• 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!

How to Kill a Union,,,in 3 Easy Steps.

The bald faced lie in this article is that removing the secret ballot is somehow robbing workers of their right to unionize. the way it works these days is that a worker who wants to unionize requests sign up cards from a union. These cards are almost always signed in secret. After 60% or so of workers sign, these cards are presented to management along with a demand to unionize. Then management swings into action. Since current laws say that management can demand a secret ballot before allowing a union they schedule one for as remote a date as they can get away with, in the meantime they have a stack of cards listing the names of who they will go after. They fire people, cut hours, hire professional union busters to come in and spread fear and many other things to insure that when it comes time to vote, everyone doing so is in fear for their job.


I explained earlier how the current secret ballot system puts the list of names of union supporters in the hands of management and gives them plenty of time to retaliate against workers. I thought I would remind this thread of how it works.
 
I explained earlier how the current secret ballot system puts the list of names of union supporters in the hands of management and gives them plenty of time to retaliate against workers. I thought I would remind this thread of how it works.

And why shouldn't management do what is necessary for the well being of the company??
 
And why shouldn't management do what is necessary for the well being of the company??

I seem to remember a thread a few days ago about the Whitehouse allegedly collecting an enemies list to punish those who spread dubious e-mails and how totally pissed you were about what an organization that had such great power to destroy your life would do with a such a list.

While there is no evidence that the White house compiling an enemies list the practice is SOP in the corporate world. Is an enemies list only evil if the government does it? it is still the powerful using their power to put the little guy in his place.
 
Last edited:
I seem to remember a thread a few days ago about the Whitehouse allegedly collecting an enemies list to punish those who spread dubious e-mails and how totally pissed you were about what an organization that had such great power to destroy your life would do with a such a list.
I don't like it at all, whether it's the union blacklist, a government's enemies' list or what not. But if one reads the fine print on their job applications, especially in an "at will" state, employers can terminate employment of an individual at any time and for any reason.

While there is no evidence that the White house compiling an enemies list the practice is SOP in the corporate world. Is an enemies list only evil if the government does it? it is still the powerful using their power to put the little guy in his place.
Unions have no place today because of the plethora of laws and regulations that have been enacted over the last century. Enforcement is the key here. I'm quite sure most businesses don't screw with their rank and file. My company sure as hell doesn't.
 
Last edited:
I don't like it at all, whether it's the union blacklist, a government's enemies' list or what not. But if one reads the fine print on their job applications, especially in an "at will" state, employers can terminate employment of an individual at any time and for any reason.

Unions have no place today because of the plethora of laws and regulations that have been enacted over the last century. Enforcement is the key here. I'm quite sure most businesses don't screw with their rank and file. My company sure as hell doesn't.

I guess once again we are at a stalemate. How could I convince someone that considers unions useless or worse to support fair treatment in how workers unionize? I'm gonna go watch cartoons or something.
 
So, it's union busting, and I commented on it. No big deal if you'd rather not address the content of my post.

Later,

:2wave:

You can yammer on about whatever you want; it has nothing to do with anything I said. :doh
 
Again card check does not take away the private voting from union members. Card check would allow non-members the chance to join a union through a majority signing cards. However, leadership elections as well as any other internal decision in unions is determined by the union's constitution. Card check would not change how these decisions are made.

Really?:lol:

EFCA supporters on Capitol Hill are now contemplating the union bosses’ plan to replace card check with a measure that would enable union elections to be held within five or 10 days of filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board.


This would be about as fair as the Iranian presidential election. Quicker elections give union bosses the opportunity to lobby workers — in many cases, without the knowledge of the employer or the majority of employees — while disallowing the small business the opportunity to communicate with its own employees about unionization.


Quick elections are simply another way for union bosses to force unionization on businesses and gain dues from workers with little regard for how increased costs and burdens will affect an employer’s ability to stay in business.



Read more: Binding arbitration is still bad for workers - Steve Forbes - POLITICO.com
 
I don't like it at all, whether it's the union blacklist, a government's enemies' list or what not. But if one reads the fine print on their job applications, especially in an "at will" state, employers can terminate employment of an individual at any time and for any reason.

Unions have no place today because of the plethora of laws and regulations that have been enacted over the last century. Enforcement is the key here. I'm quite sure most businesses don't screw with their rank and file. My company sure as hell doesn't.

Its against the law to fire employees just because they are trying to form a union. This is one of the laws that has been enacted over the last century. Is this is a law that you don't want to see enforced? Entirely enforcing labor law is impossible. Think about how many people break traffic laws every day even though we have city police and state patrol actively monitoring highways. We we don't have state agents in any business (this is not really desirable). Abuses of labor law are pervasive and companies do screw with the rank and file. Your job is anecdotal and not representative of the experience of many workers. Just look at the NLRB hearings and you will see plenty of abuse. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff goes unreported. The treat of retaliation is real. Of course in your world employers should be able to fire workers for any reason. So I guess, you would be alright with retaliatory or at least would not deem them illegal. Funny but your mentality is precisely a reason that unions are still relevant.
 
Its against the law to fire employees just because they are trying to form a union. This is one of the laws that has been enacted over the last century. Is this is a law that you don't want to see enforced? Entirely enforcing labor law is impossible. Think about how many people break traffic laws every day even though we have city police and state patrol actively monitoring highways. We we don't have state agents in any business (this is not really desirable). Abuses of labor law are pervasive and companies do screw with the rank and file. Your job is anecdotal and not representative of the experience of many workers. Just look at the NLRB hearings and you will see plenty of abuse. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff goes unreported. The treat of retaliation is real. Of course in your world employers should be able to fire workers for any reason. So I guess, you would be alright with retaliatory or at least would not deem them illegal. Funny but your mentality is precisely a reason that unions are still relevant.

So in your twisted little world, if we had 100% union membership, there would be no private sector economy! Only government jobs for the well-connected to the union bosses and everyone else is on the government tit!!!! That is your ideal world, Komrade!!
 
Its against the law to fire employees just because they are trying to form a union. This is one of the laws that has been enacted over the last century. Is this is a law that you don't want to see enforced? Entirely enforcing labor law is impossible. Think about how many people break traffic laws every day even though we have city police and state patrol actively monitoring highways. We we don't have state agents in any business (this is not really desirable). Abuses of labor law are pervasive and companies do screw with the rank and file. Your job is anecdotal and not representative of the experience of many workers. Just look at the NLRB hearings and you will see plenty of abuse. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff goes unreported. The treat of retaliation is real. Of course in your world employers should be able to fire workers for any reason. So I guess, you would be alright with retaliatory or at least would not deem them illegal. Funny but your mentality is precisely a reason that unions are still relevant.

The way I look at it,,,if you work for me, you're taking MY MONEY for "Services Rendered". If you can't, or won't do the job I hired you for, Adios.:lol:
 
Really?:lol:

EFCA supporters on Capitol Hill are now contemplating the union bosses’ plan to replace card check with a measure that would enable union elections to be held within five or 10 days of filing a petition with the National Labor Relations Board.


This would be about as fair as the Iranian presidential election. Quicker elections give union bosses the opportunity to lobby workers — in many cases, without the knowledge of the employer or the majority of employees — while disallowing the small business the opportunity to communicate with its own employees about unionization.


Quick elections are simply another way for union bosses to force unionization on businesses and gain dues from workers with little regard for how increased costs and burdens will affect an employer’s ability to stay in business.



Read more: Binding arbitration is still bad for workers - Steve Forbes - POLITICO.com

I don't know how to make this more clear. Card Check does not change how internal decisions within a union are made. Card Check is about union recognition. Why on earth would you say or quote someone who says a fair secret ballot election monitored by the NLRB, is about as fair the Iranian Presidential election? The Iranian presidential election was won through electoral fraud. Absolutely no one is considering electoral fraud of any sort here. Moreover, why is ten days not enough time? Workers are know their working conditions. Are you saying that worker's need more than 10 days of management's advice to know what is in their best interests? Why do worker's need a day much less 10 days of management's advice? This seems absurd as well as demeaning.
 
Hence, the fine print on employment applications.

Once again it's against the law to fire workers for the reason that they are trying to join a union. EFCA would make this more secure. The fine print on the application doesn't matter.
 
Once again it's against the law to fire workers for the reason that they are trying to join a union. EFCA would make this more secure. The fine print on the application doesn't matter.
And if these ****-for-brains Union stooges strike, guess what?!?! Mr. Employer, who needs to stay in business, will hire new people, period! End of Sentence!
 
Hence, the fine print on employment applications.

I'm still a bit confused about why would would say that the current laws offer employees enough protection and that the key is in enforcement and then in a second breath insinuate that employers should violate the law.
 
I'm still a bit confused about why would would say that the current laws offer employees enough protection and that the key is in enforcement and then in a second breath insinuate that employers should violate the law.

You forget that in the fine print, it states that the "Employer can terminate without cause and for any reason at any time". IOW, if there is rumblings about union organizing, Mr. Employer can fire him for insubordination. Totally legal!
 
I don't like it at all, whether it's the union blacklist, a government's enemies' list or what not. But if one reads the fine print on their job applications, especially in an "at will" state, employers can terminate employment of an individual at any time and for any reason.

Unions have no place today because of the plethora of laws and regulations that have been enacted over the last century. Enforcement is the key here. I'm quite sure most businesses don't screw with their rank and file. My company sure as hell doesn't.

Here you suggest that employers can also fire workers for race, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and national origin. Again this is against the law.
 
I don't know how to make this more clear. Card Check does not change how internal decisions within a union are made. Card Check is about union recognition. Why on earth would you say or quote someone who says a fair secret ballot election monitored by the NLRB, is about as fair the Iranian Presidential election? The Iranian presidential election was won through electoral fraud. Absolutely no one is considering electoral fraud of any sort here. Moreover, why is ten days not enough time? Workers are know their working conditions. Are you saying that worker's need more than 10 days of management's advice to know what is in their best interests? Why do worker's need a day much less 10 days of management's advice? This seems absurd as well as demeaning.

Jimbo,,,Please. I'm neither in a Union, or a Liberal. So if you'd be so kind, stop trying to blow smoke up my lower posterior. That's demeaning.:lol:

Start your own "Business", and run it the way you're advocating for. ;)
 
Last edited:
Here you suggest that employers can also fire workers for race, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and national origin. Again this is against the law.

That's true, but an employer can fire a union hack for insubordination. Perfectly legal grounds, especially if said employer has had a good relationship with his employees.
 
You forget that in the fine print, it states that the "Employer can terminate without cause and for any reason at any time". IOW, if there is rumblings about union organizing, Mr. Employer can fire him for insubordination. Totally legal!

So now you are suggesting that the employer should fabricate reasons to fire a worker. That is they should violate labor law but try to make it look legal. This is coming from a person who says all we need to do is enforce the current labor laws that we have.
 
So now you are suggesting that the employer should fabricate reasons to fire a worker. That is they should violate labor law but try to make it look legal. This is coming from a person who says all we need to do is enforce the current labor laws that we have.
All I am telling you is what is in the fine print!
 
Jimbo,,,Please. I'm neither in a Union, or a Liberal. So if you'd be so kind, stop trying to blow smoke up my lower posterior. That's demeaning.:lol:

Start your own "Business", and run it the way you're advocating for. ;)

Trust me I have absolutely no desire to blow smoke anywhere near your lower posterior. You have consistently misrepresented card check and EFCA throughout this post. Drawing ridiculous comparisons, which are really just pasted from some misguided articles and blogs. All I am doing is asking for a bit of honesty and justification. Instead, I get some taunts. I guess we can just start calling each other names, if you are tried of defending any position.
 
Once again it's against the law to fire workers for the reason that they are trying to join a union. EFCA would make this more secure. The fine print on the application doesn't matter.

So, you're telling me that if an Employee turns into a worthless, useless, typical Union Drone,,,I can't get rid of it.:roll:

Oh yeah,,,That'll make "Good Business Sense.".:doh
 
Here you suggest that employers can also fire workers for race, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and national origin. Again this is against the law.

A little advice when arguing with some hardcore conservatives, or any fanatic for that matter.

You will NEVER get them to admit they were wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

You will NEVER get them to even see your side of argument much less agree with it.

They do not care about the substance of an argument. As long as they see themselves as doing battle with infidels they are happy.

After a while you just have to give up in disgust, they see this as a victory. For most people a discussion is a search for understanding, but for some people it is just a way to enjoy treating others like crap without risking a punch in the nose.
 
So, you're telling me that if an Employee turns into a worthless, useless, typical Union Drone,,,I can't get rid of it.:roll:

Oh yeah,,,That'll make "Good Business Sense.".:doh
Uhh, I think that's EXACTLY what he is telling you!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom