• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Specter changes mind on Employee Free Choice Act

If I understand the card check right, does that mean the ballots are open,meaning anyone knows how you voted? I would think such a thing could lead to intimidation tactics.
 
jamesrage said:
If I understand the card check right, does that mean the ballots are open,meaning anyone knows how you voted? I would think such a thing could lead to intimidation tactics.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this is one of the core ideas behind it thats why I hate it so much.
 
PeteEU said:
And you can of course prove this? Any links?
Click to expand...

From the link posted in the OP:

Republicans have rallied against the bill in near-unanimity since it was first introduced during the 110th Congress, charging that it would cripple businesses and completely undermine the secret ballot process.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is what the bill is about.

They are trying to end the secret ballot.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Again do you have a link or something that proves it?

From what I have read, it is not ending the secret ballot by any means. What it does do is make it easier for employees to ask to have the ballot to vote for or against having a union. Now that is not ending the secret ballot by any means.

I also understand why the right are against such measures as it would make it easier for the American worker to unionise a workplace, something companies are against of course.

But what are the facts and what is right wing fiction? As I see it, there is so much disinformation out there about it that it is bordering on ridiculous, misinformation lead by CNBC and Fox News and the right wing blogsphere, all who have a political grind against unions and anything remotely employee beneficial (unless it is bankers and financial people of course).
 
PeteEU said:
Are you sure? Again do you have a link or something that proves it?

From what I have read, it is not ending the secret ballot by any means. What it does do is make it easier for employees to ask to have the ballot to vote for or against having a union. Now that is not ending the secret ballot by any means.

I also understand why the right are against such measures as it would make it easier for the American worker to unionise a workplace, something companies are against of course.

But what are the facts and what is right wing fiction? As I see it, there is so much disinformation out there about it that it is bordering on ridiculous, misinformation lead by CNBC and Fox News and the right wing blogsphere, all who have a political grind against unions and anything remotely employee beneficial (unless it is bankers and financial people of course).
Click to expand...

The current law is already balanced. The bill seeks to disturb that balance.


Employee Free Choice Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 colleagues.[3] Once 30% of the work force 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 are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of employees have signed the cards to help ensure winning the election.[3] If the majority of votes favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining.

If enacted, EFCA would require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed cards;[1] however, employees may still request a secret ballot election if 30% of employees petition for one.[3]
 
The EFCA does not end the secret ballot, it offers it as a choice. The AFLCIO endorses this act, Republicans are against it because they are anti-union, they are using the "secret ballot" argument as an excuse to oppose the legislation.
 
WillRockwell said:
The EFCA does not end the secret ballot, it offers it as a choice. The AFLCIO endorses this act, Republicans are against it because they are anti-union, they are using the "secret ballot" argument as an excuse to oppose the legislation.
Click to expand...

If you look at current law it is wisely balanced.

AFL-CIO is one of the most corrupt organizations in the U.S.
 
So, does card check kill the secret ballot or not? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Seems I was right.

Would the bill eliminate the secret ballot?

In theory, no. In practice, yes. That is, if you believe the secret ballot even exists now.

Here's how it works currently: Say you work at a factory and you want to form a union. First, you approach your favorite union and request a bunch of blank cards. (Here's what they look like.) Then you go around to your colleagues and ask them whether they want to sign up. If they do, they sign their name to the cards. Once you get 30 percent of the total work force to sign cards, you're eligible to hold an election on whether to form a union. (Workers usually wait till they get at least 50 percent or 60 percent, just to make sure they will win the election.) You then present the cards to the National Labor Relations Board and the employer. The employer can then either recognize the union right away or request a secret-ballot election, which must happen within 60 days. If more than 50 percent of employees vote for a union, they've got a union. If not, they don't.

Even though employers are free to recognize a union without an election, in practice they almost always request an election: Why recognize a union before they have to? Requesting an election also gives them more time to lobby against unionization.

The essential change of the EFCA would be to allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election. If at least half of the work force signed cards saying it wanted a union, there would be a union—without the rigmarole of a full-blown election.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you look at current law it is wisely balanced.

AFL-CIO is one of the most corrupt organizations in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Agreed the AFL-CIO is corrupt, most unions are. That said, they do protect workers who have no clout individually. The EFCA makes it easier for workers to form unions. Republicans don't like that, because they are the party of the wealthy and the factory owners. But they can't say that because it sounds bad, so they pretend to be standing up for the workers' right to a secret ballot. Fortunately, most Americans are not as dumb as the Republicans expect them to be.
 
WillRockwell said:
Agreed the AFL-CIO is corrupt, most unions are. That said, they do protect workers who have no clout individually. The EFCA makes it easier for workers to form unions. Republicans don't like that, because they are the party of the wealthy and the factory owners. But they can't say that because it sounds bad, so they pretend to be standing up for the workers' right to a secret ballot. Fortunately, most Americans are not as dumb as the Republicans expect them to be.
Click to expand...

Paalease, They only protect workers to get money for themselves.

They are protected jobs that otherwise won't exist because of the union itself.
Dems and Repubs both have a huge stake in businesses, to say its only republicans is absolute garbage.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No, not really.

See employers have a say and employees have a say. At least they do now.

EFCA does not give that balanced option, Employees do not own their jobs but they have a say.
Click to expand...

And why should an employer have any say if I want to be member of a union or not? Should he have a say on who I vote for at elections, what burger joint I go to? Of course not.

And as it stands now, the employer has far far far more power than the employee when it comes to forming a union, so there is no balance at all.
 
PeteEU said:
And why should an employer have any say if I want to be member of a union or not? Should he have a say on who I vote for at elections, what burger joint I go to? Of course not.

And as it stands now, the employer has far far far more power than the employee when it comes to forming a union, so there is no balance at all.
Click to expand...

The employer should be able to fire anyone that tries to organize a union at their business.

Your job is not owned by you, unless you are self employed.

The entire collective of employees has a lot more power than the employer.
There needs to be a balance.
 
PeteEU said:
From what I have read, it is not ending the secret ballot by any means. What it does do is make it easier for employees to ask to have the ballot to vote for or against having a union. Now that is not ending the secret ballot by any means.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. If a majority of workers sign the union cards, then they have a union without any vote at all. This means that organizers can sneak around touting the union without management ever having the opportunity to present its side of the story. This means that union organizers can approach people in their homes, at bars, or at work in front of all of their colleagues and ask them to sign the card. That is NOT "free choice" by any means.

PeteEU said:
I also understand why the right are against such measures as it would make it easier for the American worker to unionise a workplace, something companies are against of course.
Click to expand...

Well this liberal Democrat thinks it's a horrible idea as well.

PeteEU said:
But what are the facts and what is right wing fiction? As I see it, there is so much disinformation out there about it that it is bordering on ridiculous, misinformation lead by CNBC and Fox News and the right wing blogsphere, all who have a political grind against unions and anything remotely employee beneficial (unless it is bankers and financial people of course).
Click to expand...

Unions are not employee beneficial (take a look at the sad economies of Michigan and Ohio). Especially unions that the workers don't even really want.
 
Kandahar said:
This is not correct. If a majority of workers sign the union cards, then they have a union without any vote at all. This means that organizers can sneak around touting the union without management ever having the opportunity to present its side of the story. This means that union organizers can approach people in their homes, at bars, or at work in front of all of their colleagues and ask them to sign the card. That is NOT "free choice" by any means.
Click to expand...

Present "their side" of the story? And what is that exactly? You sound like an employer or conservative pro business person :)

"Pst dont join a union because they we cant take you from behind time and time again during wage negotiations... oh btw if you do join, then you are fired.." and all that.

Give me a freaking break. Management has no side. They do not want unions period so they are in a direct conflict of interest and should not be involved at all.

This is a personal call by the worker and he or she should not be intimidated by anyone, union or employer.

All I can see this change will do is take away the power of employers to delay and block the unionisation of the work place. And you are complaining about free choice and back the present legislation that actually makes it hard to unionise a work place? Give me a break.

Well this liberal Democrat thinks it's a horrible idea as well.
Click to expand...

And so what? Free choice after all.. That is the whole point. It is the choice of the individual to be a member of a union and whatever union you want. Hell in the "socialist Europe" I have tons of unions to choose from and guess what.. I choose not to join one, and it did not effect my employment. Now that is free choice. And yes the union representatives were pissed for a while, but nothing that a few beers after work did not fix.

Unions are not employee beneficial (take a look at the sad economies of Michigan and Ohio). Especially unions that the workers don't even really want.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is simply not true.

While I would agree that some unions are like politicians, they are in it for themselves and they are corrupt, the idea of a union is a very sound and beneficial thing, just like having politicians is a sound thing.

It is unions that have given health and safety in the work place for one, not to mention the wage aspect. Dont think for a second employers would have done that on their own... we are talking about the same people who sent children into mines and used children in large factories inside machines because they were "small". The whole reason we have unions today (and socialism) is because of greed and the lack of respect for workers by the employers and their political allies (aka the conservative movement).

I fully understand the distrust of unions, because I actually agree in many ways that some people in some unions are corrupt and in it for themselves and I in no way agree with the "tough recruiting" methods some unions have. However that does not change the fact that it is up the individual employee and not the employer to join a union or not.

And all I can see in this change is that, it makes it easier for a work force to unionise, something that was quite hard before.
 
PeteEU said:
Present "their side" of the story? And what is that exactly? You sound like an employer or conservative pro business person :)

"Pst dont join a union because they we cant take you from behind time and time again during wage negotiations... oh btw if you do join, then you are fired.." and all that.

Give me a freaking break. Management has no side. They do not want unions period so they are in a direct conflict of interest and should not be involved at all.

This is a personal call by the worker and he or she should not be intimidated by anyone, union or employer.

All I can see this change will do is take away the power of employers to delay and block the unionisation of the work place. And you are complaining about free choice and back the present legislation that actually makes it hard to unionise a work place? Give me a break.



And so what? Free choice after all.. That is the whole point. It is the choice of the individual to be a member of a union and whatever union you want. Hell in the "socialist Europe" I have tons of unions to choose from and guess what.. I choose not to join one, and it did not effect my employment. Now that is free choice. And yes the union representatives were pissed for a while, but nothing that a few beers after work did not fix.



Sorry but that is simply not true.

While I would agree that some unions are like politicians, they are in it for themselves and they are corrupt, the idea of a union is a very sound and beneficial thing, just like having politicians is a sound thing.

It is unions that have given health and safety in the work place for one, not to mention the wage aspect. Dont think for a second employers would have done that on their own... we are talking about the same people who sent children into mines and used children in large factories inside machines because they were "small". The whole reason we have unions today (and socialism) is because of greed and the lack of respect for workers by the employers and their political allies (aka the conservative movement).

I fully understand the distrust of unions, because I actually agree in many ways that some people in some unions are corrupt and in it for themselves and I in no way agree with the "tough recruiting" methods some unions have. However that does not change the fact that it is up the individual employee and not the employer to join a union or not.

And all I can see in this change is that, it makes it easier for a work force to unionise, something that was quite hard before.
Click to expand...

I don't know how unions are run were you are but here nearly every single one of them I can think of is corrupt to the bone.

The wages they get are not sustainable for the employers like Ford and Chrysler.

The only companies opening in my area are foreign car makers.
All the American car makers have closed shop and left.
 
WillRockwell said:
The EFCA does not end the secret ballot, it offers it as a choice. The AFLCIO endorses this act, Republicans are against it because they are anti-union, they are using the "secret ballot" argument as an excuse to oppose the legislation.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right, sir. Secret ballots are the bane of a free society.

Why I mean, they can vote for anyone if no one knows how they vote. How can the country survive if the union bosses don't know who to punish for getting out of line?
 
PeteEU said:
So, does card check kill the secret ballot or not? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Seems I was right.
Click to expand...

Seems not, once you think it through....

"The essential change of the EFCA would be to allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election. If at least half of the work force signed cards saying it wanted a union, there would be a union—without the rigmarole of a full-blown election."

So the uniongoons (union doesn't exist as a distinct word when discussing labor - there's nothing civil about them) will have the cards listing the names of all the people who wanted the uniongoons in charge....and it will thus know the names of all the people who didn't want the uniongoons in place.

You can't see the fun potentialities for intimidation when the uniongoons have only 30% of the cards they need? No. Come on, you're just pretending you can't see that. Guaranteed that the uniongoons will be slashing tires, smashing windows, killing cats, phoning at 0300, scaring the kids...all the fun things the uniongoons do all the time to get their way.

So clearly EFCA is merely a road for the uniongoons to regain some needed intimidation traction to restore their sagging numbers.

Secret ballots...it's the American way for a reason.
 
PeteEU said:
Present "their side" of the story? And what is that exactly? You sound like an employer or conservative pro business person :)
Click to expand...

Pro-business, yes. Conservative, not so much.

PeteEU said:
"Pst dont join a union because they we cant take you from behind time and time again during wage negotiations... oh btw if you do join, then you are fired.." and all that.
Click to expand...

It is already ILLEGAL for management to threaten to fire someone if they vote to join a union.

PeteEU said:
Give me a freaking break. Management has no side. They do not want unions period so they are in a direct conflict of interest and should not be involved at all.
Click to expand...

Of course they have a side. If this bill passes, then unions will be allowed to approach workers anywhere (including outside of work) to tell them how wonderful the union is, while management will have no opportunity at all to present their views.

The whole point of an election is for people to make a democratic choice between two alternatives. If your attitude towards elections are "the people I disagree with have no side and shouldn't be involved at all," then you are no democrat.

PeteEU said:
This is a personal call by the worker and he or she should not be intimidated by anyone, union or employer.
Click to expand...

That situation already exists, that's the whole point of a secret ballot. This ELIMINATES the secret ballot, which means that the unions CAN intimidate the worker. If a union official passes out union cards and tells people to sign them in front of all their colleagues, that is NOT a free choice.

PeteEU said:
Sorry but that is simply not true.

While I would agree that some unions are like politicians, they are in it for themselves and they are corrupt, the idea of a union is a very sound and beneficial thing, just like having politicians is a sound thing.
Click to expand...

Unions are a monopoly of labor, and are no different than any other monopoly. They charge people uncompetitive prices for a crappier product simply because the customers (employers) don't have any other alternatives.

PeteEU said:
It is unions that have given health and safety in the work place for one, not to mention the wage aspect. Dont think for a second employers would have done that on their own... we are talking about the same people who sent children into mines and used children in large factories inside machines because they were "small".
Click to expand...

Of course we would've got there on our own without unions. Every nation goes through a sweatshop phase when it's developing. And every nation outgrows it once their economy is large enough.

PeteEU said:
I fully understand the distrust of unions, because I actually agree in many ways that some people in some unions are corrupt and in it for themselves and I in no way agree with the "tough recruiting" methods some unions have. However that does not change the fact that it is up the individual employee and not the employer to join a union or not.
Click to expand...

If it's up to the employees, then you should be against a policy that will eliminate the secret ballot election and subject them to union intimidation.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
This is a personal call by the worker and he or she should not be intimidated by anyone, union or employer.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Card check opens the employee to be victimized by the uniongoons if he refuses to sign.

Secret ballots protect the employee from that intimidation.

PeteEU said:
All I can see this change will do is take away the power of employers to delay and block the unionisation of the work place.
Click to expand...

How? If more than 30% have signed cards saying they want an election, and the election happens, what's the deal, that the election might not be favorable to the union because it couldn't intimidate people who are voting on secret ballots?

PeteEU said:
And you are complaining about free choice and back the present legislation that actually makes it hard to unionise a work place? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to unionize the workplace, except that with secret ballots is hard to intimidate the workers into joining a mob.

PeteEU said:
And so what? Free choice after all.. That is the whole point. It is the choice of the individual to be a member of a union and whatever union you want.
Click to expand...

Sure is. All they have to do is vote on a secret ballot, thus protecting the anonymity of those co-workers who don't agree with them.

Where's the problem?

PeteEU said:
Hell in the "socialist Europe" I have tons of unions to choose from and guess what.. I choose not to join one, and it did not effect my employment. Now that is free choice. And yes the union representatives were pissed for a while, but nothing that a few beers after work did not fix.
Click to expand...

Welcome to America, where the unions are all well connected with organized crime and the Democrat party, both well known for their exuberant retaliatory policies.

PeteEU said:
While I would agree that some unions are like politicians, they are in it for themselves and they are corrupt, the idea of a union is a very sound and beneficial thing, just like having politicians is a sound thing.
Click to expand...

Theoretically....but in this country unions have an unofficial but real monopoly on the use of violence. Unions and collective bargaining actually make it easier in some respects for employers to set wages, no doubt about that, they only have to negotiate with one group. But....employers own the company, and should not be denied their freedom to permanently dismiss any and all employees who will not work....even if that "will not work" is called a "strike".

PeteEU said:
It is unions that have given health and safety in the work place for one, not to mention the wage aspect. Dont think for a second employers would have done that on their own...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't dream of believing that. After all, all companies can afford to throw away highly trained staff and just order up some more from the temp-place. They're nothing but cogs in a machine, right? Anyone, right off the street, can run a mill and turn out quality parts, no point in wasting company money on safety, right? There's no investment in a skilled staff.

Only the mother unions managed to create the wonderful workplaces we see today...

...except that the most dangerous places I've worked in were union dominated factories and shipyards, and the private non-unionized companies were more safety conscious because it cost them money to replace workers.

Workplace safety improved as the needed worker skills became more specialized and scarce.

PeteEU said:
we are talking about the same people who sent children into mines and used children in large factories inside machines because they were "small".
Click to expand...

Yeah. Those kids didn't have any parents who cared about them, right? It was just the evil "bosses", and not the evil children selling their children into those jobs.

Damn if that ain't just like blaming the european slave trader for hauling negros out of africa and pretending those slaves weren't sold by their own parents and families.

PeteEU said:
The whole reason we have unions today (and socialism) is because of greed and the lack of respect for workers by the employers and their political allies (aka the conservative movement).
Click to expand...

And the whole reason General Motors needed to take money from the government is that its been destroyed by it's unions, yet non-union companies, and non-union employees have been doing increasingly better for the last six decades, to the point where most people scorn union work as inferior and overpriced.

PeteEU said:
And all I can see in this change is that, it makes it easier for a work force to unionise, something that was quite hard before.
Click to expand...

There's no need to make it easier for workforces to unionize, the process is sufficiently open and accessible as it is. There's certainly no reason to end the secret ballot and thereby make people subject to union intimidation.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There's no need to make it easier for workforces to unionize, the process is sufficiently open and accessible as it is. There's certainly no reason to end the secret ballot and thereby make people subject to union intimidation.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Now, employees say, the forced choice has turned friend into foe, causing some employees to be threatened by coworkers who had wanted the union.

One employee said she was threatened for her choice.

"I have my reasons for the way that I voted. That's nobody else's business, and had it not been for the card check, nobody would know if I was for or against," said Beverly Musolf.

The UAW declined to give comment to FOX News on the employees' complaints.

Card Check Process Used by Union Organizers Ignites Fury at Indiana Plant - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom