a secret ballot?

"The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is legislation in the United States which aims to "amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes."[1] Under current labor law, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees if it is elected by either a majority signature drive, the card check process, or by secret ballot NLRB election, which is held if more than 30% of employees in a bargaining unit sign statements asking for representation by a union. If enacted, this bill would require the NLRB to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed cards, the card check process.[1]

Pursuant to the bill, a union can demand that an employer begin bargaining within 10 days of certification of the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for an appropriate unit of employees via the card check. [1] In addition, if the union and employer cannot agree upon the terms of a first collective bargaining contract within 90 days, either party can request federal mediation, which could lead to binding arbitration if an agreement still cannot be reached after 30 days of mediation. [1] Where government arbitration determines terms of the agreement, employees would lose their current right to ratify the terms of the agreement. [1] Finally, the Act would provide for liquidated damages of three times back pay if employers were found to have unlawfully terminated pro-union employees. [2] The EFCA also would impose a $20,000.00 penalty upon employers for each employer violation of the proposed legislation if the NLRB and/or a court deems the violation willful or repetitive. [1] [3]"


you are a naive fool if you truly believe the intent of the 'free choice' act is anything but the elimination of the secret ballot. Or do you really think the unions are going to hold an election when they don't have to?
Click to expand...


As I said, I'm not arguing this with you. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
Chapdog said:
So you do see that this is the #1 reason that we are going to lose our auto industry to foreigners? Regardless of how badly management fucked up, and they did just as our us government fucked up with social security, we cannot compete in this industry with those liabilities on the books. Giving them money now to stay as is with union intact and benefits still owed to retired workers is a band aid. Why not just take the retired workers and put them in medicare or va systems bust the rediculous life time union medical deal and let them reorg. Its the only way to save it.
Click to expand...

I think it's ridiculous that we consider basic healthcare insurance without copays "ridiculous", and says a lot about what the conservatives who've governed our country for the past thirty years have done to us.
 
Superfreak said:
Translation...."I know...you are right. It does indeed eliminate the secret ballot. But that won't stop me from pretending it doesn't."
Click to expand...


No one is pretending anything. It does in fact allow for a union to be formed without an NLRB election and the accompanying "secret ballot" but talking about the "secret ballot" and not the greater issues with NLRB elections as they are presently conducted is avoidance of the key issue and I refuse to discuss the matter on those terms.

Further, we've already discussed the NLRB election process and I'd rather not do it again. We didn't get very far the last time.
 
Dungheap said:
No one is pretending anything. It does in fact allow for a union to be formed without an NLRB election and the accompanying "secret ballot" but talking about the "secret ballot" and not the greater issues with NLRB elections as they are presently conducted is avoidance of the key issue and I refuse to discuss the matter on those terms.

Further, we've already discussed the NLRB election process and I'd rather not do it again. We didn't get very far the last time.
Click to expand...

The largest issue is the elimination of the secret ballot. It provides the unions with the ability to pressure workers directly to sign the cards. All they have to do is strong arm 50% into signing the cards and then they have the right to demand the company deal with them.

It takes it even further by stating that if an original deal is not reached within 90 days that the company is subject to mandatory arbitration. Which is another bullshit move by the unions.

Everything stems from the ability of the unions to circumvent the secret ballot. So pretending that is not the main issue is nothing short of idiotic.

This is the same reason we vote for politicians using a secret ballot. It protects the individual from the intimidation of either party lobbying for their vote.
 
Superfreak said:
The largest issue is the elimination of the secret ballot. It provides the unions with the ability to pressure workers directly to sign the cards. All they have to do is strong arm 50% into signing the cards and then they have the right to demand the company deal with them.

It takes it even further by stating that if an original deal is not reached within 90 days that the company is subject to mandatory arbitration. Which is another bullshit move by the unions.

Everything stems from the ability of the unions to circumvent the secret ballot. So pretending that is not the main issue is nothing short of idiotic.

This is the same reason we vote for politicians using a secret ballot. It protects the individual from the intimidation of either party lobbying for their vote.
Click to expand...


What part of "I'm not debating this with you" don't you understand? It's not that difficult, junior.
 
Dungheap said:
What part of "I'm not debating this with you" don't you understand? It's not that difficult, junior.
Click to expand...

Listen dumbshit... NO ONE is forcing you to respond. We all understand you have nothing and thus are resorting to the 'I ain't debatin wit you cause I gots me nothing' defense.
 
Dungheap said:
SF - I'm not playing this game with you again. The secret ballot is not the issue at all and I'm not going to accept your framing of the issue as being about secret ballots. Not doing it again. Just move on, please.

The idea that the Chamber of Commerce, which probably hasn't supported a single worker friendly regulation since its inception, is against the Employee Free Choice Act because they want to protect the rights of workers is just plain laughable. Seriously.
Click to expand...
I'm against it because secret ballots are what we need to protect people. Whether the Chamber of Commerce is against it for that reason doesn't change how I feel and why.

When the cards show one result but the secret ballot showed a different one, by just three people (signed cards, voted against the union. They don't know who they are because they know who signed the cards, but they don't know who voted which way) it shows me clearly that some people signed cards to get them off their back knowing that they would vote against it. Imagine if they knew who those three people were. They were on the case of the one dude who didn't vote at all so bad they had to move him elsewhere to stop the harassment. (signed a card, didn't vote, made it a tie, union loses in a tie.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top