• 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

We're done here. I'm convinced you're a rapist, and there's no reason to talk with you any longer.

Be sure to call every voter in elections and every member of every legislature, commission, committee, club etc. in America rapists too, because that's how democracy works.

Maybe you could start a "democracy = rape" thread. After all, those who didn't vote - AND THOSE WHO VOTED NO - are being forced to go along with the majority.

That would be entertaining.
 
Rapists!

Voters.jpg
 
This is simply another piece of evidence which clearly demonstrates the utter and complete contempt the right wing has for the democratic process and is only interested in one thing - their agenda being triumphant.
 
Found the NLRB election procedures summarized on Wikipedia.

NLRB election procedures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's have no more bull**** about "middle of the night" elections.

Michigan's government will stop collecting union dues from about 16,500 home-based child-care providers, who had been unionized in many cases without their consent. The change comes after a protracted lawsuit on the providers' behalf by the free-market Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, the Detroit News reports .
Beginning in January 2009, about 40,000 child-care providers suddenly found union dues were being deducted from the subsidies the state pays on behalf of low-income families. Subsequently, more than half of them stopped serving such families. Even with this falling enrollment, the union collected about $4 million over 20 months. It might have to return the money, pending another lawsuit.
In order to help ailing labor unions boost their membership totals and dues collections, the administration of former Gov. Jennifer Granholm had colluded with UAW and AFSCME to create a shell company as the "employer" of the state's independent, home-based child care providers. This so-called "employer," the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council, in turn funneled the providers' money to a newly created union, Child Care Providers Together Michigan. The union collected the providers' dues without providing any training, benefits, or collective bargaining.
Last summer, the Examiner's Joel Gehrke drew attention to this collusion.
“This only benefited the unions and their allies in government,” said Michael Jahr, a spokesman for Mackinac. Michigan's legislature never authorized the arrangement, which Jahr told the Washington Examiner was illegal.
Jahr said that child-care providers were targeted by the unions because their independence and large numbers make them vulnerable. “It is hard for them to coordinate themselves to fight this effort," he said. He noted that the provider who first came to them asking for help would have had to "mail letters to 70,000 people” whom she didn't know in order to fight the unionization effort.
The unions claim that in 2006, they mailed ballots to nearly 70,000 child care providers so that they could choose whether to unionize. They say that out of 6,000 responses, 5,500 indicated approval of the new union. “Every day-care provider we talked to said they never saw a ballot,” said Jahr. “Makes you wonder who got ballots.”

Huh huh. Keep drinking the kool-aide.
 
Huh huh. Keep drinking the kool-aide.

The example you cite does nothing at all to negate the post about the NLRB provisions for elections. Nothing.
 
Huh huh. Keep drinking the kool-aide.

You clearly are not interested in discussing the facts of this thread.

If true, this looks illegal. It was stopped by a lawsuit. It has nothing to do with the legal election procedures we are discussing.
 
The example you cite does nothing at all to negate the post about the NLRB provisions for elections. Nothing.

I love it when posters argue for something to be illegal that is already illegal, by citing a violation of a law that is already a law.
 
You clearly are not interested in discussing the facts of this thread.

If true, this looks illegal. It was stopped by a lawsuit. It has nothing to do with the legal election procedures we are discussing.

It is true, and the Union had to pay big bucks for doing exactly the sort of behind the back stuff we are talking about.
 
Huh huh. Keep telling yourself that haymarket.

No, you tell us why you think this Michigan incident was legal under NLRB election rules. Your own post says it wasn't.
 
It is true, and the Union had to pay big bucks for doing exactly the sort of behind the back stuff we are talking about.

I didn't say it wasn't true, I said it wasn't relevant because it was an illegal act. Nobody here said illegal acts don't happen. But illegal acts are certainly illegal. What more is there to say?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Any more personal attacks will result in an infraction and thread ban. Stop acting like children.
 
No, you tell us why you think this Michigan incident was legal under NLRB election rules. Your own post says it wasn't.
It was done without the consent of those covered by it. 6k out of 70k "votes" cast resulted in millions of dollars being stolen. Oh sure, after the fact, and much money and heart ache it got reversed. The NLRB didn't run this vote, and they aren't REQUIRED to, as you claimed, they are an avenue, not the end game.
 
It was done without the consent of those covered by it. 6k out of 70k "votes" cast resulted in millions of dollars being stolen. Oh sure, after the fact, and much money and heart ache it got reversed. The NLRB didn't run this vote, and they aren't REQUIRED to, as you claimed, they are an avenue, not the end game.

We just had a recent election in my community. The turnout was under 10%. Your numbers 'prove' nothing.
 
It was done without the consent of those covered by it. 6k out of 70k "votes" cast resulted in millions of dollars being stolen. Oh sure, after the fact, and much money and heart ache it got reversed.

So now you're complaining that an illegal act was only reversed after it happened? Because most lawsuits to correct illegal acts should be filed before the illegal acts happen? Is that it?

The NLRB didn't run this vote, and they aren't REQUIRED to, as you claimed, they are an avenue, not the end game.

I never said that. This thread is about NLRB elections though. You brought up a different issue.
 
We just had a recent election in my community. The turnout was under 10%. Your numbers 'prove' nothing.

Someone is being OBTUSE! The Government, in collusion with Unions, STOLE millions from unsuspecting people, and only after it was exposed and the courts get involved, did things get set right. The point was, that Unions can get formed without anyone even knowing it happened. In this case, it was reversed BECAUSE it was so blatantly done, but it took court cases, money and time to reverse the damage. Misterman, and yourself claim Union forming HAS to be done under the ausipices of the NRLB, I have shown just one example, there are more, of Union thuggery in action.



Question to you and MM, do you support Card Check?
 
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?

If a union only represents a portion of the workers, that union has no power. I'm sure you know this which is why you ask leading questions like this.

You haven't considered, however, management's ability to lock out the union. Is it fair for them to lock out workers D and E who aren't in the union? But if they don't, how much do workers D and E accomplish on their own considering that they are only 40% of the workforce? To take a high profile example, the NBA. So let's say the Lakers go to lock out the union, and workers D and E are Luke Walton and Metta World Peace (fka Ron Artest). Not much of a team is it?
 
Someone is being OBTUSE! The Government, in collusion with Unions, STOLE millions from unsuspecting people, and only after it was exposed and the courts get involved, did things get set right. The point was, that Unions can get formed without anyone even knowing it happened. In this case, it was reversed BECAUSE it was so blatantly done, but it took court cases, money and time to reverse the damage. Misterman, and yourself claim Union forming HAS to be done under the ausipices of the NRLB, I have shown just one example, there are more, of Union thuggery in action.

If you are referring to the situation in post #55 from yourself, there is nothing in there which matches the rant you just made against unions.
 
[...] 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.
FOX NEWS ALERT: Legislating from the bench! Sqwaak! Legislating from the bench! Sqwaak! Legislating from the bench! Sqwaak!
 
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.
:lamo Sometimes ya don't know whether to laugh or to cry :doh
 
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.
Trouble is, the Republicans don't want you to have any union benefits, because they don't want any unions. That's what all these anti-union arguments and legislation is about. It makes sense if one is a businessman -- the lower the labor cost, and the fewer the employee benefits, the better it is for their business model (as they understand it).

Trouble is, it sucks for the working class. Guess how much the GOP cares about them?

By the way, if you're expecting an honest argument from the anti-unionists on this issue, rotsa ruck :lol:
 
Last edited:
You're confusing abstention with "no vote". This has NOTHING to do with status quo issues, especially when it comes to multi-choice elections.

This is VITAL when it comes to the quorum issue. You can't assume that people consent with present-only quorums unless you intend on disrespecting who other people are in not letting them exercise their own judgment.

Honestly, I think you're just trolling at this point. This is the last chance. Your statement about silence not being non-consent actually questions whether or not you're a possible rapist. Frankly, if I was a moderator, I'd have you banned just for making that statement.

Moderator's Warning:
If you have an issue with a post, report it. Do NOT play moderator.
 
Back
Top Bottom