pBills

Most unions if not all unions will not present cards requesting for an election until 50% or signed. This bill will give the employees the CHOICE to forgo a secret ballot election. If at ANY TIME ANY employee... one who signed a card or one who didn't CAN request a secret ballot election. Which means the NLRB will come in and manage the election. No reason needed.

No actually I did not. The Teamsters own that Rat and use it. I do not work for the Teamsters. Moron. Oh and sorry GG, the Teamsters may loan out the Rat for events.

Teamsters do that. I am not a Teamster. Way to label all union people as the same though. Good job.

Yes, you would like to think that all perks are based on market demand for people like you. However that is not the case. "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.[3] 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.[3] 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..." "employees still have the legal right to petition for a federally-run election at their workplace, in which workers can vote on whether or not to join a union. To get such an election, they need the signatures of at least 30 percent of the employees. But after the employees get enough signatures for the election, employers very often intimidate workers through threats and firings before the vote is held. The Center for Economic and Policy Research has estimated that one in five workers who are actively involved in a union organizing drive can expect to be fired. Many others are “persuaded” to vote against the union through a long, captive audience campaign of employer threats and harassment..." All in all this act puts the CHOICE solely on the backs of the employees not the employer.

Any employee of that particular group can request a secret ballot election.

So you believe that it completely wipes away the secret ballot? It doesn't. One can be requested at any time. Can we also discuss the point that if it weren't for unions many of the "perks" you have now with your company would not be. So in your mind unions kill capitalism? hahaha. ok.

Not necessarily a black and white answer to this. If a child can be helped or cured by some sort of treatment and the parents withhold for non-religious reasons... be it ignorance, parents hiding information, etc. That is disgusting. However, when religion is involved it comepletely opens up a whole new can of worms.

I never said it was more sacred. And I am not sure why you said again. I don't remember you asking the question before. Let me ask you... why is the Employee Free Choice Act so bad?

For the vast majority of workers who want unions today but do not have them, the right to organize and bargain collectively—free from coercion, intimidation, and retaliation—is at best a promise indefinitely deferred. According to Bronfenbrenner, in NLRB election campaigns, it is standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for union activity. From the 1999-2003 data: 63% interrogate workers in one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union 54% threaten workers in such meetings 57% threaten to close the worksite 47% threaten to cut wages and benefits 34% fire workers

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Now that cracks me up. Good one if we lived in the 70's. Unions Goons. HAHAHAHA

A lot of anti-union people and companies are using scare tactics like that. Right in the middle of class warfare.

Sorry, I do not have a Shop Steward. I work for an International. Some facts: * The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart's impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart's own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates. [David Neumark, The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets 2005] * According to a 2003 estimate, the influx of big-box stores into San Diego would result in an annual decline in wages and benefits which could cost the area up to $221 million [san Diego Taxpayers Association (SDCTA), 2003] * When an employer pays low wages to its employees, the employees have less money to spend on goods and services in the community, which in turn reduces the income and spending of others in the community. In other words a reduction in wages has a multiplier impact in the surrounding area. * For instance, in 1999, Southern California municipalities estimated that for every dollar decrease in wages in the southern California economy, $2.08 in spending was lost-- the $1 decrease plus another $1.08 in indirect multiplier impacts. ["The Impact of Big Box Grocers in Southern California" Dr. Marlon Boarnet and Dr. Randall Crane, 1999.] * In Maine, existing businesses lost over 10 percent of their market in 80 percent of the towns where Wal-Mart opened stores. [Georgeanne Artz And James McConnon, The Impact of Wal-Mart on Host Towns and Surrounding Communities in Maine, 2001] * Food stores in Mississippi lost 17 percent of their sales by the fifth year after a Wal-Mart Supercenter had come into their county, and retail stores lost 9 percent of their sales [Kenneth Stone and Georgeanne Artz, The Economic Impact of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Existing Businesses in Mississippi, 2002] * Over the course of [a few years after Wal-Mart entered a community], retailers' sales of apparel dropped 28% on average, hardware sales fell by 20%, and sales of specialty stores fell by 17%. [Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University, "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," 1997] * In towns without Wal-Marts that are close to towns with Wal-Marts, sales in general merchandise declined immediately after Wal-Mart stores opened. After ten years, sales declined by a cumulative 34%. [Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University, "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," 1997] * Between 2003 and 2005, state and federal environmental agencies fined Wal-Mart $5 million. * In 2005, Wal-Mart reached a $1.15 million settlement with the State of Connecticut for allowing improperly stored pesticides and other pollutants to pollute streams. This was the largest such settlement in state history. [Hartford Courant, 8/16/05] * In May 2004, Wal-Mart agreed to pay the largest settlement for stormwater violations in EPA history. The United States sued Wal-mart for violating the Clean Water Act in 9 states, calling for penalties of over $3.1 million and changes to Wal-Mart's building practices. [u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 12, 2004, U.S. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2004 WL 2370700] * In 2004, Wal-Mart was fined $765,000 for violating Florida's petroleum storage tank laws at its automobile service centers. Wal-Mart failed to register its fuel tanks, failed to install devices that prevent overflow, did not perform monthly monitoring, lacked current technologies, and blocked state inspectors. [Associated Press, 11/18/04] * In Georgia, Wal-Mart was fined about $150,000 in 2004 for water contamination. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/10/05] * Wal-Mart's rapid expansion of Supercenters and Sam's Clubs has contributed to hundreds of vacant stores across the country. ["Wal Mart site: Use as is or rebuild?", Dallas Morning News, 2/20/02] * When Wal-Mart decides to convert a discount store into a larger Supercenter, it is often cheaper or easier simply to relocate entirely. David Brennan, associate professor of marketing at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minn, noted that Wal-Mart stores relocate so regularly that, "it is not uncommon to relocate right across the street." ["Home Depot to Move from Old to New Store Next Door," Providence News-Journal, 8/17/03] * Also Wal-Mart often resists other large retail stores moving in. A president of a major real estate developer in Dallas said in 2002, "They're not going to be very receptive to any retailer going into it and even if they sell it, they might put a non- compete clause in there." As one Wal-Mart spokesperson said in 2004, "There are times when it's in our interest to get the property moving faster, but we're certainly not going to give a competitor an advantage." [Dallas Morning News 2/20/02, Wall Street Journal, 9/15/04] * Wal-Mart planned to build another 60 million square feet of store space in 2006, or roughly the equivalent of 1,040 football fields or 16 Pentagon buildings. [Wal-Mart Stores, Twelfth Annual Analysts' Meeting, FD (Fair Disclosure) Wire October 25, 2005]

Wow, someone is cool.

Crushing hometown businesses Low wages - usually below poverty line. Which of course means less money within the community Gaining of ridiculous subsidies - small local governments told that they would not come to the area unless the city/town pays for all alterations with infrastructure (streets, parking lots, etc.) Many cases of breaking environmental laws Many buildings left vacant upon deciding to create a superstore. Often buying larger buildings across or down the street instead converting the existing store.

SUPPORT THE FREE CHOICE ACT

Dude it's well known that Walmart goes into small towns and gobbles up the hometown businesses who can't beat their pricing. Importing in such high volumes from China has it's benefits.

unlucky

I heard the announcements on WTOP.

I am guessing this is a dead story huh?

Wow, you know a lot about unions.

That last statement scares me, yet I'll be thankful for it next election. Bring on Palin fever again. HAHAHAHA!!

Unregulated? What's that? Oh that's the DOL. Who are CONSTANTLY in the face of unions scrutinizing every little detail. Which is fine with me. When I receive this new study on intimidation tactics (for both sides. I am sure you'll be amazed and not believe the results.

I don't and wouldn't shop there because they are very anti-union and are known for crushing small communities.

Really? I never understood that is why they called it that? :thumbdown: A few other nuggets from the great company. At least you get your socks cheap there: Wal-Mart executives did not act on warnings they were violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) * Wal-Mart has known for years of a massive company wide problem of fair labor standards violations but did not take sufficient steps to address the problem. An internal Wal-Mart audit of one week of time records in 2000 from 25,000 employees had alerted Wal-Mart officials to potential violations. The audit found 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times. It also alerted Wal-Mart executives to 1,371 instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. [steven Greenhouse, "Suits Say Wal-Mart Forces Workers to Toil Off the Clock," New York Times, A1, 6/25/02] * Despite this knowledge, Wal-Mart had to settle in January 2005 for violations that took place from 1998 to 2002, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 to settle U.S. Dept. of Labor charges that the company had violated provisions against minors operating hazardous machinery. [Ann Zimmerman, "Wal-Mart's Labor Agreement Is Criticized by Former Official," Wall Street Journal, 2/15/05] * In March 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle allegations that it had failed to pay overtime to janitors, many of whom worked seven nights a week. [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 11/7/05, Forbes, 10/10/05] * The State of Connecticut, investigating Wal-Mart's child labor practices after the federal investigation ended, found 11 more violations. In June 2005, Connecticut fined Wal-Mart Stores Inc. $3,300 over child labor violations after a state investigation found that some minors lacked proper paperwork and were operating hazardous equipment at the stores. ["Wal-Mart Is Fined for Child Labor Violations," Bloomberg News, June 22, 2005]