• 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!

Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
House Republicans pushed this year to revert to the old rules, under which workers who did not cast ballots in union elections would be counted as no votes. The effort, which came in the form of an amendment to the FAAs funding bill, led to a protracted fight with Democrats and union groups and to a brief shutdown of the FAA this summer.

You heard it correctly. Republicans have always supported a rule that says if you didn't vote, then you voted, and of course, you voted "our" ideological way too. That rule was changed to say that if you didn't vote, you didn't vote. Of course, this had to go to court. The Court of Appeals ruled on it yesterday. The court made the following earth shattering announcement:

If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote.

Gee, what a surprise. In another move, the court is going to take up the issue on whether the sky is blue, or as Republicans claim, it is purple with yellow polka dots. :mrgreen:

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
You heard it correctly. Republicans have always supported a rule that says if you didn't vote, then you voted, and of course, you voted "our" ideological way too. That rule was changed to say that if you didn't vote, you didn't vote. Of course, this had to go to court. The Court of Appeals ruled on it yesterday. The court made the following earth shattering announcement:

If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote.

Gee, what a surprise. In another move, the court is going to take up the issue on whether the sky is blue, or as Republicans claim, it is purple with yellow polka dots. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

This is why prosecutors take pleas for drug charges and why judges inherently rule in favor of the banks for foreclosure proceedings - to pay for court cases like this one.
 
You heard it correctly. Republicans have always supported a rule that says if you didn't vote, then you voted, and of course, you voted "our" ideological way too. That rule was changed to say that if you didn't vote, you didn't vote. Of course, this had to go to court. The Court of Appeals ruled on it yesterday. The court made the following earth shattering announcement:

If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote.

Gee, what a surprise. In another move, the court is going to take up the issue on whether the sky is blue, or as Republicans claim, it is purple with yellow polka dots. :mrgreen:

Article is here.
I don't know why it's needs to be so complicated. If a group of people want to form a union, then go for it. And others don't, then they don't join. Why do they need a vote?
 
This is the first I've heard of this and I can only comment on what is presented. Just based upon what is presented I'd say it was a proper ruling.
 
This is the first I've heard of this and I can only comment on what is presented. Just based upon what is presented I'd say it was a proper ruling.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Why should abstention = no? I mean, normal elections don't work like that.
 
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Why should abstention = no? I mean, normal elections don't work like that.

What did I miss? The OP stated that the courts ruled........

If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote.

I agree with that.
 
Quorum issue. They needed a majority of the total workforce to vote for it. A majority of those voting wasn't enough before. I wonder though, is every worker bound to agreements by the Union and required to pay dues whether they voted for it, against it, or abstained? Im willing to bet they are.
 
Quorum issue. They needed a majority of the total workforce to vote for it. A majority of those voting wasn't enough before. I wonder though, is every worker bound to agreements by the Union and required to pay dues whether they voted for it, against it, or abstained? Im willing to bet they are.

But the lack of a quorum - which, obviously, isn't required in any other elections - would only make the vote null. Non-voters shouldn't count as "no" votes, just as non-votes.
 
But the lack of a quorum - which, obviously, isn't required in any other elections - would only make the vote null. Non-voters shouldn't count as "no" votes, just as non-votes.

What's in the by-laws?
 
What's in the by-laws?

This isn't about internal union elections, it's about elections to determine whether a union will represent the employees. The rules for those elections are set by the government.
 
This isn't about internal union elections, it's about elections to determine whether a union will represent the employees. The rules for those elections are set by the government.
I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.
 
I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.

Are you kidding? Then there would be 20 or 30 unions all with no clout. Personally I find no use for unions today...70-80 years ago, yes, but today, no way. Union workers make far too much for the little they do.
 
No, I'm not kidding at all. If workers A, B, and C wish to form a union, what does that have to do with workers D and E who don't.

It doesn't. You see the Union Thugs want to their power and money. Before, they had to get a majority of workers to agree before they could unionize. This made it easier for workers that felt threatened voting to skip out and get their no in. Now all they have to do is hold an election... say middle of Super Bowl sunday when the work place is closed down, have 12 people there and oh, look 10 yes, 2 no! And every worker is now Unionized and paying fees at the work place. This is why states like Texas rock, you can Unionize all you want, but you cannot force me into your Union.
 
It doesn't. You see the Union Thugs want to their power and money. Before, they had to get a majority of workers to agree before they could unionize. This made it easier for workers that felt threatened voting to skip out and get their no in. Now all they have to do is hold an election... say middle of Super Bowl sunday when the work place is closed down, have 12 people there and oh, look 10 yes, 2 no! And every worker is now Unionized and paying fees at the work place. This is why states like Texas rock, you can Unionize all you want, but you cannot force me into your Union.
Absolutely ridiculous that worker A, B, and C can form a union that automatically includes workers D and E, despite the fact that D and E are not interested. Who cam up with that ridiculous scheme, and why doesn't the government protect workers D and E from this?
 
Last edited:
I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.

Because the union gets the right to negotiate a contract on behalf of all workers.

I suppose you could have a situation where union members get different wages and benefits and must join the union to get them, but that probably wouldn't work when it came to things like work conditions, scheduling, etc.
 
This is a really stupid ass decision, and I say that on behalf of voting rights in general. For example, the same thing would apply to corporate shareholders.

It's stupid because it lets people get away with calling up votes in inconvenient times, and getting away with bull**** just because members of an organization don't say anything.

Put simply, silence does not imply consent, nor does it imply half-consent.

For an example, imagine you have a room full of 100 people.

26 of them vote to turn it into an orgy.

24 of them vote no.

50 of them don't vote.

Does that give the 26 the right to **** the 50 in their sleep?

What this country really needs for voting customs in general is for people to have to obtain a majority of ALL members. At the very least, that will demand that people go out to the polls for ordinary political elections and get people more involved.

The reason we don't do this is because people are fricken lazy. It would probably take 10 ballots to get the country up off its ass and actually get a real majority. Before those 10 ballots are completed, current politicians would be entitled to massively long terms.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely ridiculous that worker A, B, and C can form a union that automatically includes workers D and E, despite the fact that D and E are not interested. Who cam up with that ridiculous scheme, and why doesn't the government protect workers D and E from this?

They can't. The workers don't have to join the union. In some states, they can be forced to pay a fee to the union though.

If you get a job that enjoys union benefits, though, you shouldn't complain. Your wages were won by the union even if you don't join. Those who don't are freeloaders.
 
This is a really stupid ass decision, and I say that on behalf of voting rights in general.

Well, the courts upheld the decision by the NLRB that non-votes do NOT count as no votes. It's a victory for pro-union forces.

It's stupid because it lets people get away with calling up votes in inconvenient times, and getting away with bull**** just because members of an organization don't say anything.

Well, this is about elections on whether to form a union, which are conducted by the government and involve sending in cards over a matter of weeks. It's not union elections, and it's not held in the middle of the night (nor are union elections either).
 
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Why should abstention = no? I mean, normal elections don't work like that.

Abstention =/= "no vote".

Abstention is when you say you're present. A "no vote" indicates you're not.
 
It doesn't. You see the Union Thugs want to their power and money. Before, they had to get a majority of workers to agree before they could unionize. This made it easier for workers that felt threatened voting to skip out and get their no in. Now all they have to do is hold an election... say middle of Super Bowl sunday when the work place is closed down, have 12 people there and oh, look 10 yes, 2 no! And every worker is now Unionized and paying fees at the work place. This is why states like Texas rock, you can Unionize all you want, but you cannot force me into your Union.

Bull****.

The elections are run by the government, not the union. It is a long process that takes weeks, and involves sending in a card at the convenience of the voter. Don't spew bull**** about things you don't know anything about.
 
Abstention =/= "no vote".

Abstention is when you say you're present. A "no vote" indicates you're not.

Wait - a no vote means you're not present? That violates the laws of physics.
 
Well, the courts upheld the decision by the NLRB that non-votes do NOT count as no votes. It's a victory for pro-union forces.

Well, this is about elections on whether to form a union, which are conducted by the government and involve sending in cards over a matter of weeks. It's not union elections, and it's not held in the middle of the night (nor are union elections either).

Pragmatism = cultural imperialism. Don't throw that shtick around.

The courts are ****ing retarded. They're just trying to be practical in order to make things happen despite how people clearly haven't invested the time needed to think about what they want to happen.

There is something very wrong going on with this country and freedom of speech. People are increasingly claiming it's their right to control other people just because they can make a lot of noise, and other people can't.
 
Wait - a no vote means you're not present? That violates the laws of physics.

A "no vote" is what's recorded when people don't vote. It's the default position, and it waits for something to be said in order to be changed.

This is VITAL to any form of parliamentary procedure. Without respect for "no votes", entire organizations can be subverted by the hands of the few.

In contrast, an abstention means you're simply not making a decision, but you're still participating to satisfy a quorum.
 
Because the union gets the right to negotiate a contract on behalf of all workers.
Why would workers A, B, and C have the right to negotiation a contract on behalf of workers D and E who are not interested in the union and want to negotiate their own contract? What makes workers A, B, and C think that they are somehow in control of what workers D and E do? And where is the government in all this? Why doesn't the government protect workers D and E?
 
Back
Top Bottom