pBills Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Make the economy work for everyone http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25645.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Sounds good to me, Russia, here I come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Make the economy work for everyone http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25645.html Yeah, great article from PPP's ultimate one-trick pony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 So here’s the situation. You’re a certified nurse’s assistant, helping seniors get the care they need to live out their final years with dignity. You love your job, but the pay’s terrible, you’re always short-staffed, and the turnover is constant. So you talk to your union, to have more of a say in the way things are run. The union’s answer? If you keep speaking out, you will get harrassed at work and a brick thrown through your window. What's the difference between my opening paragraph and the one in the article? Nothing, really. Both are illegal. So what is the point of the article? It is not enough that we have laws against retaliation towards union organizing, nor that we have an organization dedicated to prosecuting for it. We need to change the system to make organizing automatic, on the assumption that all of our laws and regulatory bodies are not up to the task of ensuring that the debate is coercion-free. Ok. When the unions are willing to back card-check legislation that automatically decertifies a union whenever a list of purported signatures are turned in by management, then let's talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 Sounds good to me, Russia, here I come! What about those countries where the line between the have and have nots is very dramatic. One side eats Filet mignon the other starves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 What's the difference between my opening paragraph and the one in the article? Nothing, really. Both are illegal. So what is the point of the article? It is not enough that we have laws against retaliation towards union organizing, nor that we have an organization dedicated to prosecuting for it. We need to change the system to make organizing automatic, on the assumption that all of our laws and regulatory bodies are not up to the task of ensuring that the debate is coercion-free. Ok. When the unions are willing to back card-check legislation that automatically decertifies a union whenever a list of purported signatures are turned in by management, then let's talk. The point of the article is to show that the Employee Free Choice Act is needed. It's a shame, that so much pressure is placed on people when they want to organize, yet there is no outrage over execs receiving ridiculous golden parachutes. Oh that's right - they have to retain the talent base? If they were so talented, so greedy most of their companies wouldn't fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 And on that note... say what you will. I have to get back to learning some new programs. Take care, have a blessed Friday and weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 "[W]hen a majority of workers want to form a union, a real path is provided for them to do so — a path chosen by workers, not corporate special interests." Yeah, the unions aren't corporate special interests. Other than that, the article was all sorts of fear-mongering stupidity. Who does this moron think he's fooling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts