Even Bigtime Liberal George McGovern Opposes the so called Employee Free Choice Act

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
Any organization that fears a secret ballot should not be allowed to exist.

This is just a way to intimidate or harrass people into voting the way you want them to vote.
 
You ought to tell that to the California initiative system. Petitions are evil and shouldn't be allowed to exist. No grassroots petitioning here.
 
KingCondanomation said:
"To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html

It's also unconstitutional:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122964977342320545.html
Click to expand...


Who gives a shit what McGovern or Dick Epstein think?
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
Who gives a shit what McGovern or Dick Epstein think?
Click to expand...
You, apparently, as you responded. You already don't listen to anyone on the right, now you can't bare to listen to anyone who disagrees with you on the left?
Why don't you address his point, employees should be allowed to use a secret ballot, not be intimidated by lazy union thugs into what they want to happen.
 
Watermarx said:
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to exist?

Again, it's not a secret ballot. It's 24/7 employer intimidation for 60 days to vote against the union.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, as usual you are just a little fat kid who doesn't know what he is talking about. The employer right now, even without this law isn't allowed to tell employees he would close shop or give them a raise if they abandon unionization or any other intimidation.
The employer IS allowed to tell employees how other firms ended up AFTER unionization, but presenting a contrast to get people to think is not a threat and not intimidation.

The only thing this bill is about is a powerful Democrat majority that sees its best chance in years in trying to reverse the decline of unions that came about from them wrecking businesses with demands that were above what the market could bear.
 
KingCondanomation said:
You, apparently, as you responded. You already don't listen to anyone on the right, now you can't bare to listen to anyone who disagrees with you on the left?
Why don't you address his point, employees should be allowed to use a secret ballot, not be intimidated by lazy union thugs into what they want to happen.
Click to expand...


I would simply respond by pointing out that the current procedure permits recognition of a union without a secret ballot. The only difference is that currently the employer gets to decide if the secret ballot can be disregarded. Under the EFCA the employees get to make that determination.

Strangely, no one has complained about the sanctity of the secret ballot when the employer holds the cards, yet when it is the employees themselves that decide the manner in which they organize we never hear the end of it.

In short, I respond by calling bullshit.
 
KingCondanomation said:
"To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html

It's also unconstitutional:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122964977342320545.html
Click to expand...

Thats because even some liberals are bright enough to comprehend the undemocratic bullshit that is being pushed as the employee free choice act.

Why not simply call it what it is... 'the union is about to intimidate you into signing a card through peer pressure' act
 
Watermarx said:
Even you should know that McGovern has turned rather neoliberal as of late.
Click to expand...
And you base that on what? He called for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, he is still on the far left of the party.


As usual fat kid trying to pretend he is in the know on the bullshit statements he makes up.
 
Secret Ballots are the epitome of this country. Unions don't want them because then they won't know who to lean on. I can't believe any self respecting progressive would support this shitty piece of legislation.
 
KingCondanomation said:
"To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html

It's also unconstitutional:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122964977342320545.html
Click to expand...
I'd agree with him on that. There should also be rules that do not allow them to come to your house and bug you and your family at home.
 
Dungheap said:
I would simply respond by pointing out that the current procedure permits recognition of a union without a secret ballot. The only difference is that currently the employer gets to decide if the secret ballot can be disregarded. Under the EFCA the employees get to make that determination.

Strangely, no one has complained about the sanctity of the secret ballot when the employer holds the cards, yet when it is the employees themselves that decide the manner in which they organize we never hear the end of it.

In short, I respond by calling bullshit.
Click to expand...
This is rubbish. The company doesn't get to decide on a ballot.

I guess it could depend on what state you are in. But currently here, if they get over 30% of the people to sign cards they can get a vote if they request it, however if they get 50% plus 1 there is a vote. Period. The company is not involved in the vote at all. Represented at the table are pro-union and union members and non-union employees. The company is not represented at all and has no say in the vote.

There is nothing about the company deciding on whether I get to vote on that.

With cards, the Union controls it. Two groups that have "control" would be either the Union or the company either of which may have their own agenda.
 
Socrtease said:
Secret Ballots are the epitome of this country. Unions don't want them because then they won't know who to lean on. I can't believe any self respecting progressive would support this shitty piece of legislation.
Click to expand...


Of course, this ignores that current law permits the formation of a union without secret ballot but only when the employer thinks it is a good idea.
 
Damocles said:
This is rubbish. The company doesn't get to decide on a ballot.

I guess it could depend on what state you are in. But currently here, if they get over 30% of the people to sign cards they can get a vote if they request it, however if they get 50% plus 1 there is a vote. Period. The company is not involved in the vote at all. Represented at the table are pro-union and union members and non-union employees. The company is not represented at all and has no say in the vote.

There is nothing about the company deciding on whether I get to vote on that.
Click to expand...


This doesn't vary state to state. It is federal law. If there is 50% +1 the employer decides whether it wants to force an election or not.
 
Damocles said:
I'd agree with him on that. There should also be rules that do not allow them to come to your house and bug you and your family at home.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Republican dominated NLRB made it what way since employers can fire union reps if they talk about union issues on employer property. Allow union reps to talk about unionization on employer property and you wouldn't have them coming to your house.
 
Dungheap said:
This doesn't vary state to state. It is federal law. If there is 50% +1 the employer decides whether it wants to force an election or not.
Click to expand...
Again, that's rubbish. The company doesn't get to decide, at least they don't here. According to my FIL (A labor attorney) it depends on the Union contract. So it is even more limited.

The company doesn't always get to decide.
 
Damocles said:
Again, that's rubbish. The company doesn't get to decide, at least they don't here. According to my FIL (A labor attorney) it depends on the Union contract. So it is even more limited.

The company doesn't always get to decide.
Click to expand...


It isn't rubbish. It's the current state of the law. If 50%+1 of the members of the bargaining unit sign up saying they want a union the employer gets to decide whether to force an election.

That second sentence up there makes no sense at all. How can it depend on a union contract when the election is about whether a union will exist in the first instance?
 
Dungheap said:
It isn't rubbish. It's the current state of the law. If 50%+1 of the members of the bargaining unit sign up saying they want a union the employer gets to decide whether to force an election.

That second sentence up there makes no sense at all. How can it depend on a union contract when the election is about whether a union will exist in the first instance?
Click to expand...
Unless you are a better labor attorney than, well, a labor attorney, then I'll take his word for it. I called him up to ask. Was on the phone with him as I read your response.

He said, "It depends on the contract."

It's even more localized than I thought and more restrictive than you think. The company doesn't always get to decide, and here they don't. We get a vote. Period.

Last time, 5 people who signed cards changed over and the Union lost for the second year running. But only at the vote. Had there been no secret ballot, those people who were pushed into signing cards they didn't really want to would have lost some of their power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top