• 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.

Realist1

Realist1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
537
Reaction score
84
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
After the GM debacle,,,you'd think the Unions would "wise up".:lol:

Big Hollywood Blog Archive How to Kill a Union in Three Easy Steps


1) Take away the right to anonymous ballots in voting for leadership.

2) Consistently vote in left wing leadership that supports only left wing political candidates who vote for “tax and spend” policies that destroy the very business we are all in.

3) Take away a major benefit that most non-union members would join the union for in the first place: health care.
 
Last edited:
Realist1 said:
After the GM debacle,,,you'd think the Unions would "wise up".:lol:

Big Hollywood Blog Archive How to Kill a Union in Three Easy Steps


1) Take away the right to anonymous ballots in voting for leadership.

2) Consistently vote in left wing leadership that supports only left wing political candidates who vote for “tax and spend” policies that destroy the very business we are all in.

3) Take away a major benefit that most non-union members would join the union for in the first place: health care.
Click to expand...

Most of the middle class union jobs have shipped over seas. Both parties have had a hand in this. The ones that remain are being taxed to death and bear the heavy costs of constantly complying with redundant rules and regulations.

Moe
 
IF you do away with "tax and spend", you will end up with "borrow and spend", the republican way of financing government....
You pay your own way now, or your children pay it later, which do you think is better for our future?
 
UtahBill said:
IF you do away with "tax and spend", you will end up with "borrow and spend", the republican way of financing government....
You pay your own way now, or your children pay it later, which do you think is better for our future?
Click to expand...

No.

There's another option.

Tax less and spend less.
 
Realist1 said:
After the GM debacle,,,you'd think the Unions would "wise up".:lol:

Big Hollywood Blog Archive How to Kill a Union in Three Easy Steps


1) Take away the right to anonymous ballots in voting for leadership.

2) Consistently vote in left wing leadership that supports only left wing political candidates who vote for “tax and spend” policies that destroy the very business we are all in.

3) Take away a major benefit that most non-union members would join the union for in the first place: health care.
Click to expand...

This "Article" is more of an editorial and incredibly biased, not sure it belongs in breaking news.
 
Harshaw said:
OK. So what?
Click to expand...

No point really. For me you cut spending first, then cut taxes once things balance and you get a (real) surplus, but overall, I agree with lower taxes lower spending as an ideal
 
Redress said:
No point really. For me you cut spending first, then cut taxes once things balance and you get a (real) surplus, but overall, I agree with lower taxes lower spending as an ideal
Click to expand...
There's a very simple way to force more responsible spending by Congress. Simply require that each and every sale of Treasury Bonds be approved by a specific act of Congress. If Tiny Tim wants more money, he has to go to Congress, which has to vote on the matter--each and every time.

Puts everyone on the spot for how government spends.
 
This seems to be a "death panel" argument against the employee free choice act. A much needed bill to modernize unionization and make retaliation and other strike breaking activities illegal. 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 jobs. The new law used to say that unionization could have taken place after presentation of the sign up cards but that got killed. But it still outlaws retaliation tactics such as firing organizers just for organizing.

This "artlcle" also accuses labor leaders of being leftists pushing for leftist politicians, with republican leaders all but calling them communists what would you expect. Republicans tend to think that the time when unions served a useful purpose is long past and there is no longer any need for them, but with wages and benefits stagnant or falling I think it is time for more.
 
angrycarpenter said:
This seems to be a "death panel" argument against the employee free choice act. A much needed bill to modernize unionization and make retaliation and other strike breaking activities illegal. 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 jobs. The new law used to say that unionization could have taken place after presentation of the sign up cards but that got killed. But it still outlaws retaliation tactics such as firing organizers just for organizing.

This "artlcle" also accuses labor leaders of being leftists pushing for leftist politicians, with republican leaders all but calling them communists what would you expect. Republicans tend to think that the time when unions served a useful purpose is long past and there is no longer any need for them, but with wages and benefits stagnant or falling I think it is time for more.
Click to expand...

I think Spike stated it best:


The “Card Check System,” or Employee Free Choice Act as it is called, as usual, does exactly the opposite of what it states. In short this looks like another Obama driven attempt to control businesses. If this bill goes through, the government will have the authority to dictate terms of contracts over workers and the firms that employ them. The government will be in charge of even more of your life, even in the private sector. So “sticking it to the man” will mean sticking it to yourself. Well, actually it always has meant sticking it to yourselves, but that’s another argument. As some polls have indicated, over 70% of unionized workers prefer private balloting. If that many members want privacy, imagine how many would drop their membership altogether if they no longer had an honest say in what their union does? So that is the first step to killing a union. Thank you President Obama and your left wing cabal.

I certainly wouldn't be calling that a "Bald-Faced Lie".:lol: I'm not Union,,,be if I were, I'd demand the Right to Vote in Privacy.
 
celticlord said:
There's a very simple way to force more responsible spending by Congress. Simply require that each and every sale of Treasury Bonds be approved by a specific act of Congress. If Tiny Tim wants more money, he has to go to Congress, which has to vote on the matter--each and every time.

Puts everyone on the spot for how government spends.
Click to expand...

Good idea. And while we're at it,,,a Bill is to be specific. No more hidden "Pork" slipped in by either Party. ;)
 
Ol' Ronnie Reagan knew best how to kill the unions.

Ronald Reagan's War on Labor (Labor) by Dick Meister

To me anything that will grow union membership I am for.

Anybody wonder why Americas best years were the ones with the highest union memberships?

Strong union membership makes for a strong middle class.
 
Just wondering why labor should be a government-protected monopoly. Aren't monopolies bad?
 
Joe1991 said:
Ol' Ronnie Reagan knew best how to kill the unions.

Ronald Reagan's War on Labor (Labor) by Dick Meister

To me anything that will grow union membership I am for.

Anybody wonder why Americas best years were the ones with the highest union memberships?

Strong union membership makes for a strong middle class.
Click to expand...

I loved it when Ronnie did this:

Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union.

They fired the 1st shot by trying to cripple our entire Airline Industry. No Union has a Right to destroy Americas Transportation System, and wage War on our Economy. He laid waste to the leeches.:lol:
 
Realist1 said:
I think Spike stated it best:


The “Card Check System,” or Employee Free Choice Act as it is called, as usual, does exactly the opposite of what it states. In short this looks like another Obama driven attempt to control businesses. If this bill goes through, the government will have the authority to dictate terms of contracts over workers and the firms that employ them. The government will be in charge of even more of your life, even in the private sector. So “sticking it to the man” will mean sticking it to yourself. Well, actually it always has meant sticking it to yourselves, but that’s another argument. As some polls have indicated, over 70% of unionized workers prefer private balloting. If that many members want privacy, imagine how many would drop their membership altogether if they no longer had an honest say in what their union does? So that is the first step to killing a union. Thank you President Obama and your left wing cabal.

I certainly wouldn't be calling that a "Bald-Faced Lie".:lol: I'm not Union,,,be if I were, I'd demand the Right to Vote in Privacy.
Click to expand...

please educate what the free choice act is about before you argue against it.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act]Employee Free Choice Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It is entirely concerned with the procedure for establishing union representation in a particular workplace and outlawing certain practices collectively called union busting. The proposed legislation enjoys wide union member support. I would really like to see where you got 70% from. As for the government dictating terms.

The bill provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for mediation. If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after providing mediation services for 30 days the dispute will be referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration shall be binding on the parties for two years. The union and employer may extend any deadlines or time limits. (The FMCS, created in 1947, provides mediation services in support of collective bargaining free of charge.)
Click to expand...

How is this dictating terms? If contract negotiations go on for more than 90 days it simply because management is stalling, leaving the workers stuck without a contract and still subject to retaliation without representation. Under the current system if negotiations can be stalled for a year the union loses the presumption of majority status basically breaking the attempt to unionize. 44% of attempts at unionization are defeated by this stall tactic. This is the only Government involvement in contract negotiations stated in the bill and it only covers the first attempt to unionize.
 
Realist1 said:
I think Spike stated it best:


The “Card Check System,” or Employee Free Choice Act as it is called, as usual, does exactly the opposite of what it states. In short this looks like another Obama driven attempt to control businesses. If this bill goes through, the government will have the authority to dictate terms of contracts over workers and the firms that employ them. The government will be in charge of even more of your life, even in the private sector. So “sticking it to the man” will mean sticking it to yourself. Well, actually it always has meant sticking it to yourselves, but that’s another argument. As some polls have indicated, over 70% of unionized workers prefer private balloting. If that many members want privacy, imagine how many would drop their membership altogether if they no longer had an honest say in what their union does? So that is the first step to killing a union. Thank you President Obama and your left wing cabal.

I certainly wouldn't be calling that a "Bald-Faced Lie".:lol: I'm not Union,,,be if I were, I'd demand the Right to Vote in Privacy.
Click to expand...

I think the author of this blog is confused about EFCA and card check. Basically card check would mean that workers can create a union by a majority signing cards stating that they want to join a union. Many businesses already recognize card check and empirically it does make forming a union easier. Thus, available evidence suggests that card check would help rather than hinder union growth.

It seems that there is some confusion about card check and what this means for a union member's control over their union. Under EFCA the decision to join a union might be through signing cards rather than the use of secret ballots. However, the governance of a union (i.e. the selection of officers, the use of dues money, the composition of bargaining committees, etc..) will still be determined by the constitution of the union. Many of these decisions will still be made with secret ballots although it will vary with the particular union and the decision that is being made. Thus, EFCA affects how a worker would join a union, it does not affect if a member has an honest say in what their union does. This is determined by this union's constitution.
 
UtahBill said:
IF you do away with "tax and spend", you will end up with "borrow and spend", the republican way of financing government....
Click to expand...

It would appear to be the Obama way as well unless I am imagining that $1.7 trillion deficit for this year.
 
Joe1991 said:
Anybody wonder why Americas best years were the ones with the highest union memberships?

Strong union membership makes for a strong middle class.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not equal causation. This isn't the 1950s anymore. The world has changed and stronger unions would destroy this nation's economy in today's world.
 
angrycarpenter said:
please educate what the free choice act is about before you argue against it.


Employee Free Choice Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is entirely concerned with the procedure for establishing union representation in a particular workplace and outlawing certain practices collectively called union busting. The proposed legislation enjoys wide union member support. I would really like to see where you got 70% from. As for the government dictating terms.



How is this dictating terms? If contract negotiations go on for more than 90 days it simply because management is stalling, leaving the workers stuck without a contract and still subject to retaliation without representation. Under the current system if negotiations can be stalled for a year the union loses the presumption of majority status basically breaking the attempt to unionize. 44% of attempts at unionization are defeated by this stall tactic. This is the only Government involvement in contract negotiations stated in the bill and it only covers the first attempt to unionize.
Click to expand...

I've looked at it from quite a few Sources...:lol:
I didn't come up with the 70% quote,,,but I'd like to think that at least that many people in Unions would stick up for their Right to Privacy.:lol:

Try this:Binding arbitration is still bad for workers - Steve Forbes - POLITICO.com


Some senators recently decided to drop a controversial provision from the Employee “Forced” Choice Act that would have prevented workers from being able to vote via secret ballot in union elections.


That was a wise decision. After all, that provision — “card check” — is an undemocratic way for labor unions to gain new members and would put employees at risk of harassment and intimidation.
 
Last edited:
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
The world has changed and stronger unions would destroy this nation's economy in today's world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard that GOP lie repeated a thousand different ways,
I prefer Henry Fords line about paying his workers enough to be able to buy his cars.
 
Joe1991 said:
Yeah, I've heard that GOP lie repeated a thousand different ways,
I prefer Henry Fords line about paying his workers enough to be able to buy his cars.
Click to expand...


Tell me,,,why would anyone worthwhile join a Union? You end up PAYING someone else for your Right to Work...:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom