Wacka Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I don't disagree with this at all. I remember the construction mob of Niagara Falls being brought to court in the 1990's by the FBI and a reporter trying to film them outside the courthouse getting punched. Still, you have Churches that steal, cheap, rape children, but that isn't all the churches. Most unions don't engage in violence <_< :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Unions can be f-ed up I know. Niagara Falls on our side was an economic waste land because of the thug unions. The FBI had to clean them up. Rudy Guliani busted the Teamsters, I beleive. But honest unions take their bumps from employers and there has been violence used against. Many people have been killed trying to organize. My view on unions might be outdated, I'll admit. The economy today is different than it use to be. Still, if people want to organize they should be allowed to. And yes, something should be done to stop "union intemidation." I think back to my 4th grade teacher who refused to go on strike in Buffalo in 1978[?] with the rest of the teachers. But I don't think anything happened to her. I wouldn't throw the baby out with bath water. All unions are not run by goons, nor most The FBI made an effort to clean them up, but they are not. Some unions are notorious- try opening a grocery store in the NY/NJ area without unions and see how often meats are left to rot in the isles by customers... Nobody say's people shouldn't be allowed to organize. The question is whether it should be mandatory to join if you ae in the minority, and whether the process for joining should be free of intimidation and coercion. You will never be able to eliminate those, but getting rid of the secret ballot removes that last defense. Right now, if you don't want a union but your co-workers harrass you into signing a petition for a vote, you can still vote no when they are not looking over you shoulder. This legislation takes away the vote - the union is in place once sufficient cards have been submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 The FBI made an effort to clean them up, but they are not. Some unions are notorious- try opening a grocery store in the NY/NJ area without unions and see how often meats are left to rot in the isles by customers... Nobody say's people shouldn't be allowed to organize. The question is whether it should be mandatory to join if you ae in the minority, and whether the process for joining should be free of intimidation and coercion. You will never be able to eliminate those, but getting rid of the secret ballot removes that last defense. Right now, if you don't want a union but your co-workers harrass you into signing a petition for a vote, you can still vote no when they are not looking over you shoulder. This legislation takes away the vote - the union is in place once sufficient cards have been submitted. Do you realize that union workers only make up 7% of the private sector workforce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Do you realize that union workers only make up 7% of the private sector workforce? Yes. So what? It's about being able to choose without coercion. The stakes are high to the worker: once a union is formed, as long as they want that job they are stuck with them in their lives whether they wanted a union or not - the dues, political contributions, work stoppages, union visits at to their house for a 'chat' if they act out of line, etc. Do you realize that the purpose of the legislation is to increase union membership? That's what the unions say and what their political supporters say in friendly environments. In a non-friendly setting (such as a news show with an opposition guest), they say it is because when there is a private vote called companies can call meetings [on paid company time] to make the case against unionizing, and this can be intimidating. [That's legal, and by law the union reps are allowed to talk to employees anywhere after work, such as their houses.] Proceedures protecting against intimidation and coercion should apply whether you are talking about half the work force, 7% of the workforce, or a handfull of attorneys in the Justice Department, or a solitary whistle-blower. Just because union membership has been declining doesn't give them a free pass to unionize ACORN-style. People need to be able to make that choice freely, and as far as I can tell the current system acheives that pretty well: petition for enough signatures, with the company providing address information. If enough employees sign, you have a binding secret ballot. Nobody knows who voted how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts