View Poll Results: Do you favore the Employee Free Choice Act

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I am completely in favor of the act

    2 5.71%
  • Yes, I am in favor, but with some reservations

    2 5.71%
  • No, I am opposed, but with some reservations

    3 8.57%
  • No, I am totally opposed

    25 71.43%
  • Don't know, Don't care.

    3 8.57%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74

Thread: Employee Free Choice Act

  1. #61
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    from reading these posts it would appear there are lots more employees in this forum than owners. it astounds me that so many employees are willing to give up their right of assembly by opposing this measure
    What astounds me is that you seem to actually believe that crap.

    It's a corrupt bill pushing a corrupt agenda promoted by corrupt politicians as a payoff to the corrupt unions that bought and paid for their political campaigns.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    and all that is needed to eliminate that union access to know how the workers voted is to now have the department of labor receive the ballots directly from the workers and not thru the union - keeping their selection secret. that is exactly what happens now with the union elections as the DOL is responsible for tallying the secret ballots


    from reading these posts it would appear there are lots more employees in this forum than owners. it astounds me that so many employees are willing to give up their right of assembly by opposing this measure

    All that is needed is once the petition reaches the tipping point and an election is mandated is for the employees to have an election with secret ballots.

    That pretty much eliminates the issue of goonion intimidation.

    And the issue is goonion intimidation. After all, what's an employee going to do if intimidated by his employer? Natch, he's going goonion, so employers have a natural reluctance to intimidate anyone on that matter.

    But, let's pretend your scenario is likely, though history of goonion behavior in the 20th century says my scenario is more likely by 95%. What better way to prevent employer retribution than a secret ballot?

    Why, nothing.

    What's wrong with a secret ballot, I ask? The goonions can't find out who to punish.

    And not one person surrenders his right to freely assemble by demanding a secret ballot.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 06-13-09 at 12:18 AM.

  3. #63
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,330

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    All that is needed is once the petition reaches the tipping point and an election is mandated is for the employees to have an election with secret ballots.

    That pretty much eliminates the issue of goonion intimidation.
    the status quo
    the existing 30% showing of interest, followed by an election, will continue to be allowed under the new law
    and the union (as well as management) presently receives the signups showing who agreed to be among the 30% ... so how does that eliminate the potential intimidation by the union of the 70% who did not yet sign up

    and significantly, how does that prevent the management intimidation of the 30% who did

    And the issue is goonion intimidation.
    wel, since the union is behind the initiative it would appear you have adopted the management position on the issue
    not surprised you would work against your self interest ... much as the red necks who twice elected dicknbush to lower their standard of living. just not smart enough to know they were being played

    After all, what's an employee going to do if intimidated by his employer? Natch, he's going goonion, so employers have a natural reluctance to intimidate anyone on that matter.
    but if that employee is disciplined and suspended from work without pay ... conincident with the period of the election, he doesn't get to vote. or, more frequently, the employee is terminated for some fabricated reason, which the smart employer, who hired a union busting legal staff to document, will make sure has nothing to do with union organizing - since that is activity protected by law
    the union orginizer gets busted and be assured that chills the interest of the other employees. not even close to a level playing field. but again, folks like you are without the wisdom to recognize when they work against their own self interest

    But, let's pretend your scenario is likely, though history of goonion behavior in the 20th century says my scenario is more likely by 95%. What better way to prevent employer retribution than a secret ballot?
    oops, because the employer knows who that 30% were who signed up to allow an election to proceed, they now know who to get rid of to quell the possible union organizing. what is the use of a secret ballot when the voters are not available to cast their vote


    Why, nothing.
    again, putting your profound ignorance on display
    as if this whole issue is being pushed by the union bcause of something that has no negative effect on its ability to organize
    when you get to high school, they will have this class called "logic". take it

    What's wrong with a secret ballot, I ask? The goonions can't find out who to punish.

    And not one person surrenders his right to freely assemble by demanding a secret ballot.
    nothing is wrong with a secret ballot
    the problem is it is not actually a secret ballot
    both management and the union are provided a list of those who signed up, which showing of 30% or more authorizes the election to go forward
    only in your world would someone believe that the 30% showing of employees is a list of people who are not pro union ...
    when in fact they have put their jobs on the line to show their interest in a union presence
    and knowing who they are allows the union to intimidate them
    secret my ass

    the present union organizing practice is to try to solicit the interest of 50% plus one - enough to carry the election, right out of the box. however, the current management practice is to eliminate enough employees from that 50% plus one so that by the time the election is held, it has terminated enough of the "right" employees to keep from losing the election
    and it is not that difficult to do, getting rid of "problem" employees who want to start a unionized bargaining unit. especially in these times when there are lots of folks looking for work
    that could not happen under the new law

    the employers now have a huge advantage and they do not want to give it up

  4. #64
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,513

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    If unions would police their members instead of protecting them when wrong, employers would be more prone to accepting them. But my work experience since 1977 (omitting my navy years) is that the unions will protect the lazy, the inept, and even the corrupt.
    Why would any competent worker want to be paid the same as those who either can't or won't perform to certain standards?
    OTOH, management tends to use union wage scales as a measuring stick to determine what to pay non-union workers. One of my jobs, as a tech in a nuclear research facility, I was clearly much better trained, and more capable, and more willing compared to the half dozen other workers, but I couldn't make a dime more. They had seniority, but seniority doesn't always equate to ability.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  5. #65
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,330

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    If unions would police their members instead of protecting them when wrong, employers would be more prone to accepting them. But my work experience since 1977 (omitting my navy years) is that the unions will protect the lazy, the inept, and even the corrupt.
    Why would any competent worker want to be paid the same as those who either can't or won't perform to certain standards?
    OTOH, management tends to use union wage scales as a measuring stick to determine what to pay non-union workers. One of my jobs, as a tech in a nuclear research facility, I was clearly much better trained, and more capable, and more willing compared to the half dozen other workers, but I couldn't make a dime more. They had seniority, but seniority doesn't always equate to ability.
    while i understand your sentiment, i can't agree with it. the law will not tolerate it
    unions, by federal law, MUST represent ALL bargaining unit employees, whether they are dues paying members or not
    the union does NOT get to decide who it will and will not represent. the law already said it will represent ALL of labor
    and you are absolutely correct. most of the crap the unions are called on to deal with are caused by the few problem employees
    but the law says we must defend the indefensible, to the best of our abilities
    not unlike a public defender representing the dregs of society

    what has been ignored is the wholesale incompetence of management, which allows the union to prevail
    those corrupt, lazy, incompetent employees SHOULD be dealt with
    do you really think that the union - the people working at the facility - want to be held back by the ones who cause problems and do not carry their own weight?
    hell no
    where there is a union, there will be a union contract describing the procedures for dealing with problem employees
    but the managers are usually too lazy to read the contract ... or even just the portion that deals with disciplinary measures
    those managers are usually too lazy to document ... yes, document the problems created by the employee so that the provisions of the contract can be followed ... resulting in that employee being disciplined/terminated
    those lazy managers make it easy for the union to then defend the employees who deserve to be disciplined/terminated
    just as incompetent prosecutors allow thugs to leave the courtroom free of punishment

    you see unions as the problem, but their effective presence is only a symptom of the problems we have in the work place
    which is why other nations are eating our economic lunch

  6. #66
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    while i understand your sentiment, i can't agree with it. the law will not tolerate it
    unions, by federal law, MUST represent ALL bargaining unit employees, whether they are dues paying members or not
    the union does NOT get to decide who it will and will not represent. the law already said it will represent ALL of labor
    and you are absolutely correct. most of the crap the unions are called on to deal with are caused by the few problem employees
    but the law says we must defend the indefensible, to the best of our abilities
    not unlike a public defender representing the dregs of society
    The difference is that public defenders MUST exist, as a matter of civil liberties and due process. Unions exist only at the whim of the workers. It doesn't make any sense to justify their existence by saying they are compelled to defend the indefensible. That sounds like one more reason NOT to have unions.


    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    what has been ignored is the wholesale incompetence of management, which allows the union to prevail
    those corrupt, lazy, incompetent employees SHOULD be dealt with
    do you really think that the union - the people working at the facility - want to be held back by the ones who cause problems and do not carry their own weight?
    hell no
    Obviously they do, or they wouldn't spend so much time defending them. And if they don't want to be held back by corrupt, lazy, incompetent employees, the best thing to do is to not have the union in the first place so it won't even be an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    where there is a union, there will be a union contract describing the procedures for dealing with problem employees
    but the managers are usually too lazy to read the contract ... or even just the portion that deals with disciplinary measures
    those managers are usually too lazy to document ... yes, document the problems created by the employee so that the provisions of the contract can be followed ... resulting in that employee being disciplined/terminated
    those lazy managers make it easy for the union to then defend the employees who deserve to be disciplined/terminated
    just as incompetent prosecutors allow thugs to leave the courtroom free of punishment
    Riiiiiight. THAT'S why one unionized company after another is unable to compete with its non-union counterparts. The contracts are just too hard for the corporate lawyers to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    you see unions as the problem, but their effective presence is only a symptom of the problems we have in the work place
    which is why other nations are eating our economic lunch
    Toyota and Honda treat their workers just as well as GM and Chrysler. Their hourly pay and benefits are approximately the same. The difference is that the Japanese auto manufacturers don't have to worry about moronic union agreements, such as setting production quotas that workers can meet after only six hours...after which they can either go home or be paid overtime. They don't have to worry about ridiculously generous retirement benefits, and can instead offer benefits more comparable to the market. Oh, and Toyota and Honda aren't in Chapter 11.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 06-13-09 at 11:24 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #67
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,330

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The difference is that public defenders MUST exist, as a matter of civil liberties and due process. Unions exist only at the whim of the workers. It doesn't make any sense to justify their existence by saying they are compelled to defend the indefensible. That sounds like one more reason NOT to have unions.
    and the union representatives MUST represent ALL members of the bargaining unit. even the screw ups who exhibit indefensible behavior
    the right of participation in the union is provided by law. are you opposed to the law or rights?



    Obviously they do, or they wouldn't spend so much time defending them. And if they don't want to be held back by corrupt, lazy, incompetent employees, the best thing to do is to not have the union in the first place so it won't even be an issue.
    the union rep has no ability NOT to spend time representing the problem employee. it is required by federal law
    and if the workplace was one in which the employees felt fairly treated, chances are that no one would have put their career on the line to originally organize the union, such that over half of the employees voted for union representation



    Riiiiiight. THAT'S why one unionized company after another is unable to compete with its non-union counterparts. The contracts are just too hard for the corporate lawyers to understand.
    there are all kinds of unionized workplaces that continue to operate profitably. the failure of the domestic auto manufacturers was proscribed in a 1989 book titled the reckoning; i encourage you to read it and educate yourself. the poor management of the big three is what has caused the demise of that industry ... david halberstam explained it in '89 and it has only gotten worse. but for those who prefer to remain ignorant, blaming the union is an easy alternative



    Toyota and Honda treat their workers just as well as GM and Chrysler. Their hourly pay and benefits are approximately the same. The difference is that the Japanese auto manufacturers don't have to worry about moronic union agreements, such as setting production quotas that workers can meet after only six hours...after which they can either go home or be paid overtime. They don't have to worry about ridiculously generous retirement benefits, and can instead offer benefits more comparable to the market. Oh, and Toyota and Honda aren't in Chapter 11.
    excellent point
    those companies are NOT exempt from being organized
    only their enlightened management has found that it is better - and cheaper - to treat their employees properly rather than as adversaries
    should they begin practices abusive of labor, then anticipate them becoming unionized facilities as well

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the status quo
    the existing 30% showing of interest, followed by an election, will continue to be allowed under the new law
    and the union (as well as management) presently receives the signups showing who agreed to be among the 30% ... so how does that eliminate the potential intimidation by the union of the 70% who did not yet sign up
    Because the easy marks don't count, the goonion can't infect the workplace until the other 20%+1 vote to go along, too.

    And with a secret ballot, that 20%+1 is allowed the freedom to say no to goonions in perfect privacy and perfect safety.

    Whatta ya got against secret ballots, other than the fact that people can use them to protect themselves against goonion infestation without fear of reprisal?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    and significantly, how does that prevent the management intimidation of the 30% who did
    It doesn't.

    Since you're so irrationally terrified of management intimidation, why are you demanding the names of the workers stupid enough to want a goonion be revealed to the employer?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    wel, since the union is behind the initiative it would appear you have adopted the management position on the issue
    You mean I'm clearly not a rackeeter.

    I know this.

    Since I don't support goonions, I'm definitely not a stooge.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    not surprised you would work against your self interest ... much as the red necks who twice elected dicknbush to lower their standard of living. just not smart enough to know they were being played
    Yeah, that'll win arguments for you, totally irrelevant ad hominem attacks against positions I don't hold.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    but if that employee is disciplined and suspended from work without pay ... conincident with the period of the election, he doesn't get to vote.
    Shame.

    What did the stooge do to get almost fired for?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    or, more frequently, the employee is terminated for some fabricated reason,
    Guess what?

    Employers should be able to fire anyone, anytime, for any reason.

    It's the employer's job, after all.

    Welcome to what's real.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    which the smart employer, who hired a union busting legal staff to document, will make sure has nothing to do with union organizing - since that is activity protected by law
    I guess the employees should be keeping their noses clean, but they'd better not be caught standing around with their fingers probing their sinuses on the job.

    Sounds fair to me.

    Goonion organizers are allowed to physically attack goonion non-supporters, they're allowed to harass them, they're allowed to vandalize the property of workers who don't want goonion involvement, so why shouldn't goonion supporters be fired when so desired?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    oops, because the employer knows who that 30% were who signed up to allow an election to proceed, they now know who to get rid of to quell the possible union organizing. what is the use of a secret ballot when the voters are not available to cast their vote.
    Once the goonions extort their 30%, the vote happens, what's your problem with that?

    Oh, the vote happens in the privacy of a booth, where the goonion stooges can't find out who voted "no". That's your problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    both management and the union are provided a list of those who signed up, which showing of 30% or more authorizes the election to go forward
    Then the card checking of the 30% should be illegal also.

    There's ways to make the entire process transparent to both goonion and the people with a financial interest in the company.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the present union organizing practice is to try to solicit the interest of 50% plus one - enough to carry the election, right out of the box.
    You didn't mention the harassment, the vandalism, the threats and the actuall physical violence the goonions currently use to get to that magical mark.

    Why haven't you addressed this?

    Unlike employers, who should certainly be completely free to fire and hire anyone they want, what basis does a goonion stooge have for intimidating anyone at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the employers now have a huge advantage and they do not want to give it up
    They shouldn't have to.

    It's their company, not the goonion's.

    It's their jobs, not the workers.

    Welcome to reality.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    what has been ignored is the wholesale incompetence of management,
    That's because it's not relevant to any issue involving goonions.

    The price of incompetence in business if failure, whether it be caused by management or goonion. The company's owners pay the price for inefficiency.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    which allows the union to prevail
    those corrupt, lazy, incompetent employees SHOULD be dealt with
    do you really think that the union - the people working at the facility - want to be held back by the ones who cause problems and do not carry their own weight?
    Yes, or they'd negotiate at the bargaining table (they've had well over a hundred years to do this) the freedom to dump the useless slobs "holding them back".

    That negotiation is never going to happen because the goonion do want as many incompetent boobs who are completely aware that their jobs and their livelihood are owed to the goonion and will be willing to be the muscle that forces the more intelligent people into line with the goonion leadership.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you see unions as the problem,
    Yes. I do.

    Because my eyes are open.

  10. #70
    Educator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Seen
    02-22-16 @ 07:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    746

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    I don't feel like the government should be involved in unions whatsoever.

    I strongly support the right of people to get together, agree on a list of demands, and elect some person, maybe even an outside representative, to contact the business owner or CEO and threaten to strike (or whatever it is unions do) if those demands aren't met. I also strongly support the right of that business owner or CEO to immediately fire any employee involved with that shakedown. In my opinion, a business has just as much right to fire you as you do to quit, for any reason, and just as I would be opposed to any law that keeps me from quitting my job on a whim, I would also be opposed to any law that keeps my employer from firing me on a whim.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •