Even Warren Buffett opposes Card Check legislation

[Fingon]

"I think the secret ballot's pretty important in the country. I'm against card check to make a perfectly flat statement," said Buffett.

 

 

and yet Obama is for it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/...en-buffett.html

 

 

 

I just don't get how the secret ballot is now unfair.

[John Adams]

This legislation is repugnant.

[PastaJoe]

Under present law, employees can form a union by signing a card expressing their desire to unionize. If 30% or more sign the cards, the cards are submitted to the National Labor relations Board (NLRB) who will organize a secret ballot election to determine the outcome of the employee desires to form a union. If more that 50% of the employees sign the cards then the union is presumed to exist by virtue of this card check process. However, an employer can request a secret ballot election that would challenge the card check process and therefore cause a formal secret ballot election to take place to determine the final outcome of the unionization process.

 

Unionization advocates want the current employer right to call for an election to be eliminated if more than 50% of employees vote to form a union based solely on the card check process. No secret ballot election would be necessary. The reason is there is concern that employers will use the pre-election process to layoff or harass pro-union employees and to threaten other employees in a bid to defeat union authorization.

[KD in CA]

Under present law, employees can form a union by signing a card expressing their desire to unionize. If 30% or more sign the cards, the cards are submitted to the National Labor relations Board (NLRB) who will organize a secret ballot election to determine the outcome of the employee desires to form a union. If more that 50% of the employees sign the cards then the union is presumed to exist by virtue of this card check process. However, an employer can request a secret ballot election that would challenge the card check process and therefore cause a formal secret ballot election to take place to determine the final outcome of the unionization process.

 

Unionization advocates want the current employer right to call for an election to be eliminated if more than 50% of employees vote to form a union based solely on the card check process. No secret ballot election would be necessary. The reason is there is concern that employers will use the pre-election process to layoff or harass pro-union employees and to threaten other employees in a bid to defeat union authorization.

 

So what is your check and balance against the opposite problem of union thugs intimidating employees into signing the cards? Isn't that the purpose of the secret ballot?

[Fingon]

So what is your check and balance against the opposite problem of union thugs intimidating employees into signing the cards? Isn't that the purpose of the secret ballot?

Unions would NEVER do that. It's not like they stand to gain money and power from running a union.

[GG]

Union leadership is honest, while corporate America is corrupt. It's really simple, folks.

[RkFast]

Union leadership is honest, while corporate America is corrupt. It's really simple, folks.

 

Ill tell that to the old man who took a job in IT of all places and was harrassed day and NIGHT to join up. They were worse than bill collectors.

[Ramius]

So what is your check and balance against the opposite problem of union thugs intimidating employees into signing the cards? Isn't that the purpose of the secret ballot?

 

Can't say it much better than this.

[stuckincincy]

...also,

 

"The bill provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for mediation. If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation the dispute will be referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration shall be binding on the parties for two years. The union and employer may extend any deadlines or time limits. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was created in 1947 and provides most mediation services in support of collective bargaining free of charge."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_free_choice_act

 

So - inexorably - more government control of the private affairs of the citizenry.

 

If this thing gets implemented, look for companies to close down if imposed wages make them unable to continue. Or move offshore. Also add in Obama &Co.'s plans for increased corporate taxes, which will of course be reflected in higher prices. Don't forget increased higher individual bracket tax, increased capital gains tax, this "buy American" pay-off to unions, etc.

 

And can't forget "Cap and Trade", to pay off the greenie vote.

[blzrul]

So what is your check and balance against the opposite problem of union thugs intimidating employees into signing the cards? Isn't that the purpose of the secret ballot?

There are laws on the books about whereby the intimidated employee, ironically enough, would appeal to the employer to protect him or her from harassment. I suspect that most employers would love to take THAT on.

 

I am not sold on this legislation myself. In my opinion most unions have long outlived their usefulness to all but the people who run them.

[Kelly the Dog]

What's funny to me is that it seems virtually everyone is wrong about unions, their importance, effectiveness and worth. People either think they are poison or they are the very fabric of the business universe. I belong to a union, and I think it's probably a lot like most other if not all other unions in America. They are great for a select few things, and terrific for the union member for a few select things, and they are simultaneously a huge waste of money, overbearing, and not in the best interests of the business world and companies on an equal amount of select other things.

[IDBillzFan]

What's funny to me is that it seems virtually everyone is wrong about unions, their importance, effectiveness and worth. People either think they are poison or they are the very fabric of the business universe. I belong to a union, and I think it's probably a lot like most other if not all other unions in America. They are great for a select few things, and terrific for the union member for a few select things, and they are simultaneously a huge waste of money, overbearing, and not in the best interests of the business world and companies on an equal amount of select other things.

Which is why I prefer industry associations over unions. A good association helps establish good business practices, standards, etc. without the 'my way or the highway' perception.

[Kelly the Dog]

Which is why I prefer industry associations over unions. A good association helps establish good business practices, standards, etc. without the 'my way or the highway' perception.

I would agree but unfortunately it's the same problem. I think that unions have too much real power and industry associations have too little, to the same degree.

[Fingon]

Unions are dieing, and this is their last ditch effort to stop the decent. If congress was concerned with what is right, this legislation wouldn't even be on the table.

[Adam]

His brother, Jimmy is looking for his lost shaker of salt.

[blzrul]

Oh Warren is just grumpy that he lost $25b in the market and is now BACK behind Bill Gates, #2 richest man in the world.

[Nanker]

His brother, Jimmy is looking for his lost shaker of salt.

Jimmy's not his brother. He's his nephew.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Union leadership ideals is are honest, while corporate America's ideals is are corrupt. It's really simple, folks.

 

Corrected. It really is simple. Leadership in general corrupts with growing power.

[finknottle]

There are laws on the books about whereby the intimidated employee, ironically enough, would appeal to the employer to protect him or her from harassment. I suspect that most employers would love to take THAT on.

 

I am not sold on this legislation myself. In my opinion most unions have long outlived their usefulness to all but the people who run them.

 

It's a lot harder to establish union harrassment than management. For example, if management wants to talk to you about unionizing, they have to do it on paid company time at a company location. If they are calling you up at home, it's a clear violation. Any harrassing they do has to be done at the company, which leaves a sort of paper trail. The unions, on the other hand, are given the home addresses of all the employees by law, and are free to contact them at any time. They can call you in the middle of the night. They can hang out outside your house all day and badger you every time you walk out. They can bump into you at the grocery store, be there when you pick up your kids from school...