• 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!

Feds threaten to sue states over union laws

TacticalEvilDan said:
Why would you need to sign your name to anything?

Why not just verify that you have a right to vote on the issue and then stick a slip of paper in a box?
Click to expand...

there MUST be a showing of not less than 30% of the employees before a union election can be held
however, where 50% plus one seek the ability to conduct an election then there is no need to proceed further because the majority have already declared their support of a union at the workplace
 
justabubba said:
there MUST be a showing of not less than 30% of the employees before a union election can be held
however, where 50% plus one seek the ability to conduct an election then there is no need to proceed further because the majority have already declared their support of a union at the workplace
Click to expand...

So, a system where Union Thugs can force people to sign for that 50.1% of the employees is fair. But secret ballots is bad.

Good plan. :roll:
 
justabubba said:
there MUST be a showing of not less than 30% of the employees before a union election can be held
however, where 50% plus one seek the ability to conduct an election then there is no need to proceed further because the majority have already declared their support of a union at the workplace
Click to expand...

I understand every word of what you said. None of what you've said has explained to me what's wrong with a secret ballot system or why card check is better.
 
samsmart said:
Well, just to play devil's advocate...

One problem with the secret ballot is the possibility of tainted elections, or ballot stuffing. So in actuality a group of workers could want to unionize and have voted for it, but the votes for it don't get counted, and so unionization doesn't happen even if more workers favor it.

That's why there's a pro to card check - how people vote can be verified to prevent illegal voting procedures.
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that whatever procedure you use to make sure that a card or a signature is valid could be used to ensure that a person has a right to cast a ballot. After that, all you need are election monitors and a reasonably secure balloting system, which isn't all that hard to set up even on a shoe-string budget.
 
ludahai said:
Goodness gracious... and liberals claim to support the rights of workers... it is clear that they support UNIONS not workers...

Also, what happened to States rights here? Are they going to assert the interstate commerce clause on this? That is a stretch...
Click to expand...

That's the key, they support unions, not workers. They support the unions, not teachers or students. Looks like they support BIG Union.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
We shouldn’t over react here.


It’s not like the feds allow dead people and their pets to register to vote. Secrete ballots are clumsy and subject to employer intimidation. If an employee fears for his life because a couple union thugs have him backed into a corner with a clipboard shoved into his face, he can tell them to kiss it where the sun don’t shine and nothing will happen to him.

The feds will make sure every cartoon character, personal pet and dead person who voted isn’t disenfranchised but those evil employers who have the audacity to expect a certain level of production in return for a certain level of pay, they will probably spike the koolaid and rig the vote right under the NLRB’s noses and people will either find themselves to be payed slaves or unpaid civil rights fighters holding a cardboard sign and a tin cup at an intersection near you.


Please turn union votes into a federal election that resembles voter registration.
Click to expand...

I can't quite tell which side you are being sarcastic about. You surely can't believe what I bolded above.
 
originally appearing in the financial times of london, today

carried by cnbc

News Headlines

US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

The severe US economic recession has cast a spotlight on years of fiscal mismanagement, including chronic underfunding of retirement promises.

“States face cost pressure, most prominently from retirement benefits and Medicaid,” Orin Kramer told the Financial Times.

“One consequence is that asset sales and privatisation will pick up. The very unfortunate consequence is that various safety nets for the most vulnerable citizens will be cut back.”

Mr Kramer, an influential figure in the Democratic party and still a member of the investment council that oversees the New Jersey pension fund, has been an outspoken critic of public pension accounting, which allows for the averaging of investment gains and losses over a number of years through a process called “smoothing”.

Using data from the states, the Pew Center on the States, a research group, has estimated a funding gap for pension, healthcare and other non-pension benefits, such as life assurance, of at least $1,000 billion as of the end of fiscal 2008.

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, said in his state of the state speech last week that, without reform, the unfunded liability of the state’s pension system would rise from $54 billion now to $183 billion within 30 years.

Mr Kramer’s estimates are based on the assets and liabilities of the top 25 public pension funds at the end of 2010. The gap has risen from an estimate of more than $2,000 billion at the end of 2009.

Concerns about the financial health of local governments have sparked warnings of a rise in defaults for cities and towns and a sell-off in the $3,000 billion municipal bond market where they raise money.

Last week, the interest rate on 30-year top rated municipal debt rose above 5 percent for the first time in about two years.

The state of Pennsylvania, for example, last year advanced money to Harrisburg, its capital, so that the cash-strapped city could avoid a default on its general obligation bonds.

In February, Illinois, which is facing an unfunded pension obligation of at least $80 billion, plans to sell $3.7 billion of bonds to pay for its annual contribution.
Click to expand...

our poor underpaid, underappreciated, overplied public employees with their paltry pensions...

their pain is impartible

party on, progressives
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Card check can also lead to voter intimidation though
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

I was just pointing out that there are valid concerns on both sides. Not every business has it's management deter unions, and not every union organizer intimidates workers. But it's always the bad ones who ruin it for the rest.

But I have as a part of my personal philosophy that no matter what kind of process is implemented there will always be a way to abuse it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Maybe there's some historical or sociological subtlety I'm missing here, but it seems to me that if secret ballots are good enough for our elections (and they are, if we're careful to check voter registrations and use a method that leaves a paper trail), they should be good enough for permitting a body of workers to decide as a body whether or not to unionize.
Click to expand...
if the time table for getting the nlrb to hold an election was considerably less, say a week to ten days, instead of several months down the road, that would be great...but...having been involved in a union campaign at a former employer, once the employer got wind of the unionization drive, all kinds of intimidation started from the company side....'captive audience meetings' where we were shown video after video of 'union bad' and supposed 'union thugs' 'pressuring' people to sign union cards, the company ordered candy (suckers, lolipops) whose wrappers all said vote no!! or union no!, after that, individual meetings where we were told, that if the union got in, alot of the people we did work for would pull their work, that we would 'lose' our jobs, and that the company was 'under no obligation' to keep this site open, and that they were 'already looking to mexico' as a place to move operations.
The company brass also came down from corporate to 'talk' to people on the floor, asking them 'how they could make the workplace better' and asking 'what problems were they having' and 'offering' to help the employee get his union authorization card back if he/she 'changed their mind'....it was amazing how much the company 'cared' when the threat of a union was hanging over their heads. we also had several very nice 'dinners' put on by the company, for , as they put it, in appreciation of all of our hard work and dedication(never in my previous 6 years there had the company did such a thing) the company did this campaign over a period of 3 months, until it became apparent that their scare tactics worked, and then, about 6 months later after enough 'evidence' had been 'gathered' (read manufactured) those that led the unionization drive were released for 'poor job performance'....
 
hardly reason to scotch something as sacred to the american soul as the secret ballot

let alone to SUE four sovereign states to force em to do so

obama's white house is so outta touch with american mores, why, it's almost alien
 
The Prof said:
hardly reason to scotch something as sacred to the american soul as the secret ballot

let alone to SUE four sovereign states to force em to do so

obama's white house is so outta touch with american mores, why, it's almost alien
Click to expand...

"sacred" you insist
infused with the "soul" of the nation

where more than 50% have expressed their approval in writing, the election could also be termed "unnecessary"
 
The Prof said:
well, that's real american

LOL!
Click to expand...
i think so, because it applies a common sense approach
if more than half have signed up, the obvious conclusion can be drawn
 
how many are gonna sign on to new leadership?

how many will help determine the issues to bargain for?

how many will approve petitions to walk out?

why can't arizona, utah, south dakota and south carolina insist on the american bedrock of voting in private?

why must the nlrb SUE em?

more power to you, party on

seeya at the polls

our ballots will be cast in a booth
 
the company ordered candy (suckers, lolipops) whose wrappers all said vote no!!
Click to expand...

That is pretty harsh intimidation alright.

the company did this campaign over a period of 3 months, until it became apparent that their scare tactics worked,
Click to expand...

So you would have rather not been scared and lost the whole company to Mexico???

where more than 50% have expressed their approval in writing, the election could also be termed "unnecessary"
Click to expand...

I don’t think so. The idea that we know to be true is that you can make people sign the paper and then they won’t vote for the union.

the obvious conclusion can be drawn
Click to expand...

I agree that the obvious conclusion would be that people were intimidated, bribed, etc.


One more question. Were the people let go the same 300 pounders that sucked up a lot of the intimidating lollipops???
 
The Feds have too much power. They are being run by special interests groups. Not to say that the states are not. But at least different states have different special interests running them. But for the Feds. Its pretty much the same special interests groups for all involved. Its sad. We will not ever know sovereignty until the federal government weakens its holds on state governments. You know what people in Illinois want to run things might be different than what the people in North Carolina want to be run.
 
well, washington knows best

all those elite diplomas, and all

why, look at the results

americans are rubes

and it's all about our precious, underappreciated public employees

US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

“States face cost pressure, most prominently from retirement benefits and Medicaid [the health programme for the poor],” Orin Kramer told the Financial Times.

“One consequence is that asset sales and privatisation will pick up. The very unfortunate consequence is that various safety nets for the most vulnerable citizens will be cut back.”

Mr Kramer, an influential figure in the Democratic party and still a member of the investment council that oversees the New Jersey pension fund, has been an outspoken critic of public pension accounting, which allows for the averaging of investment gains and losses over a number of years through a process called “smoothing”.

Using data from the states, the Pew Center on the States, a research group, has estimated a funding gap for pension, healthcare and other non-pension benefits, such as life assurance, of at least $1,000 billion as of the end of fiscal 2008.

Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, said in his state of the state speech last week that, without reform, the unfunded liability of the state’s pension system would rise from $54 billion now to $183 billion within 30 years.

Mr Kramer’s estimates are based on the assets and liabilities of the top 25 public pension funds at the end of 2010. The gap has risen from an estimate of more than $2,000 billion at the end of 2009.

Concerns about the financial health of local governments have sparked warnings of a rise in defaults for cities and towns and a sell-off in the $3,000 billion municipal bond market where they raise money.

Last week, the interest rate on 30-year top rated municipal debt rose above 5 percent for the first time in about two years.

Amid the volatility, New Jersey had to cut the size of a planned bond sale. Although Mr Kramer said some local governments would experience “severe strain”, he did not foresee mass defaults.

The state of Pennsylvania last year advanced money to Harrisburg, its capital, so that the cash-strapped city could avoid a default on its general obligation bonds.

In February, Illinois, which is facing an unfunded pension obligation of at least $80 billion, plans to sell $3.7 billion of bonds to pay for its annual contribution.
Click to expand...

News Headlines

let's electioneer on the issue

via secret ballot
 
i think so, because it applies a common sense approach
if more than half have signed up, the obvious conclusion can be drawn
Click to expand...


Well your obvious conclusion, as I see it is somewhat flawed, based on your conclusion, there would be no need of state elections, or federal elections .. just count up who has more registered voters, Democrats or Republicans, Who ever has sign up more registered voters win, no need for the actual election..

So in you so called independent mind, no one signing up for a union vote, could possibly be signing up so his “NO” vote could be heard ?? If that is your obvious conclusion, then it should be an obvious conclusion that your thinking is no where close to independent, but fully liberal.

The obvious conclusion of your thinking is that everyone in this country "wants" to be a union member, that thinking is not less then far left liberal thought.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
originally appearing in the financial times of london, today

carried by cnbc

News Headlines



our poor underpaid, underappreciated, overplied public employees with their paltry pensions...

their pain is impartible

party on, progressives
Click to expand...

Did you know that not all public employees are in unions? Most are not. A pension is a promise made, just like in a private company. Just because the employer squanders it's money irresponsibly, doesn't mean the employee should take it in the ass. A public employee hires on with the same expectations as any other employee in America, that the employer will fulfill its promise to the employee it hired.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/economy/21bankruptcy.html?_r=2&src=busln

It's not the employees fault when elected officials are irresponsible with the money entrusted them by the public, and how many elected officials will lose their pensions? ZERO! Remember the only person in government with real power, is the one that is elected. Public employees are no more powerful than any other employee in this country, especially those who are not members of a union. I'm not defending unions, but don't go lumping all public employees into one pile.
 
Last edited:
did you know that each of the 2.5 trillion dollars of shortfall under discussion is owed to a person who IS a member of a public union?

did you know that each of the 2.5 trillion dollars of shortfall is underwritten, therefore, by the us taxpayer?

it's not the taxpayers' fault when union bosses negotiate with overly open handed city and state leaders pension plans worth several times what the taxpayers' pensions promise to pay

LINK: 2 + 2 = 4

remember, the only employee that has been overpromised and underfunded by any public pension plan must perforce be member of a public employees union

don't go lumping all taxpayers into one pit---we can't afford it, the pension plans are bankrupting us
 
The Prof said:
did you know that each of the 2.5 trillion dollars of shortfall under discussion is owed to a person who IS a member of a public union?

did you know that each of the 2.5 trillion dollars of shortfall is underwritten, therefore, by the us taxpayer?

it's not the taxpayers' fault when union bosses negotiate with overly open handed city and state leaders pension plans worth several times what the taxpayers' pensions promise to pay

LINK: 2 + 2 = 4

remember, the only employee that has been overpromised and underfunded by any public pension plan must perforce be member of a public employees union

don't go lumping all taxpayers into one pit---we can't afford it, the pension plans are bankrupting us
Click to expand...

You ignored everything I said, I'm done with this conversation.
 
The Barbarian said:
Well your obvious conclusion, as I see it is somewhat flawed, based on your conclusion, there would be no need of state elections, or federal elections .. just count up who has more registered voters, Democrats or Republicans, Who ever has sign up more registered voters win, no need for the actual election..

So in you so called independent mind, no one signing up for a union vote, could possibly be signing up so his “NO” vote could be heard ?? If that is your obvious conclusion, then it should be an obvious conclusion that your thinking is no where close to independent, but fully liberal.

The obvious conclusion of your thinking is that everyone in this country "wants" to be a union member, that thinking is not less then far left liberal thought.
Click to expand...
actually, it is your reasoning which is flawed, equating this to a national election
there is a significant difference
the request for a union election is initiated by a form executed by the prospective union member who has agreed to join and pay dues to the union if 50% plus one agree
once 50% plus one have signed such form, the need for an election is rendered moot, as that majority have effectively cast their "ballots" when submitting their signed form, requesting representation by the union
and de-certification of the union - an effort to oust a union in the workplace - follows the same procedure
you compared apples to oranges and got fruit salad ... hopefully you have it figured out now
 
still no reason to SUE sovereign states that feel private voting is a value

establishment of collective bargaining is only a beginning

my union, for instance, affiliate of the cta, won't GO ON STRIKE without membership approval

we express ourselves via secret ballot

is nlrb gonna FORCE us to do otherwise?
 
The Prof said:
still no reason to SUE sovereign states that feel private voting is a value
Click to expand...
wrong
a very sound reason to sue them to comply with federal law is to enforce compliance with law/rule/regulation which is intended to prevent employers from subverting the employees' right to collectively bargain

establishment of collective bargaining is only a beginning

my union, for instance, affiliate of the cta, won't GO ON STRIKE without membership approval
Click to expand...
5 USC chapter 71 describes unionization. it requires unions to be democratic organizations. it appears yours is properly conforming in that respect

we express ourselves via secret ballot
Click to expand...
another mechanism to conform to the expectation of democratically managed unions

is nlrb gonna FORCE us to do otherwise?
Click to expand...
why would the NLRB compel you to act in an unlawful manner?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom