pBills

His point is that this law is will help unions STRONG-ARM people into joining. I find that laughable. It's more about protecting the majority. I have seen firsthand employers strong-arm and threaten their employees before election day. This law will help to avoid that. If people are worried about it not being a secret ballot, as stated, they can always request the NLRB to be there.

Benefit of the doubt, ok.

Just found it interesting that a large amount of contributions came after he started pressing for drilling now. Oh and the standing ovation by oil execs... awesome!!

Nice one. I guess I am completely wrong on this issue.

Wow, you know so much about unions?? Do you work with them or for one? Here are some stats for you: • Employees are fired in one-quarter of private-sector union organizing campaigns; • 78 percent of private employers require supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to the workers whose jobs and pay they control; • And even after workers successfully form a union, one-third of the time they are not able to get a contract. The law will: • Strengthen penalties for companies that illegally coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them from forming a union; • Bring in a neutral third party to settle a contract when a company and a newly certified union cannot agree on a contract after three months; • Establishes majority sign-up, meaning that if a majority of the employees sign union authorization cards, validated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a company must recognize the union. Will the law eliminate secret ballots? No. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government to hold an election. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives them another option—majority sign-up. I love how people say that the union strong-arms people into voting pro-union. Each and every organizing drive is heavily monitored by the NLRB. I have personally seen employer intimidations. From telling new U.S. Citizens (who do not know all of the laws yet) that if they vote for a union they will be deported. Employees that they will be fired immediately. Offer certain employees wage increases, special concessions, or benefits in order to keep the union out or to manipulate the vote. Threaten the loss of hours or premium shifts they have earned if they vote pro-union. Etc., etc., etc.

COMPLETELY UNTRUE!!! Seriously read a bit more about the Employee Free Choice Act. It does not mean that employees can be bullied into FOR unionization. It helps to make sure that employers can not bully or use scare tactics to protect themselves from Unionization. The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress (so obviously not just Dems involved), would level the playing field for workers and employers and help rebuild America’s middle class. It would restore workers’ freedom to choose a union by: * Establishing stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations. * Providing mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes. * Allowing employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation. And in regards to Wal-Mart's Anti-Union Policy: Wal-Mart closes down stores and departments that unionize • Wal-Mart closed its store in Jonquierre, Quebec in April 2005 after its employees received union certification. The store became the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America when 51 percent of the employees at the store signed union cards. [Washington Post, 4/14/05] • In December 2005, the Quebec Labour Board ordered Wal-Mart to compensate former employees of its store in Jonquiere Quebec. The Board ruled that Wal-Mart had improperly closed the store in April 2005 in reprisal against unionized workers. [Personnel Today, 12/19/05] • In 2000, when a small meatcutting department successfully organized a union at a Wal-Mart store in Texas, Wal-Mart responded a week later by announcing the phase-out of its in-store meatcutting company-wide. [Pan Demetrakakes, "Is Wal-Mart Wrapped in Union Phobia?" Food & Packaging 76 (August 1, 2003).] Wal-Mart has issued "A Manager's Toolbox to Remaining Union Free," • This toolbox provides managers with lists of warning signs that workers might be organizing, including "frequent meetings at associates' homes" and "associates who are never seen together start talking or associating with each other." The "Toolbox" gives managers a hotline to call so that company specialists can respond rapidly and head off any attempt by employees to organize. [Wal-Mart, A Manager's Toolbox to Remaining Union Free at 20-21] Wal-Mart is committed to an anti-union policy • In the last few years, well over 100 unfair labor practice charges have been filed against Wal-Mart throughout the country, with 43 charges filed in 2002 alone. • Since 1995, the U.S. government has been forced to issue at least 60 complaints against Wal-Mart at the National Labor Relations Board. [international Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), Internationally Recognised Core Labour Standards in the United States: Report for the WTO General Council Review of the Trade Policies of the United States (Geneva, January 14-16, 2004)] • Wal-Mart's labor law violations range from illegally firing workers who attempt to organize a union to unlawful surveillance, threats, and intimidation of employees who dare to speak out. ["Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart," A Report by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2/16/04] And on top of that Wal-Mart is reported to have many of their "security cameras" scanning for union organization instead of what they are truly there for. So many violations against workers rights it's sad.

Are saying ANWAR instead of ANWR? OH MY GOD LET THE FLOOD GATES OPEN!!! TEAR THEM APART!!!

Since we're talking about big oil. Here's an interesting snippet from the Houston Chronicle: McCain's contributions from energy interests spike John McCain received prolonged applause from the oil executives who gathered June 17 in Houston to hear the Republican presidential candidate's speech on energy policy. Now it appears that McCain received something else: Lots of campaign contributions. John McCain's contributions from energy industry interests happened to spike right around his Houston speech (and a fundraising tour of Texas). Is it a coincidence, the result of aggressive Texas outreach -- or is it a show of gratitude? Let us know what you think. Here's the list: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENERGY INTERESTS DATE.....................AMOUNT April......................$40,000 May.......................$96,950 June 1-15.............$219,550 June 16-17...........$303,400 June 18-30...........$313,950 Link

:wallbash:

Same with me. Two sick days in two years, first vacation coming up in two years.

What are you talking about? He stated that his campaign that they were always following the party rules. Even when it came down to the DNC vote his campaign still stated that they would follow whatever the decision was. It was Hillary that was changing them to benefit her.

All in all, it's old news. He said during the primary that their votes should count. However, he also said in a nutshell that rules are rules. His campaign followed them, hers did not. Again, old news. And Florida and Michigan shouldn't blame Obama, they should blame their state party officials.

You are right. He will be handing out freebies left and right. No one will work, no one will have to work. And McCain will never ever raise taxes (HAHA!!). To be completely serious do have link where Obama has said "President Obama will take my profits and give it the people who are too !@#$ing lazy to find work". It's also not a matter of screwing working people it's about helping those who are unemployed fr whatever reason and seriously need help. Although, I guess we should follow your mindset - f those who can't help themselves. Let them rot. Great viewpoint.

Should that have happened during the Primary? No. Now that it's over of course he's going ask for that to happen now.

7 paid sick days. Pretty fair deal. I do agree with the constant ridiculing of american cars/ products in general. But hey, that Japanese car is assembled here. :-)

Do it, then find a free computer and send us picture from the streets.

I did not say that... however if Congress does get frustrated with them and their answers, I'm sure that they will request a formal investigation.

Oh I am sure they are being looked at... example: Congressional Hearings Again, I do not believe it's simply because they are making money. Let's face it people are driving less, gas prices are going down, commuters are taking subway's (up roughly 40% in some cities), etc., etc. Yet, they just made their largest profit I believe ever. When demand goes down, prices go down, etc., etc. shouldn't the profits relate to that?

5.7% four year high.... I guess those what 52,000 people that just lost their jobs (436,000 jobs lost this year) will look at it that way as well. Only a small amount of people.

No, I do get it. Hypothetically speaking... If you found out that a company tons of money by manipulating the system. Since they "earned" it, do you believe they should be able to keep it? Do you lie, cheat and steal to get ahead... you say no. However you can not say that everyone handles business the same as you.

I would not complain about them expressing their political beliefs. I just look at the other practices they do.

Like Walmart.

Days of excess are numbered... does that pertained to the large amounts of land that they have and won't touch, but they still need to open offshore facilities? After all, investment in exploration and oil drilling technologies is where the bulk of the profits go right? One would think that tens of billions of dollars could cover some of that.

Just asking a question... Seems to me the best way for them to deflect would be by saying the public .... "well, gee people we do have huge profits that primarily go to exploration, etc. and we know that you are paying a ton at the pump. But look at that 401(k) - you might have gained $20" Taking people's money? Does that include those who may be in some manipulating the system so that can receive more money?

That is truly the question. I would imagine you have to start by looking at their books and see what is really sent towards oil exploration and investment? If it's a weak number, whatever that percentage that may be... then it would harder to justify those ridiculously huge profits. It seems to me that use, etc. is all down, even if only by a few percent, yet they set a new record. I am curious though - how many people really have their 401(k) involved with big oil. Personally I believe that was just one hell of a ad campaign.