I predict gas under $3 a gallon

[GG]

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

 

Yes you are, because the argument about the proposed law is that it will facilitate coercion by unions. You haven't disproved that argument.

[Bill from NYC]

Yes you are, because the argument about the proposed law is that it will facilitate coercion by unions. You haven't disproved that argument.

 

Do you seriously believe that the unions would resort to violence? It is 2008 Gerry. Today, it is the businesses that violate the law and get a slap on the wrist.

[pBills]

Yes you are, because the argument about the proposed law is that it will facilitate coercion by unions. You haven't disproved that argument.

 

 

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.

[GG]

Do you seriously believe that the unions would resort to violence? It is 2008 Gerry. Today, it is the businesses that violate the law and get a slap on the wrist.

 

Violence, no. Strong coercion using peer pressure, yes. I don't think that we'll be reliving the Waterfront days, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that union organizers are not going to take advantage of pressuring workers to sign an open petition. Unles you don't have friends who work for the Transit Authority who are told by their union mates on their first week on the job that they work too fast.

 

As for the other example, it's the prime case for reforming immigration laws. Tyson is doing that because it can't get anyone else to do that nasty labor intensive work. They can raise the wages to entice Americans to do it, but it would be a far worse outcome in the end, because the cost of food will skyrocket and the economy would be in perpetual standstill, because you would need to limit imports of cheaper foods from other countries, which would retaliate by hitting US exports. So in effect you damage the economy by protecting a segment of the low wage low skill US worker population, which you should be encouraging to get higher paying, more skilled work.

[Bill from NYC]

As for the other example, it's the prime case for reforming immigration laws. Tyson is doing that because it can't get anyone else to do that nasty labor intensive work. They can raise the wages to entice Americans to do it, but it would be a far worse outcome in the end, because the cost of food will skyrocket and the economy would be in perpetual standstill, because you would need to limit imports of cheaper foods from other countries, which would retaliate by hitting US exports. So in effect you damage the economy by protecting a segment of the low wage low skill US worker population, which you should be encouraging to get higher paying, more skilled work.

 

It is modern day slavery, the exception being that you, instead of the masters, pay for their medical care.

[GG]

It is modern day slavery, the exception being that you, instead of the masters, pay for their medical care.

 

Primary difference of course is that the Latinos & the Africans pay a hell of a lot of money for the chance to work for the horrible masters at Tyson. How are they different than the Irish of 1820?

 

[broken record on] Illegal immigrants are not a net drain on the tax base [broken record /off]

[SD Jarhead]

Violence, no. Strong coercion using peer pressure, yes. I don't think that we'll be reliving the Waterfront days, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that union organizers are not going to take advantage of pressuring workers to sign an open petition. Unles you don't have friends who work for the Transit Authority who are told by their union mates on their first week on the job that they work too fast.

 

As for the other example, it's the prime case for reforming immigration laws. Tyson is doing that because it can't get anyone else to do that nasty labor intensive work. They can raise the wages to entice Americans to do it, but it would be a far worse outcome in the end, because the cost of food will skyrocket and the economy would be in perpetual standstill, because you would need to limit imports of cheaper foods from other countries, which would retaliate by hitting US exports. So in effect you damage the economy by protecting a segment of the low wage low skill US worker population, which you should be encouraging to get higher paying, more skilled work.

 

I have a good friend who I was in the Corps with who got out after 12 years. He's from Long Beach and his dad is a longshoreman. Well, as you might know, you almost have to be born into the union to get a job there. And sure enough, Anthony's Dad got him into the union and a peach of a job on the docks once he got out of the Corps. The problem for Anthony is the one you referenced above. He was told that he works too fast and needs to slow down. This did (does) not sit well with him because he's a hard charger and one of the hardest workers Ive ever met. Although he makes a schitload of money on the job, he hates it because of the way many of these guys operate.

 

True story...

[Taro T]

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.

The provision I quoted specifically states that secret ballots are not necessary. As a matter of fact, w/ the little preamble of "(n)otwithstanding any other provision of this section" it specifically states that as long as a majority sign their union cards then the union is in. If that paragraph were removed, then the rest of the bill MAY be worth considering. But that paragraph CLEARLY provides opportunity for pro-union coersion. Not only does it provide the opportunity for it, but I'd almost guarantee it'll happen. Would you still support this bill minus that paragraph?

[pBills]

The provision I quoted specifically states that secret ballots are not necessary. As a matter of fact, w/ the little preamble of "(n)otwithstanding any other provision of this section" it specifically states that as long as a majority sign their union cards then the union is in. If that paragraph were removed, then the rest of the bill MAY be worth considering. But that paragraph CLEARLY provides opportunity for pro-union coersion. Not only does it provide the opportunity for it, but I'd almost guarantee it'll happen. Would you still support this bill minus that paragraph?

 

 

 

I'm sure it would happen if the MAJORITY wanted the union - hence no need for the secret ballot election. Which in some cases eliminates extra time for the employer to scare the crap out of the employee into not signing or voting yes to a union.

[GG]

I'm sure it would happen if the MAJORITY wanted the union - hence no need for the secret ballot election. Which in some cases eliminates extra time for the employer to scare the crap out of the employee into not signing or voting yes to a union.

 

By that logic, if the majority truly wants to be unionized, then the vote would also carry in a secret ballot. Right?

 

Keep spinning, you're a blast.

[pBills]

By that logic, if the majority truly wants to be unionized, then the vote would also carry in a secret ballot. Right?

 

Keep spinning, you're a blast.

 

 

I guess you had a hard time reading that... so I will SPIN that for you again in bold: Which in some cases eliminates extra time for the employer to scare the crap out of the employee into not signing or voting yes to a union.

 

I have seen these scare tactics over and over again. You haven't, but go on you know more, you have seen more... unions = bad

[GG]

I guess you had a hard time reading that... so I will SPIN that for you again in bold: Which in some cases eliminates extra time for the employer to scare the crap out of the employee into not signing or voting yes to a union.

 

I have seen these scare tactics over and over again. You haven't, but go on you know more, you have seen more... unions = bad

 

What scare tactics are those? If you join a union, the company's expenses will go up, employees' net salaries will go down because of union dues, and work rules will become more rigid. Frightening.

 

Stop using the arguments from 1940's to justify your position.

[Taro T]

By that logic, if the majority truly wants to be unionized, then the vote would also carry in a secret ballot. Right?

 

Keep spinning, you're a blast.

No, because if no one knows how anyone is voting then management will clearly coerse the employees into voting the union down.

 

It's only by having every single person having to state publicly in front of all the people they will have to work with every day whether or not they want a union that a coersion free environment can be obtained.

 

What the h*ll was I thinking joining this "discussion".

[Chilly]

I'm sure it would happen if the MAJORITY wanted the union - hence no need for the secret ballot election. Which in some cases eliminates extra time for the employer to scare the crap out of the employee into not signing or voting yes to a union.

 

Right, because you can easily and validly determine what the majority thinks by not having a secret ballot.

[Philly McButterpants]

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.

 

You mean like Unions telling their members to vote a straight Democaratic ticket?

[KD in CA]

• 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.

 

• Good. If I caught one of my employees wasting time I was paying him for and spending that time piloting to cause harm to the company, you bet your ass he's going to be fired.
  
• So? We also require them to deliver anti-competition messages.
  
• So what? Because a union exists means the company should be forced to give them 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.

 

Gee that's great. Gotta love people who crow about 'freedom' but don't think any of that should apply to someone who chooses to start a business. Especially the part about forcing a company to enter into an agreement with an organization that it would otherwise choose not to do business with.

 

 

I love how people say that the union strong-arms people into voting pro-union.

 

I'm sure the people who are strong-armed into having their wages docked by corrupt union thugs love it too.

 

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.

 

Again, so what? Absolutely nothing wrong with a private organization rewarding employees for their loyalty and punishing those who seek to do it harm.

[pBills]

What scare tactics are those? If you join a union, the company's expenses will go up, employees' net salaries will go down because of union dues, and work rules will become more rigid. Frightening.

 

Stop using the arguments from 1940's to justify your position.

 

 

Are you freakin' kidding me. Their salaries will go down because of union dues? Union dues can range anywhere from $100 - $300 per year.

 

Work rules will become more rigid, that comes from management. Work sites will become safer. Workers will have job security. Workers will have contract that when agreed upon through arbitration will have s et pay scale for the life of that contract (most are 4% raises - whoohooo). Better/Fair health benefits. Damn those unions for asking for SOOOO much.

[pBills]

You mean like Unions telling their members to vote a straight Democaratic ticket?

 

 

Tell them to vote that way... sure and there is usually paperwork backing the reasons. Do the members have to vote that way, no. Are people upset if they vote republican, no.

[pBills]

• Good. If I caught one of my employees wasting time I was paying him for and spending that time piloting to cause harm to the company, you bet your ass he's going to be fired.
  
• So? We also require them to deliver anti-competition messages.
  
• So what? Because a union exists means the company should be forced to give them a contract?
  

 

Gee that's great. Gotta love people who crow about 'freedom' but don't think any of that should apply to someone who chooses to start a business. Especially the part about forcing a company to enter into an agreement with an organization that it would otherwise choose not to do business with.

 

I'm sure the people who are strong-armed into having their wages docked by corrupt union thugs love it too.

 

Again, so what? Absolutely nothing wrong with a private organization rewarding employees for their loyalty and punishing those who seek to do it harm.

 

 

Such a gem. You believe that every company treats their employees with respect and dignity. Fact is that's not true in many cases. I guess that Freedom you talk about is the freedom of some employers to treat their workers unfairly or threaten them. Nice.

[pBills]

And with that being said, I am going to back to attempt to do some companies harm.

 

 

Peace out.