More payback for unions

[Wacka]

PASS THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT!!!

 

 

It'll make your job easier. You and the other union goons won't have to break as many legs.

[pBills]

It'll make your job easier. You and the other union goons won't have to break as many legs.

 

 

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

[pBills]

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

[GG]

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

 

You are the one inciting class warfare. Again, why is a union job more sacred than another job?

[pBills]

You are the one inciting class warfare. Again, why is a union job more sacred than another job?

 

 

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?

[GG]

Let me ask you... why is the Employee Free Choice Act so bad?

 

For the simple reason that it turns the most fundamental premise of the USA - fair and secret ballots - on its ear.

 

We can get to the tangential debates that unions' foundations were among groups whose entire existence owed to the destruction of capitalism. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

[pBills]

For the simple reason that it turns the most fundamental premise of the USA - fair and secret ballots - on its ear.

 

We can get to the tangential debates that unions' foundations were among groups whose entire existence owed to the destruction of capitalism. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

 

 

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.

[bills_fan]

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

 

 

I would not characterize this as a "scare tactic," just good business. You have to price the risk of what happened in Chrysler into the return on the debt.

 

Let me ask you... why is the Employee Free Choice Act so bad?

 

I don't like it because it overturns the secret ballots. I have no problem coming up with additional protections from employer harassment for employees that want to unionize. But to take away the secret ballots...not so much. That puts employee against employee and I don't see that as fair.

[bills_fan]

So you believe that it completely wipes away the secret ballot? It doesn't. One can be requested at any time.

 

 

Can any employee request a secret ballot at anytime? So, if a group of employees wants to organize a union at a particular business, and one employee requests secret ballots, then is the entire process subject to secret ballots?

[pBills]

Can any employee request a secret ballot at anytime? So, if a group of employees wants to organize a union at a particular business, and one employee requests secret ballots, then is the entire process subject to secret ballots?

 

 

 

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

[GG]

So you believe that it completely wipes away the secret ballot? It doesn't. One can be requested at any time.

 

Too lazy to give you the law, but snippet is:

 

"The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election."

 

Since when is a 30% threshold the same as "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.

 

The perks that my company gives is a response to the market demand for an employee like me.

[KD in CA]

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

 

 

And then what, have retards like you put a big inflatable rat in his driveway?

[pBills]

Too lazy to give you the law, but snippet is:

 

"The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election."

 

Since when is a 30% threshold the same as "any time"

 

 

 

The perks that my company gives is a response to the market demand for an employee like me.

 

 

 

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.

[pBills]

And then what, have retards like you put a big inflatable rat in his driveway?

 

 

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

[erynthered]

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

 

 

You just labeled all Teamsters!!

 

God, you're a moron.

[GG]

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.

 

Once again, you provide evidence that refutes the point you try to make (if there ever is one).

 

Secret elections will be held only if 30% of employees sign the petition. How in the world is that a secret ballot? Do you consider for a split second that to reach that 30%, the employee's identity and voting preference is not so secret anymore?

 

IT IS NOT A SECRET BALLOT

[GG]

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

 

Wrong again. It's not just the Teamsters.

[finknottle]

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

 

Are these the same Teamsters which, as one of the first actions of the Obama Administration, were removed from Justice Department oversight?

[pBills]

You just labeled all Teamsters!!

 

God, you're a moron.

 

 

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.

[GG]

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.

 

That's a lot of rats in NYC alone. Wouldn't you imagine money'd be better spent on members' benefits instead of marketing?