Comments on: Free thuggery

By: swampcritter2

swampcritter2 — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:58:15 +0000

Unions membership has grown dramatically in only one sector as of late, that of government. This is another reason (aside from pork) why the costs of governance is going up. I say it’s all pork, and is it needed? Not hardly!
In 2008 our Prez received over $200 million from unions. It’s payback time, nothing more , nothing less.

By: ShoreThings

ShoreThings — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:42:48 +0000

I’m not really a big fan of unions. The current state of the auto industry can be blamed mostly on the unions.

The point is that the basic process of starting a union remains unchanged. Get 30% to sign, hold an election. The other side could argue that the 50% rule removes the opportunity for the employer to intimidate workers to vote no.

There is also this factor from the article:

Under card check, a majority of all employees is needed for unionization. With an election, only a majority of voters is necessary.

It could be argued that it would be harder to get 50% of all employees to sign cards than to get a majority of voters.

The Republican argument that EFCA does away with the secret ballot completely is not true. It just adds more options. You can spin it any way you want.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:45:02 +0000

Shore Things, your article doesn’t back up your point. In fact, it says that EFCA would essentially end the secret ballot.

As you say, if 50% of workers sign a card, a union would be organized. The workers could have an election but such an election is not mandatory. Without mandatory elections, there is no way to ensure that those who signed the cards did so free of coercion and intimidation. Putting the decision to hold elections into the hands of unions is a good way to make sure that workers are forced to join unions they don’t desire. That’s the whole reason Big Labor is pushing for this bill. Their ranks are declining as workers opt out of unionization. This bill would rig the process to inflate unions’ membership and fill their coffers.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:23:58 +0000

Right. If the workers are being intimidated into signing the cards, do you not think Guido and Lefty wouldn’t be smart enough to make them waive the right to a secret ballot as well?

By: ShoreThings

ShoreThings — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:12:12 +0000

The GOP is on a diet to become the fact free party.

EFCA does not remove the secret ballot. The current union process already uses the card signing process to initiate the effort. Currently, if 30% of employees sign cards, then they can hold an election. Under EFCA, if more than 50% sign cards, there is no need for an election. However, workers still have the option to hold a secret ballot election.

Read something other than a GOP doomsday article here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2213352/?from=rss