IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 That just like saying all CEOs and people within management are people who would run over their own family for extra cash. Thank God we haven't heard anyone suggesting THAT lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 My bad... Does the Employee Free Choice Act take away so-called secret ballot elections? 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. “Elections” may sound like the most democratic approach, but the NLRB process is nothing like democratic elections in our society—presidential elections, for example—because one side has all the power. The employer controls the voters’ paychecks and livelihood, has unlimited access to speak against the union in the workplace while restricting pro-union speech and has the freedom to intimidate and coerce the voters. Please do not use propaganda from a pro-union flyer to back your position. Argue the change in the law - which basically eliminates the mandate that NRLB must oversee secret elections. The 33% worker option is ridiculous on its face because it greatly increases the potential for coercion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Please do not use propaganda from a pro-union flyer to back your position. Argue the change in the law - which basically eliminates the mandate that NRLB must oversee secret elections. The 33% worker option is ridiculous on its face because it greatly increases the potential for coercion. No it levels the playing field from employees being bullied away from unions by the employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 27, 2009 Author Share Posted May 27, 2009 No it levels the playing field from employees being bullied away from unions by the employer. That is illegal. Tell me this - what (other than the law) is to prevent unions from bullying their members? If employees want out of the union, should we put in place a system where somebody turning in a signature list to the NLB automatically decertifies it, with no vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 That is illegal. Tell me this - what (other than the law) is to prevent unions from bullying their members? If employees want out of the union, should we put in place a system where somebody turning in a signature list to the NLB automatically decertifies it, with no vote? Illegal - Are you talking about employers bullying employees? It happens. And a lot!!! First off, I have been around unions my whole life. I have never seen a union bully its own members. I have also seen many employees (single numbers) and whole locals decert. or back out of a union before. It's a very simple process. Of course no person within the union wants to see it losing members one or 100. But no one has resort to violence from what I have seen or heard personally. If that has happened in other unions, which it probably has... those people are just a-holes. Every group, every company union and non-union has them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 27, 2009 Author Share Posted May 27, 2009 Illegal - Are you talking about employers bullying employees? It happens. And a lot!!! First off, I have been around unions my whole life. I have never seen a union bully its own members. I have also seen many employees (single numbers) and whole locals decert. or back out of a union before. It's a very simple process. Of course no person within the union wants to see it losing members one or 100. But no one has resort to violence from what I have seen or heard personally. If that has happened in other unions, which it probably has... those people are just a-holes. Every group, every company union and non-union has them. It is not so simple in a union shop or an agency shop. Try withholding your dues some time. Or forming a competing union within a workplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 First off, I have been around unions my whole life. I have never seen a union bully its own members. I've only spent a few years around unions...and I've seen it frequently. Like I've said before, there's good unions and bad unions. I don't know what unions you've been around...nor does it matter. Your specific experience apparently doesn't generalize well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 It is not so simple in a union shop or an agency shop. Try withholding your dues some time. Or forming a competing union within a workplace. I work for an International. Decerting a Local is definitely a process. For a member to leave the union is that difficult. At least not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I've only spent a few years around unions...and I've seen it frequently. Like I've said before, there's good unions and bad unions. I don't know what unions you've been around...nor does it matter. Your specific experience apparently doesn't generalize well. Simply making the statement that just because someone is an a-hole at one union or within one local that does not mean everyone is like that. For the most part union people are hard working, trustworthy people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Simply making the statement that just because someone is an a-hole at one union or within one local that does not mean everyone is like that. For the most part union people are hard working, trustworthy people. :lol: Thanks man. I needed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 :lol: Thanks man. I needed that. No problem. Just go tell some of those Ironworkers, Bricklayers, Laborers, etc. that they don't work hard. What do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Oops...looks like the bondholders didn't think so highly of the Obama and the unions carving up a company that they don't own. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_..._gm_bondholders Chapter 11, here we come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Oops...looks like the bondholders didn't think so highly of the Obama and the unions carving up a company that they don't own. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_..._gm_bondholders Chapter 11, here we come. Think there's a chance we can throw another $4B or so into GM before the BK takes place? I feel like if we just give them a FEW more billion, maybe THIS time they can be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Oops...looks like the bondholders didn't think so highly of the Obama and the unions carving up a company that they don't own. Well...to be perfectly honest, the bondholders don't own it either. The White House's handling of this has been completely insane, though. "You will give us 70% of the company, give your labor force 20%...and screw over your senior creditors." Where does that start to make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Think there's a chance we can throw another $4B or so into GM before the BK takes place? I feel like if we just give them a FEW more billion, maybe THIS time they can be saved. You would probably like that logic if it was a bank instead of GM. Come on, just give them another $300 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Where does that start to make sense? On the presidential fundraising trail, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 You would probably like that logic if it was a bank instead of GM. Come on, just give them another $300 billion. Hey, can I help it if it costs more for the government to take over the banks than it does for them to take over the automotive industry? Of course, this all pales in comparison to them taking over health care, which for some reason that no one has been able to explain comes with a down payment of $634 billion. But a few billion here...a few billion there...who really cares at this point? Because it's good for us. We Amerkins is stoopid and only the government can save us from ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Well...to be perfectly honest, the bondholders don't own it either. The White House's handling of this has been completely insane, though. "You will give us 70% of the company, give your labor force 20%...and screw over your senior creditors." Where does that start to make sense? It doesn't. I talk about "unintended consequences" a lot, and I believe the notion of the government screwing over the bondholders in this deal will have a negative impact on any program that the government is involved with that involves bondholders or for that matter investors. I see there being a very low turnout for their "bad bank" toxic asset program. I remember reading somewhere recently that they are rethinking and delaying that program. I can tell you why, because they all ready know that there won't be many participants and it will be seen as a failure. This recent negotiation for the UAW is a perfect example of why investors won't want to get in bed with the government. The Obama administration is totally clueless regarding the "unintended consequences" of their decisions of "big government". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 29, 2009 Author Share Posted May 29, 2009 It doesn't. I talk about "unintended consequences" a lot, and I believe the notion of the government screwing over the bondholders in this deal will have a negative impact on any program that the government is involved with that involves bondholders or for that matter investors. I see there being a very low turnout for their "bad bank" toxic asset program. I remember reading somewhere recently that they are rethinking and delaying that program. I can tell you why, because they all ready know that there won't be many participants and it will be seen as a failure. This recent negotiation for the UAW is a perfect example of why investors won't want to get in bed with the government. The Obama administration is totally clueless regarding the "unintended consequences" of their decisions of "big government". http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=328317766151198 Nice editorial, with a smidgen of historical perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Union workers going above and beyond again to help save their company and jobs. Good job UAW members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts