PDA

View Full Version : How'd he win in the first place?


Pages : [1] 2

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 05:40 AM
Amusing story from the vibrant world of Wisconsin politics:

Wisconsin State Sen. Randy Hopper, a close Republican ally of Gov. Scott Walker, is among the eight senators that activists will try to recall for supporting the infamous "budget repair bill" to weaken public sector unions. So this weekend, some protesters marched to his house — yikes! — to have a chat. But his wife answered the door and told the protesters that Hopper lives with his 25-year-old girlfriend now, and a divorce is underway.

Not surprisingly, his wife said she would join Team Recall and sign the petition. The (ex-)family's maid, apparently, had already signed it.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/85208/wisconsin-senators-wife-ex-maid-support-recall

Before the usual dance starts, the party has nothing to do with the humor.

C_Felix
15th March 2011, 05:51 AM
Yeah?

And?

What's the point?!?!?

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 05:54 AM
What else? Hilary Clinton killed people and Obama is from Kenya, duh.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 06:24 AM
I think marching on someone's house, even a politician, is a disgusting and sleazy tactic. Protest at his office or at public appearances, have some class.

Does anyone need more proof that "card check" is a horrible idea? The entire purpose of it is give union thugs names of the people to harass with sleazeball tactics like this.

Frank Newgent
15th March 2011, 06:34 AM
Was anybody serving lutefisk?

stokes234
15th March 2011, 06:39 AM
The entire purpose of it is give union thugs names of the people to harass with sleazeball tactics like this.

Does protesting outside someones house, or ringing the doorbell and talking to their wife make you a "thug"? I had always assumed you had to do something violent. Otherwise, I suppose every description of a right-wing gathering of people could just throw in "thug" as an adjective. "The economist thugs at the Chicago School of Economics met yesterday to discuss lowering taxes for the rich" etc.

tyr_13
15th March 2011, 06:52 AM
I disapprove of protesting personal residencies and bringing irrelevant personal problems into the political arena.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 07:00 AM
Does protesting outside someones house, or ringing the doorbell and talking to their wife make you a "thug"? I had always assumed you had to do something violent. Otherwise, I suppose every description of a right-wing gathering of people could just throw in "thug" as an adjective. "The economist thugs at the Chicago School of Economics met yesterday to discuss lowering taxes for the rich" etc.
Harassing people at their homes makes you a thug, whether or not you are violent.

stokes234
15th March 2011, 07:13 AM
Harassing people at their homes makes you a thug, whether or not you are violent.

Hmm.

Dictionary.com:

–noun
1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.

World English Dictionary:

— n
1. a tough and violent man, esp a criminal
2. ( sometimes capital ) (formerly) a member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India who typically strangled their victims

Urbandictionary.com (for lols):

As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life.

I'm not seeing anything about non-violent house protesters. What about Jehovahs Witnesses - they harrass people in their homes, are they thugs? What about door-to-door salesmen?

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 07:15 AM
It was all a ruse! A ruse I say!

WildCat
15th March 2011, 07:23 AM
Hmm.

Dictionary.com:

–noun
1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.

World English Dictionary:

— n
1. a tough and violent man, esp a criminal
2. ( sometimes capital ) (formerly) a member of an organization of robbers and assassins in India who typically strangled their victims

Urbandictionary.com (for lols):

As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life.

I'm not seeing anything about non-violent house protesters. What about Jehovahs Witnesses - they harrass people in their homes, are they thugs? What about door-to-door salesmen?
They're at the guy's house to intimidate him.

This is exactly why the unions want card check passed - so they can intimidate those who vote against union membership. And they will do it at their homes.

Get pedantic over my hyperbole if you wish, it doesn't change the fact that they went to the guys home to intimidate him and his family. Will they now show up at the girlfriend's house?

stokes234
15th March 2011, 07:26 AM
They're at the guy's house to intimidate him.

This is exactly why the unions want card check passed - so they can intimidate those who vote against union membership. And they will do it at their homes.

Get pedantic over my hyperbole if you wish, it doesn't change the fact that they went to the guys home to intimidate him and his family. Will they now show up at the girlfriend's house?

You used words that imply violence, and I pointed out that no violence was reported. If you don't want to be corrected, don't use words with false implications.

I don't know if they'll show up at the girlfriends house, but i've had protestors outside my house (one of my family members is a politician) and really, it wasn't all that intimidating. I just watched TV, and eventually they went away.

Now, if they try to hurt anyone or break in, i'll be right up there with you condemning it.

Beerina
15th March 2011, 07:27 AM
Removed personal remarks

Unable to win at the elections through persuasion, you seek to cow people down through fear and screaming. You are the last remaining vestiges of might makes right. Keep your idiocy up in front of the cameras, which you think helps your cause. Good riddance.

stokes234
15th March 2011, 07:37 AM
Removed personal remarks

Unable to win at the elections through persuasion, you seek to cow people down through fear and screaming. You are the last remaining vestiges of might makes right. Keep your idiocy up in front of the cameras, which you think helps your cause. Good riddance.

Did I misread the report? I didn't see anything about physical intimidation, "cowing people down through fear", or screaming.

Alferd_Packer
15th March 2011, 07:48 AM
But his wife answered the door and told the protesters that Hopper lives with his 25-year-old girlfriend now,

Hmm, I wonder if he still lives in-district

AlBell
15th March 2011, 07:58 AM
Lots of girlfriends, maybe? :D

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 08:16 AM
They're at the guy's house to intimidate him.

This is exactly why the unions want card check passed - so they can intimidate those who vote against union membership.

Quite the feat of mind reading here. Evidence?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 08:38 AM
Quite the feat of mind reading here. Evidence?
Do you even know what card check is? It's the elimination of the secret ballot. Why don't the unions want a secret ballot? So they can put pressure on those who voted "no".

If you can think of another reason, I'm all ears. A secret ballot is key to a democratic process.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 08:40 AM
I think I inadvertently made my first troll thread.

A Laughing Baby
15th March 2011, 08:41 AM
If physical intimidation is your only remaining argument, I invite you to fall off the face of the Earth and die as a useless POS. That's the correct level of appropriate counter-argumentation.

Unable to win at the elections through persuasion, you seek to cow people down through fear and screaming. You are the last remaining vestiges of might makes right. Keep your idiocy up in front of the cameras, which you think helps your cause. Good riddance.

*cuts a gas line at someone's house*

stokes234
15th March 2011, 08:41 AM
Do you even know what card check is? It's the elimination of the secret ballot. Why don't the unions want a secret ballot? So they can put pressure on those who voted "no".

If you can think of another reason, I'm all ears. A secret ballot is key to a democratic process.

Does that mean that the pressure is physical intimidation?

Would it really have mattered if the ballet was secret or not? It was obvious that it was the republicans voting in favour of removing collective bargaining anyway.

sarge
15th March 2011, 08:44 AM
Quite the feat of mind reading here. Evidence?

Not that I ascribe to the general "unions are evil" belief system, but the only reason for a "card check" ballot initiative is so that the unions can identify and communicate with workers that fail to vote for the union. Whether or not that constitutes coercion is open for intimidation. I mean interpretation.

It is unavoidable that there will actually be coercion - either by the union itself or by the employees that voted yes, or both. A card check ballot has only one purpose - to make it more likely that a workforce will vote to unionize. Unless one believes that unionizing is inherently good, there can be no logical argument in favor of card check ballots. If one believes that unionizing serves some greater good, then card check ballots make sense.

sarge
15th March 2011, 08:47 AM
Does that mean that the pressure is physical intimidation?

Would it really have mattered if the ballet was secret or not? It was obvious that it was the republicans voting in favour of removing collective bargaining anyway.

You seem to be confusing two seperate things. The Wisconsin House vote had nothing to do with the concept of card check ballots.

In a card check ballot, the workforce must vote for or against forming a union, and the results of each persons vote is made public, and is subject to scrutiny by the union and by the workforce.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 08:50 AM
Do you even know what card check is? It's the elimination of the secret ballot. Why don't the unions want a secret ballot? So they can put pressure on those who voted "no".

If you can think of another reason, I'm all ears. A secret ballot is key to a democratic process.

Oh the irony.

Card check bypasses the usual process if over 50% of employees vote to unionize. The votes are made public AFTER the union has come into being.

The reason for this is that under current procedure, the time it takes for a secret ballot vote gives employers, yes EMPLOYERS, time to spend company funds running anti union campaigns, intimidate their employees by threatening to close down the business, and firing union organizers. The last is technically illegal, but a recent study revealed that about 25% of emloyers fire workers that try to unionize.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=reports

The union has no impact on the card check vote. The WORKERS take the vote. If it's more than 50%, automatic union. If it's between 30 and 50%, then it goes to a secret ballot.

At no point are votes made public when the union has a chance to sway them.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 08:52 AM
You used words that imply violence, and I pointed out that no violence was reported.

They're at his house to imply violence. They do so with plausible deniability, but why do you think they went to his house and not his office?

I don't know if they'll show up at the girlfriends house, but i've had protestors outside my house (one of my family members is a politician) and really, it wasn't all that intimidating.

That's nice that you weren't intimidated. But plenty of people would be, and with good reason. Especially when death threats have, in fact, been circulating over this issue.

Protesting at personal residences is intended as a threat. The threat may be idle, and you may even recognize it as idle, but that's still what it is.

ZirconBlue
15th March 2011, 08:54 AM
Hmm, I wonder if he still lives in-district

Doesn't sound like it.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 08:56 AM
Does protesting outside someones house, or ringing the doorbell and talking to their wife make you a "thug"?

Yes, protesting at someone's house makes you a thug.

I had always assumed you had to do something violent.

Nope. A threat of violence is enough to merit the label as far as I'm concerned. And that's exactly what protesting at someone's house is. The threat may be implicit, but it's there.

Mooseman
15th March 2011, 09:05 AM
It seems funny to me, unless the girlfriend vote put him over the top.

stokes234
15th March 2011, 09:05 AM
They're at his house to imply violence.

Provide evidence.


They do so with plausible deniability, but why do you think they went to his house and not his office?

Maybe he wasn't at his office.


That's nice that you weren't intimidated. But plenty of people would be, and with good reason. Especially when death threats have, in fact, been circulating over this issue.

To this guy? By any of these protestors? If so, you have a case. If not, you don't have a case.

Protesting at personal residences is intended as a threat. The threat may be idle, and you may even recognize it as idle, but that's still what it is.

Provide evidence.

stokes234
15th March 2011, 09:08 AM
Nope. A threat of violence is enough to merit the label as far as I'm concerned. And that's exactly what protesting at someone's house is. The threat may be implicit, but it's there.

As above, provide evidence of an implied threat.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 09:08 AM
Please provide one iota of evidence that any threat of violence existed.

Voters going door to door with a recall petition in a district in Wisconsin who then travel to their representative's house to confront him is in no way violent. How many people were there? Were they shouting? What do you actually know about this event?

I tend to agree that going to someone's home isn't a good way to protest, but that's because it's obnoxious, not because there's any threat of violence.

The threat is the recall.

Frank Newgent
15th March 2011, 09:53 AM
Sounds to me like a game of sheepshead might break out.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 10:00 AM
Maybe he wasn't at his office.

Maybe he wasn't at his home. Oh, wait, he know he wasn't. But that didn't stop the protesters. So clearly, him not being somewhere wasn't the issue.

That's about the weakest excuse I've ever heard.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 10:03 AM
Please provide one iota of evidence that any threat of violence existed.

It's "we know where you live" writ large.

Oh, but wait, that's JUST a statement of fact, no possible implied threat at all in saying that then.

You've really bought into the "plausible" part of plausible deniability.

stokes234
15th March 2011, 10:05 AM
Maybe he wasn't at his home. Oh, wait, he know he wasn't. But that didn't stop the protesters. So clearly, him not being somewhere wasn't the issue.

That's about the weakest excuse I've ever heard.

Maybe they tried his office, he wasn't there, and decided to try what they thought was his home? And actually, him not being there probably did stop them - I can't imagine they're still there now, but we don't know. But what we do know is that you have claimed an implication of violence and managed to come up with a sum total of zero evidence to support your claim.

stokes234
15th March 2011, 10:06 AM
It's "we know where you live" writ large.

Oh, but wait, that's JUST a statement of fact, no possible implied threat at all in saying that then.

You've really bought into the "plausible" part of plausible deniability.

My electricity company knows where I live, and occasionally send round a man to "check up" on my electricity usage. Is this an implied threat of violence?

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 10:09 AM
Oh the irony.

Card check bypasses the usual process if over 50% of employees vote to unionize. The votes are made public AFTER the union has come into being.

The reason for this is that under current procedure, the time it takes for a secret ballot vote gives employers, yes EMPLOYERS, time to spend company funds running anti union campaigns, intimidate their employees by threatening to close down the business, and firing union organizers. The last is technically illegal, but a recent study revealed that about 25% of emloyers fire workers that try to unionize.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=reports

The union has no impact on the card check vote. The WORKERS take the vote. If it's more than 50%, automatic union. If it's between 30 and 50%, then it goes to a secret ballot.

At no point are votes made public when the union has a chance to sway them.

I've never seen liberal counter-points to card check, but if this is it then I'm not surprised it's been kept quiet.

Your basic argument is that the reason why card check is necessary is that secret ballots take too long and that gives employers a chance to fight unionization. But then you state that there is this immediate card check thang and the union has no chance to sway people. Either that is a done with a secret ballot (which takes as long as how its done now) or its not. And it, of course, it is not.

The union organizers know who has signed and who has not because they are the people that possess the "cards". They can continue to harass people until they sign it. There's no remedy once they bully enough people into signing it. A secret ballot keeps intimidation from having the final say. And that's a good thing.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 10:09 AM
My electricity company knows where I live, and occasionally send round a man to "check up" on my electricity usage. Is this an implied threat of violence?

You can't honestly be so stupid as to think those are comparable scenarios. So I can only presume you think I might be that stupid.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 10:11 AM
It's "we know where you live" writ large.

Oh, but wait, that's JUST a statement of fact, no possible implied threat at all in saying that then.

You've really bought into the "plausible" part of plausible deniability.

Right, because usually they live in secret. No one in America knows where their state senators live. Once elected, they move into Cheney's undisclosed location.

This is just pure projection on your part. You know if the roles were reversed, and some Baggers were going after a Democrat, protesting outside a house, said Baggers would show up with guns, wave signs that made allusions to "second amendment remedies" and otherwise use the very implication of violence that you're projecting here to intimidate their opponents.

Not everyone thinks like that. The police have thanked the protesters in Wisconsin for their peaceful and cooperative behavior, and there's no reason to think this incident was any different.

Once again, you're speaking out of pure ignorance. How big was this group? If it was half a dozen people with a petition, is that an implicit threat of violence?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 10:15 AM
The reason for this is that under current procedure, the time it takes for a secret ballot vote gives employers, yes EMPLOYERS, time to spend company funds running anti union campaigns
Can you explain exactly how a secret ballot takes longer than a ballot in which names will be revealed?

Card check bypasses the usual process if over 50% of employees vote to unionize.
Right, the non-secret vote. So when 3 of your pro-union coworkers get close and say "sign this card Bob" there's no potential at all for intimidation. Nope, none at all... :rolleyes:

Sorry, I trust that how people vote in secret is much more true than how they vote in public. Card check has no business in a democratic society.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 10:20 AM
I've never seen liberal counter-points to card check, but if this is it then I'm not surprised it's been kept quiet.

Your basic argument is that the reason why card check is necessary is that secret ballots take too long and that gives employers a chance to fight unionization. But then you state that there is this immediate card check thang and the union has no chance to sway people. Either that is a done with a secret ballot (which takes as long as how its done now) or its not. And it, of course, it is not.

Wow, you're confused on the process.

Here's how it works now:

If 30% of workers want a secret ballot election, then one is held. But the election is long and drawn out. What actually happens during this interval is that "employers routinely fire union supporters, intimidate workers, put the union supporters on awful shifts as a warning, hire unionbusting consultants, and so on, and so forth."

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=that_the_crypt_would_simply

All card check does is eliminate that election if more than 50% of workers want to unionize. After the unionization process occurs, NOT BEFORE, the votes are made public.


The union organizers know who has signed and who has not because they are the people that possess the "cards". They can continue to harass people until they sign it. There's no remedy once they bully enough people into signing it. A secret ballot keeps intimidation from having the final say. And that's a good thing.

This is just completely false. If a card-check union is established and 30% of the workers object, they can petition for a secret ballot election. Card Check through the Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate secret ballot elections. It simply allows workers to bypass that process if >50% want to unionize.

I'm shocked to learn that anti-union hysteria is based on completely false understanding of the process.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 10:23 AM
Right, because usually they live in secret. No one in America knows where their state senators live.

When you say, "we know where you live", the point is (obviously) not to inform the person of your factual knowledge of publicly available information. So... duh. If you think that in any way refutes what I'm saying, then you haven't been paying attention.

This is just pure projection on your part. You know if the roles were reversed, and some Baggers were going after a Democrat, protesting outside a house, said Baggers would show up with guns, wave signs that made allusions to "second amendment remedies" and otherwise use the very implication of violence that you're projecting here to intimidate their opponents.

If that happened, I'd condemn it. I would indeed consider it an implicit threat of violence to protest outside a democrat's house, and it would be even worse if the person openly carried a firearm. Has that happened? Not that I've heard of. The only protests I've been hearing about at people's homes has been from leftists, particularly union folks. Now, you're free to come up with examples of republicans, conservatives, tea party folks, or whomever protesting at homes, and I WILL condemn that. But your implication that I'm engaging in a double standard is simply false. If there's any projection going on here, it's yours, not mine.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 10:26 AM
Can you explain exactly how a secret ballot takes longer than a ballot in which names will be revealed?

First, there is no ballot when the names are revealed. You still don't understand the process.

If 30-50% want to unionize, it goes to a secret ballot vote. If more than 50% want to unionize, then they're unionized, no vote needed.

If, after unionization occurs, at least 30% of the workers are unsatisfied, they can petition for a secret ballot vote.

So there is nothing to compare and contrast. That's a figment of your imagination.

Second, it takes a long time because the elections go through the National Labor Relation Board process, which takes time. Card Check just eliminates this process which is used by employers to harrass and intimidate workers BEFORE they have union protection.


Right, the non-secret vote. So when 3 of your pro-union coworkers get close and say "sign this card Bob" there's no potential at all for intimidation. Nope, none at all... :rolleyes:

Sorry, I trust that how people vote in secret is much more true than how they vote in public. Card check has no business in a democratic society.

You'd have to actually undestand the process before you make such claims. If people are intimidating their employees into signing those cards, 30% of them can petition secret ballot elections. That's an adequate restraint on that kind of intimidation.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 10:32 AM
When you say, "we know where you live", the point is (obviously) not to inform the person of your factual knowledge of publicly available information. So... duh. If you think that in any way refutes what I'm saying, then you haven't been paying attention.

Again, this is pure fantasy. Do you not know where your state senator lives? They aren't hiding in secret.



If that happened, I'd condemn it. I would indeed consider it an implicit threat of violence to protest outside a democrat's house, and it would be even worse if the person openly carried a firearm. Has that happened? Not that I've heard of. The only protests I've been hearing about at people's homes has been from leftists, particularly union folks. Now, you're free to come up with examples of republicans, conservatives, tea party folks, or whomever protesting at homes, and I WILL condemn that. But your implication that I'm engaging in a double standard is simply false. If there's any projection going on here, it's yours, not mine.

Did you not get the "cutting gas lines" allusion earlier in the thread?

Law enforcement authorities are investigating the discovery of a cut propane gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Thomas Perriello’s (D-Va.) brother, whose address was targeted by tea party activists angry at the congressman’s vote for the health care bill.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34934.html

And the weapon carrying occured at the town hall events in the summer of insanity a year ago. Notice I presented my point as a hypothetical and did not claim that the Baggers were surrounding people's houses.

They've protested outside of congressional offices quite often, which, if intimidation is your reason, isn't that different from protesting outside a home:

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/87888032.html
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/staten_islander_planning_prote.html

Now, if you're peacefully protesting, an office is a good place to do it while someone's home is obnoxious. If you're threatening violence, either will do.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 10:36 AM
You'd have to actually undestand the process before you make such claims. If people are intimidating their employees into signing those cards, 30% of them can petition secret ballot elections. That's an adequate restraint on that kind of intimidation.
I understand the process quite well, thank you. You want a public vote (and you lie when you claim the voters aren't known, because they are) in lieu of a secret ballot. There's a reason we don't make laws by petition, and those same reasons are just as true, if not more so, in voting to unionize.

Ballots should be secret.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 10:39 AM
I understand the process quite well, thank you. You want a public vote (and you lie when you claim the voters aren't known, because they are) in lieu of a secret ballot. There's a reason we don't make laws by petition, and those same reasons are just as true, if not more so, in voting to unionize.

Ballots should be secret.

Oy. You say you understand it, then you evince total ignorance of the process.

Even if card check is allowed, employees can still have a secret ballot. It simply allows them to avoid one if they've already decided to unionize.

AND, if they decide to unionize and 3/10 workers are unhappy about it, they can still have a secret ballot vote.

You just want to preserve employers' ability to intimidate workers from unionizing.

stokes234
15th March 2011, 10:43 AM
You can't honestly be so stupid as to think those are comparable scenarios. So I can only presume you think I might be that stupid.

You claimed violence was implied. When pressed for evidence, you stated that the knowledge of where someone lives implies violence. When given another example of knowledge of where someone lives not implying violence, you said the two scenarios are different.

At no point have you backed up your statement. Show evidence that violence was implied.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 10:46 AM
Did you not get the "cutting gas lines" allusion earlier in the thread?

No, I didn't. I hadn't heard about that. That's criminal behavior, and it's completely unacceptable.

They've protested outside of congressional offices quite often, which, if intimidation is your reason, isn't that different from protesting outside a home:

It's very different. That's where protests about your job should happen: at your job. I have not, do not, and will not object to people protesting at any politician's office. But their home is different. That's where family live. That's where their children live. That's where they sleep at night. You are vulnerable in your home in a way that you simply aren't at your office. You cannot reasonably claim that the two are equivalent in terms of threats. They simply are not. I accept protests at the offices of politicians of any party. I condemn protests at the homes of politicians (or ceo's, or anyone) of any party as well. Such protests are not simply obnoxious, they are threatening.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 10:48 AM
I understand the process quite well, thank you. You want a public vote (and you lie when you claim the voters aren't known, because they are) in lieu of a secret ballot. There's a reason we don't make laws by petition, and those same reasons are just as true, if not more so, in voting to unionize.

Ballots should be secret.

But here you are, after claiming that the only possible explanation for the EFCA was to "intimidate" people into signing, arguing other possible explanations for the law, which include the ability of a majority of the workers to organize by signing a card and not requiring an election. Could there be any other POSSIBLE explanation for union organizers to want an easier way to establish a union other than the desire to intimidate and coerce, or do you stick to your delusional claim of mind reading, now that Tranewreck has given you additional information?

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 10:50 AM
You claimed violence was implied. When pressed for evidence, you stated that the knowledge of where someone lives implies violence.

No, I did not. The statement "we know where you live" is a message. It conveys information. And the information it conveys indicates more than simple possession of a particular fact. Can this rather basic concept really have eluded your grasp?

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 10:51 AM
Ziggurat clutches his pearls over people confronting their own representatives, but hand waves chaining people to the ceiling under "enhanced interrogation". Worrying about "those people" and their silly pain and suffering is for sissies, but Dog forbid a Teabagger feels put upon.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 10:51 AM
It's very different. That's where protests about your job should happen: at your job. I have not, do not, and will not object to people protesting at any politician's office. But their home is different. That's where family live. That's where their children live. That's where they sleep at night. You are vulnerable in your home in a way that you simply aren't at your office. You cannot reasonably claim that the two are equivalent in terms of threats. They simply are not. I accept protests at the offices of politicians of any party. I condemn protests at the homes of politicians (or ceo's, or anyone) of any party as well. Such protests are not simply obnoxious, they are threatening.

If your goal is to intimidate someone, show them that you can reach them, how is an office different than a house? In fact, I'd be more worried about people lurking outside my office just because it's on a busy street and it would be difficult to separate someone who means me harm from someone just going about their day.

I agree with you that protesting at someone's home isn't appropriate, but again, violence isn't inherent. Cindy Sheehan protested outside Bush's ranch in Crawford for a couple of years. No one thought that had anything to do with intimidation or violence.

It depends on the specifics. If you have a holstered gun and are talking about second amendment remedies or the group is being physically aggressive, then there's a threat of violence. Call the cops.

Groups of people outside their state senator's house, which once more, is not a secret location, isn't an act of intimidation by itself. Hell, growing up one of my good friend's mother was our state senator. Everyone knew where they lived, so?

It is, however, very, very obnoxious.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 10:52 AM
Could there be any other POSSIBLE explanation for union organizers to want an easier way to establish a union other than the desire to intimidate and coerce, or do you stick to your delusional claim of mind reading, now that Tranewreck has given you additional information?

I really don't care why they want it. Card Check will still enable intimidation whether or not that's its intent. And when intimidation is allowed, it will happen. And so Card Check should be opposed. No amount of good intention can rescue bad legislation from being bad.

DavidJames
15th March 2011, 10:53 AM
If that happened, I'd condemn it. I would indeed consider it an implicit threat of violence to protest outside a democrat's house, and it would be even worse if the person openly carried a firearm. Has that happened? Not that I've heard of. The only protests I've been hearing about at people's homes has been from leftists, particularly union folks. Now, you're free to come up with examples of republicans, conservatives, tea party folks, or whomever protesting at homes, and I WILL condemn that. But your implication that I'm engaging in a double standard is simply false. If there's any projection going on here, it's yours, not mine.Should I assume then that you feel protesting at abortion providers homes is also an implicit threat of violence?

LarianLeQuella
15th March 2011, 10:54 AM
Was anybody serving lutefisk?


That would be those rude Minesotans. Those Wisconsin protesters are much too polite. :p

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 10:58 AM
If your goal is to intimidate someone, show them that you can reach them, how is an office different than a house?

Again, you are vulnerable in your home in ways that you are not in your office. Your children live there. You sleep there. If you don't understand how that makes you inherently more vulnerable at home, I really don't know what else to say.

I agree with you that protesting at someone's home isn't appropriate, but again, violence isn't inherent. Cindy Sheehan protested outside Bush's ranch in Crawford for a couple of years. No one thought that had anything to do with intimidation or violence.

Bush has the Secret Service. Most people don't have any sort of security. That makes the comparison irrelevant.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 10:59 AM
Oy. You say you understand it, then you evince total ignorance of the process.
Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand the process. Or perhaps you think I'm a fool who can't understand the difference between a signed petition and a secret ballot.

Even if card check is allowed, employees can still have a secret ballot. It simply allows them to avoid one if they've already decided to unionize.
Nope, there is no such thing. You want a public vote to see if a secret ballot is allowed?

AND, if they decide to unionize and 3/10 workers are unhappy about it, they can still have a secret ballot vote.
And union thugs will know the names of every single one of them. And as we have seen in the OP, might even show up at their house to "talk to" them.

You just want to preserve employers' ability to intimidate workers from unionizing.
No one can intimidate with a secret ballot, not even employers. The sole purpose of card check is to introduce intimidation into a process to accomplish what democracy couldn't.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 11:00 AM
Should I assume then that you feel protesting at abortion providers homes is also an implicit threat of violence?

Hell yes. That's exactly what it is. And it, too, is reprehensible.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 11:00 AM
I really don't care why they want it. Card Check will still enable intimidation whether or not that's its intent. And when intimidation is allowed, it will happen. And so Card Check should be opposed. No amount of good intention can rescue bad legislation from being bad.

First of all, BS.

Second, employee intimidation is more of a concern than intimidation from employers? What a strange world you inhabit.

And finally, CARD CHECK DOES NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOTS.

Before card check, 30% of a workplace could request a secret ballot. After card check, 30% of a workplace will be able to request a secret ballot.

This intimidation nonsense is the fevered fantasy of union busters.

DavidJames
15th March 2011, 11:02 AM
Hell yes. That's exactly what it is. And it, too, is reprehensible.Thanks, while I disagree that such protests are not an implicit threat of violence, I agree they are not appropriate.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 11:04 AM
Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand the process. Or perhaps you think I'm a fool who can't understand the difference between a signed petition and a secret ballot.

You aren't following the discussion. Just saying the same wrong thing over and over.


Nope, there is no such thing. You want a public vote to see if a secret ballot is allowed?

That's not how it works. The 30% of workers signing on for a secret ballot vote are not made public. The Card Check vote is only made public AFTER 50% are gained to make sure there wasn't any fraud.

Even AFTER that, 30% of unnamed workers can petition for a secret ballot.


And union thugs will know the names of every single one of them. And as we have seen in the OP, might even show up at thier house to "talk to" them.

Nonsense. Pure, *********. 30% of unnamed workers can petition for a secret ballot. If the union loses that election, they're gone. Intimidation is meaningless.


No one can intimidate with a secret ballot, not even employers. The sole purpose of card check is to introduce intimidation into a process to accomplish what democracy couldn't.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. EVEN WITH CARD CHECK THERE CAN STILL BE A SECRET BALLOT.

What don't you understand about that? Why are you having so much trouble.

The sole purpose of card check is to streamline union certification to eliminate employers' ability to harass and intimidate workers out of unionizing.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 11:07 AM
But here you are, after claiming that the only possible explanation for the EFCA was to "intimidate" people into signing, arguing other possible explanations for the law, which include the ability of a majority of the workers to organize by signing a card and not requiring an election.
This is the intimidation I'm talking about. Card check is now the vote, and it is a very public one, with your name attached.

Could there be any other POSSIBLE explanation for union organizers to want an easier way to establish a union other than the desire to intimidate and coerce, or do you stick to your delusional claim of mind reading, now that Tranewreck has given you additional information?
I can't think of a single good reason to eliminate the secret ballot, can you?

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 11:07 AM
First of all, BS.

First of all, that's not an argument. Secondly, everything else you said in that post was a strawman. I made NONE of the claims you argued against.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 11:11 AM
EVEN WITH CARD CHECK THERE CAN STILL BE A SECRET BALLOT.

There's the rub. Yes, secret ballots can still happen. But if unions intimidate workers enough, there won't be. Card check gives them both a motive and a means to do exactly that. So "can" isn't good enough.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 11:15 AM
There's the rub. Yes, secret ballots can still happen. But if unions intimidate workers enough, there won't be. Card check gives them both a motive and a means to do exactly that. So "can" isn't good enough.

They can't. If the Unions intimidate workers, 100% sign the card check to get them off their back. Then 30% ask for a secret ballot, those 30% aren't revealed, it goes to an election, end of story.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 11:16 AM
You aren't following the discussion. Just saying the same wrong thing over and over.
I'm following it quite well.

That's not how it works. The 30% of workers signing on for a secret ballot vote are not made public. The Card Check vote is only made public AFTER 50% are gained to make sure there wasn't any fraud.

Even AFTER that, 30% of unnamed workers can petition for a secret ballot.
TW, the union knows every single name on the petitions. That's the issue, not that Alice who waitresses down the street from the plant will know the identities after the fact.

Nonsense. Pure, *********. 30% of unnamed workers can petition for a secret ballot. If the union loses that election, they're gone. Intimidation is meaningless.
Tell me how a worker signs a petition anonymously again?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. EVEN WITH CARD CHECK THERE CAN STILL BE A SECRET BALLOT.
Only after a public vote for such...

What don't you understand about that? Why are you having so much trouble.

The sole purpose of card check is to streamline union certification to eliminate employers' ability to harass and intimidate workers out of unionizing.
No, the sole purpose of card check is to get through intimidation what couldn't be had via a secret ballot.

Are you still claiming employers can somehow intimidate people to vote a certain way on a secret ballot?

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 11:17 AM
First of all, that's not an argument. Secondly, everything else you said in that post was a strawman. I made NONE of the claims you argued against.

It's BS. It will not enable intimidation, it will eliminate the main source of employers' ability to intimidate.

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 11:19 AM
It's BS. It will not enable intimidation, it will eliminate the main source of employers' ability to intimidate.

The decision to unionize becomes an open petition! That's a huge advantage to those who will intimidate.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 11:19 AM
They can't. If the Unions intimidate workers, 100% sign the card check to get them off their back. Then 30% ask for a secret ballot, those 30% aren't revealed, it goes to an election, end of story.
Why not just have a secret vote every single time?

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 11:20 AM
This is the intimidation I'm talking about. Card check is now the vote, and it is a very public one, with your name attached.


I can't think of a single good reason to eliminate the secret ballot, can you?

As has been pointed out to you many times, it doesn't eliminate them. At all.

From the law:

(e) [Secret ballot; limitation of elections] (1) Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and labor organization made pursuant to section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title], of a petition alleging they desire that such authorization be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer.

(2) No election shall be conducted pursuant to this subsection in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve- month period, a valid election shall have been held.


Ok? You're wrong. It doesn't "eliminate secret ballots". That's just false, so why cling to it?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 11:22 AM
It's BS. It will not enable intimidation, it will eliminate the main source of employers' ability to intimidate.
I'm dying to hear how employers can intimidate via a secret ballot.

You do realize that the sole purpose of secret ballots of all kinds are to prevent any untoward influences? Yet somehow employers found a way? Tell me another load of bovine excrement.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 11:25 AM
As has been pointed out to you many times, it doesn't eliminate them. At all.

From the law:



Ok? You're wrong. It doesn't "eliminate secret ballots". That's just false, so why cling to it?
Try to keep up, I've already addressed this. Such a system is wide open to intimidation.

You, OTOH, still can't think of a single good reason not to have a secret ballot in every single case, can you?

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 11:26 AM
As has been pointed out to you many times, it doesn't eliminate them. At all.

From the law:



Ok? You're wrong. It doesn't "eliminate secret ballots". That's just false, so why cling to it?

Yes, with the new bill it will take, once-again, open petition with 30% of all employees to get a secret ballot. If the union intimidated the employees into signing the original petition to unionize, don't you think they will intimidate people to not sign the secret ballot petition? Unions are also organized to get people to sign petitions. They have leaders, employees and members who volunteer. How much organization does the side that doesn't want to unionize have? None!

You say it's still in the law, but it will never, EVER, be invoked.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 11:29 AM
Try to keep up, I've already addressed this. Such a system is wide open to intimidation.

You, OTOH, still can't think of a single good reason not to have a secret ballot in every single case, can you?

You should not talk about keeping up. You said it "eliminated" secret ballots? Is this true or false? Take a deep breath and admit you got that wrong so we can have a rational discussion.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 11:30 AM
Yes, with the new bill it will take, once-again, open petition with 30% of all employees to get a secret ballot. If the union intimidated the employees into signing the original petition to unionize, don't you think they will intimidate people to not sign the secret ballot petition? Unions are also organized to get people to sign petitions. They have leaders, employees and members who volunteer. How much organization does the side that doesn't want to unionize have? None!

You say it's still in the law, but it will never, EVER, be invoked.

I don't "say" it's in the law. It's in the law. Wildcat claimed secret ballots had been abolished. Was he right? Were they abolished?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 11:37 AM
You should not talk about keeping up. You said it "eliminated" secret ballots? Is this true or false? Take a deep breath and admit you got that wrong so we can have a rational discussion.
It's absolutely true in cases where the union can intimidate 50% of the employees to sign the petition.

You're happy with that possibility? I'm not.

And we know the union gets people to sign the card who really don't want to unionize, because they often lose the secret ballot vote when it happens despite having had more than 50% of the workers sign the card. This is exactly why they're pushing this bill - because they want to force employees to unionize who would never vote to unionize in a secret ballot. Because as it turns out, many employees sign the card just to get the pro-union guys off their back, not because they want to be part of a union.

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 11:37 AM
I don't "say" it's in the law. It's in the law. Wildcat claimed secret ballots had been abolished. Was he right? Were they abolished?

We could have a new tax-rate for people making more than $10^99/year or more. AND NO ONE WILL EVER PAY IT.

Do you understand this concept?

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 11:40 AM
We could have a new tax-rate for people making more than $10^99/year or more. AND NO ONE WILL EVER PAY IT.

Do you understand this concept?

I understand your claim. But he never said "in reality, I don't believe this will ever happen, and here's why". He claimed it had been "eliminated" by the law. Was he right?

Yes or no?

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 11:43 AM
I understand your claim. But he never said "in reality, I don't believe this will ever happen, and here's why". He claimed it had been "eliminated" by the law. Was he right?

Yes or no?

Yes. The conditions can never, ever, be fulfilled for a major corporation. Or even a mid to small corporation for that matter.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 11:50 AM
I'm following it quite well.


TW, the union knows every single name on the petitions. That's the issue, not that Alice who waitresses down the street from the plant will know the identities after the fact.

This is just silliness. If the union has the name of the 30% who sign the petition after the union has formed, how are they going to intimidate a secret ballot vote? The person just says, "Hey, I didn't vote against you."

I've given you studies that show employer intimidation, I'm sure you can document all the examples on your side.


Tell me how a worker signs a petition anonymously again?

The National Labor Relations Board certifies the signatures on the petition, not the union, not the employer. If 30% get together and send in the petition, the union doesn't have access to that.

Even if they did have access to that information, they still can't determine how people vote on a secret ballot. Intimidating employees who can then vote in secret is not a good way to stay certified.


Only after a public vote for such...

False.


No, the sole purpose of card check is to get through intimidation what couldn't be had via a secret ballot.

Are you still claiming employers can somehow intimidate people to vote a certain way on a secret ballot?

Isn't that the purpose of the secret ballot?

"Hey, I'm going to kick your ass for the way you voted on the secret ballot."
"I voted for you."
...

And for the 50th time, the reason for card check is to avoid the elaborate election process where it isn't needed making it easier to form unions and inhibiting employers' ability to intimidate and harass.

I've documented that, but, shockingly, it's more information you've willfully avoided reading.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 11:52 AM
I'm dying to hear how employers can intimidate via a secret ballot.

You do realize that the sole purpose of secret ballots of all kinds are to prevent any untoward influences? Yet somehow employers found a way? Tell me another load of bovine excrement.

Employers intimidate in the run up to the secret ballot election. They threaten workers by declaring pay cuts, layoffs, and other consequences if the union is voted in. They make them attend mandatory anti-union meetings and hire anti-union consultants to do the intimidation.

There's only so much a union can do even after it's formed, and since, as I documented, 25% of employers fire workers for forming unions, that intimidation is very real.

As opposed to these fantasy scenarios you keep spewing up.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 11:54 AM
The decision to unionize becomes an open petition! That's a huge advantage to those who will intimidate.

Except for the part about secret ballots still being available.

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 11:59 AM
Except for the part about secret ballots still being available.

Except for the part where the hurdle to get secret ballots are all-but impossible leap.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 11:59 AM
Except for the part where the hurdle to get secret ballots are all-but impossible leap.

No it isn't. It hasn't changed. 30% of the workforce.

That's what it is now.

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 12:03 PM
No it isn't. It hasn't changed. 30% of the workforce.

That's what it is now.

Except it's the OTHERSIDE of the fence. It's the non-union, non-organized workers that have to get 30% of the employees on a petition all the while fighting the unions. The people who want the non-union will never, ever, manage that.

I've already been over this.

johnny karate
15th March 2011, 12:03 PM
So if I'm following along here... we've moved the standard of evidence from "explicit statements from Republicans to that effect" in order to prove their union-busting intentions, to "because I said so" in order to prove the violent intentions of the protesters of this particular Republican lawmaker?

I must admit, I kind of like the idea of evidence only being required from people with whom I disagree. How do I get in on this racket?

stokes234
15th March 2011, 12:07 PM
No, I did not. The statement "we know where you live" is a message. It conveys information. And the information it conveys indicates more than simple possession of a particular fact. Can this rather basic concept really have eluded your grasp?

Yes, it does. It conveys the information that the location of your house is known by people. But it does not convey the information that people will act upon this information in a violent way - you have added that in yourself, and yet again provided nothing to back it up. Many people know where I live, and none of them wish me harm. Unless you can show that the protestors intended to intimidate (not claim over and over - show), all you're doing is throwing around baseless accusations.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 12:08 PM
Except it's the OTHERSIDE of the fence. It's the non-union, non-organized workers that have to get 30% of the employees on a petition all the while fighting the unions. The people who want the non-union will never, ever, manage that.

I've already been over this.

Nonsense. This is pure fantasy. Why wouldn't they be able to manage it? They manage it now with employers doing everything they can to intimidate workers from forming unions. Card Check just makes it easier.

If 30% of the workforce doesn't oppose the union, then the union should be there. They don't have to tell anyone in the union what they're doing, they just have to submit signatures to the National Labor Relations Board. If a sizeable percentage of the workforce was upset with the card check, it could happen simultaneously.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 12:24 PM
Yes. The conditions can never, ever, be fulfilled for a major corporation. Or even a mid to small corporation for that matter.

So your answer that yes, the bill outlaws, eliminates, or otherwise abolishes something that is clearly allowed by the bill, and this opinion is based on nothing more than your assertion that no major corporation can get 30% of its employees to sign a petition to hold an election?

And that this failure is 100% NOT the result of said employees being satisfied with their new union status, but can ONLY be the result of intimidation? And you have exactly what evidence for any of this?

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 12:31 PM
So your answer that yes, the bill outlaws, eliminates, or otherwise abolishes something that is clearly allowed by the law

It creates a standard that is impossible to meet. You say it's there, and sure enough it is, but that doesn't mean it will ever be used. Do you advocate going back to segregation? It created a situation that was "separate but equal". The law said it was equal! But of course is wasn't, was it?

I've been over this. I'm done with it. Go bash your head against someone in the CT forum if you want to keep asking the same question over and over again and ignoring the answers.

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 12:32 PM
Nonsense. This is pure fantasy. Why wouldn't they be able to manage it? They manage it now with employers doing everything they can to intimidate workers from forming unions. Card Check just makes it easier.

If 30% of the workforce doesn't oppose the union, then the union should be there. They don't have to tell anyone in the union what they're doing, they just have to submit signatures to the National Labor Relations Board. If a sizeable percentage of the workforce was upset with the card check, it could happen simultaneously.

Why not just submit 30%+ of people who want to change the status quo and then have a secret ballot where no one can interfere?:boggled:

DavidJames
15th March 2011, 12:37 PM
It creates a standard that is impossible to meet. You say it's there, and sure enough it is, but that doesn't mean it will ever be used. Do you advocate going back to segregation? It created a situation that was "separate but equal". The law said it was equal! But of course is wasn't, was it?

I've been over this. I'm done with it. Go bash your head against someone in the CT forum if you want to keep asking the same question over and over again and ignoring the answers.You've been presented evidence and decide you don't like it.

Now that is something I see all the time on the CT forum.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 12:39 PM
Why not just submit 30%+ of people who want to change the status quo and then have a secret ballot where no one can interfere?:boggled:

Around and around we go.

Because the time lapse between the submition of the petition and the secret ballot election allows employers a chance to intimidate and harass employees and generally run anti-union campaigns.

All card check does is make the union automatically form if that initial petition has more than 50% of the workers signed on. Notice that if 50+% are willing to sign on publicly, that means the secret ballot would return a result in favor of unionization. Why, in essence, would you force two elections if the workers are satisfied from the beginning?

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 12:40 PM
It creates a standard that is impossible to meet. You say it's there, and sure enough it is, but that doesn't mean it will ever be used.

Nor does it mean it will never be used. Since it's there in the law, as you now admit, what evidence do you have that it will never be used? Since the mere existence of the provision is evidence enough that it could be used.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 12:49 PM
All card check does is make the union automatically form if that initial petition has more than 50% of the workers signed on. Notice that if 50+% are willing to sign on publicly, that means the secret ballot would return a result in favor of unionization.

Uh, no. No, it doesn't. That's the whole point of the objection. If employers intimidate workers and unions don't, then a secret ballot would likely return a higher portion of pro-union votes than public petition. But if unions intimidate workers and the employer doesn't, then the situation will be reversed, and a secret ballot would give a lower return than the public petition. A secret ballot protects workers against BOTH employers AND unions. In making this claim that the public vote is necessarily lower than a secret ballot would be, you're basically saying that it's impossible for unions to intimidate workers. That is... counterfactual.

Why, in essence, would you force two elections if the workers are satisfied from the beginning?

Because only the secret ballot allows people to vote their conscience without being retaliated against. By either the employer OR the union. So only the secret ballot is a reliable gauge of people's true opinions. Why is that not obvious to you?

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 12:54 PM
Uh, no. No, it doesn't. That's the whole point of the objection. If employers intimidate workers and unions don't, then a secret ballot would likely return a higher portion of pro-union votes than public petition. But if unions intimidate workers and the employer doesn't, then the situation will be reversed, and a secret ballot would give a lower return than the public petition. A secret ballot protects workers against BOTH employers AND unions. In making this claim that the public vote is necessarily lower than a secret ballot would be, you're basically saying that it's impossible for unions to intimidate workers. That is... counterfactual.

Again, you're failing to understand the procedure.

Right now, if 30% of employees sign a petition, the NLRB sets up a secret ballot election. If >50% vote in favor of the election, they have an election.

Card Check would simply cause the union to come into being AUTOMATICALLY if that first petition contained >50% of the worker's signatures. That's it. The later election is skipped, but the procedure is exactly the same as it is now. Nothing changes.

And please explain how a union is going to intimidate people into signing that initial petition if it doesn't exist.



Because only the secret ballot allows people to vote their conscience without being retaliated against. By either the employer OR the union. So only the secret ballot is a reliable gauge of people's true opinions. Why is that not obvious to you?

If >50% are willing to publicly support the union, there's no need for a secret ballot election. If workers are uncomfortable and want a secret ballot, they can have one. What's the problem?

leftysergeant
15th March 2011, 12:56 PM
You need to be abe to verify that a significan number of empoyees are even interested before you hold an election anyway.

The card check pre-verifies that an election is needed.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 01:10 PM
Again, you're failing to understand the procedure.

Right now, if 30% of employees sign a petition, the NLRB sets up a secret ballot election. If >50% vote in favor of the election, they have an election.

Card Check would simply cause the union to come into being AUTOMATICALLY if that first petition contained >50% of the worker's signatures. That's it. The later election is skipped, but the procedure is exactly the same as it is now. Nothing changes.

How on earth can you say with a straight face that nothing changes when the unions can skip the secret ballot? If they can intimidate 50% of the workers into signing the cards (which are not secret), then no secret ballot gets used. You made the claim that the secret ballot would necessarily be higher than the public petition. I pointed out that this was wrong. The reasons it's wrong are obvious. The possible consequences of it being wrong are obvious as well: it's possible for a union to form even if less than 50% of the workers actually want it. You say that changes nothing. But it does, as I've just explained. You cannot actually counter my point that your baseline assumption that the secret ballot would always return a higher vote than the public petition is simply wrong.

And hell, even if we take you at your word, your position is still nonsensical. After all, if nothing changes, why enact the law at all? You cannot seriously expect us to believe that unions are fighting so hard for card check because they want to remove redundancy in the election process. Procedural efficiency has never been a rallying call, and it sure as hell isn't one now.

And please explain how a union is going to intimidate people into signing that initial petition if it doesn't exist.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Union organizers from existing unions can do the intimidating. Is that really not obvious?

If >50% are willing to publicly support the union, there's no need for a secret ballot election.

You keep saying that, but it only makes sense if you assume that union intimidation cannot occur. But that's simply false. And your above reason for why it's false is simply laughable.

If workers are uncomfortable and want a secret ballot, they can have one.

If they can gather the required 30%. But if they're being intimidated, who among them is going to risk trying to do that? Why shouldn't a secret ballot be used every time?

A Laughing Baby
15th March 2011, 01:15 PM
I think that in any case, it's always (at the very least) rude and over the line to protest at someone's home. The only exception I could ever find acceptable would be if someone decided to avoid their place of work for weeks or months on end to be protested there, or if they held a business event at their home which would be protested.

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 01:46 PM
How on earth can you say with a straight face that nothing changes when the unions can skip the secret ballot? If they can intimidate 50% of the workers into signing the cards (which are not secret), then no secret ballot gets used. You made the claim that the secret ballot would necessarily be higher than the public petition. I pointed out that this was wrong. The reasons it's wrong are obvious. The possible consequences of it being wrong are obvious as well: it's possible for a union to form even if less than 50% of the workers actually want it. You say that changes nothing. But it does, as I've just explained. You cannot actually counter my point that your baseline assumption that the secret ballot would always return a higher vote than the public petition is simply wrong.

As the union is running around and intimidating people, 30% can submit a petition to the NLRB that the union never gets to know about. This trumps the card check and there's a secret ballot.

But this is what I love: give me some example of this sort of union intimidation occuring. This sort of thing gets dealt with so swiftly by management and law enforcement. It just isn't a problem.


And hell, even if we take you at your word, your position is still nonsensical. After all, if nothing changes, why enact the law at all? You cannot seriously expect us to believe that unions are fighting so hard for card check because they want to remove redundancy in the election process. Procedural efficiency has never been a rallying call, and it sure as hell isn't one now.

I've explained this 10 times. It does make a significant change: if >50% sign the initial petition, the union automatically forms. THis eliminates the time lag that employers use to run anti-union campaigns. Unlike your fantasy about union "thugs" intimidating people, this is a persistent problem:

In the last two decades, private-sector employer opposition to workers seeking their legal right to union representation has intensified. Compared to the 1990s, employers are more than twice as likely to use 10 or more tactics in their anti-union campaigns, with a greater focus on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity.

It has become standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for supporting a union. An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:

63%of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
34% of employers fire workers.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications/general/no-holds-barred-the-intensification-of-employer-opposition-to-organizing-20090520-758-116-116.html

Card check is meant to curtail ACTUAL harassment and ACTUAL intimidation, as opposed to this fantasy nonsense you're babbling about.


You have GOT to be kidding me. Union organizers from existing unions can do the intimidating. Is that really not obvious?

And there's no way for poor wittle corporate America to stand up against this...

Here's all that happens:

But even the principle behind the argument is a fraud. The obvious point is that companies don't allow secret ballots for electing managers. But the real fraud is that union workers have plenty of secret ballots under the Employee Free Choice Act:

•They elect union leaders by secret ballot;
•They vote on whether to authorize strike or other work actions by secret ballot;
•They approve union contracts by secret ballot
But without a union in the first place, most workers never see any ballot at all on their work conditions:


Let's be clear what happens when a majority of workers sign cards asking for a union. The company then has to meet with union representatives to discuss work conditions. That's pretty much it. After the union comes in, there are lots of discussions, debates and, yes, secret ballots by the members on all sorts of things even before a union contract can be negotiated and implemented.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/03/01/labor_law_and_saving_the_secre/



You keep saying that, but it only makes sense if you assume that union intimidation cannot occur. But that's simply false. And your above reason for why it's false is simply laughable.

Please, you don't understand the law, you don't understand the facts (as evidenced by your continual failure to factually substantiate this idiocy about union intimidation), and so you're resorting to hollow bluster.

The workers aren't unionized at that point. If they go to management and say, "These union folks are trying to intimidate me into signing their petition," what do you think will happen?

It's just amazing what a fantasy world you live in. Management and employers have such a massive power advantage over unions and yet the mere chance of union "intimidation" is so terrifying that you're willing to ignore all the evidence for actual employer intimidation. Fascinating.



If they can gather the required 30%. But if they're being intimidated, who among them is going to risk trying to do that? Why shouldn't a secret ballot be used every time?

Because 1) they can go to management; 2) they can do it simultaneously with the union forming; 3) they can submit evidence of intimidation to police and other law enforcement officials; 4) they can sign the petition, send it to the NLRB and never tell the union about it.

Is there currently a problem with rogue unions going around and intimidating workers into submitting petitions to the NLRB? Do you have any evidence that during the lull between the petition and the secret ballot election these outside unions are intimidating workers? Do you have evidence for anything or is this just paranoia?

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 02:15 PM
Around and around we go.

Because the time lapse between the submition of the petition and the secret ballot election allows employers a chance to intimidate and harass employees and generally run anti-union campaigns.

All card check does is make the union automatically form if that initial petition has more than 50% of the workers signed on. Notice that if 50+% are willing to sign on publicly, that means the secret ballot would return a result in favor of unionization. Why, in essence, would you force two elections if the workers are satisfied from the beginning?

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem isn't that there is a secret ballot, it's that (you claim) it takes too long between the initial petition and the secret ballot.

How about passing laws that speed up the time between the initial petition and the secret ballot as an alternative?

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 02:28 PM
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem isn't that there is a secret ballot, it's that (you claim) it takes too long between the initial petition and the secret ballot.

How about passing laws that speed up the time between the initial petition and the secret ballot as an alternative?

Look, the problem is employer intimidation of union formation. It's been getting consistently worse over the past few decades.

One solution to that problem is Card Check. I think that it's better than the statuts quo, but if someone has a plan that serves the same purpose but maintains more secrecy, I'm all for it.

Card check also eliminates the added cost in providing a secret ballot election when the vote has, in essence, already been taken. That's by far a secondary concern, so as I said, if the right to unionize can be made available and employer intimidation can be inhibited, I have no real problem with further steps that inhibit potential intimidation from unions (though that really isn't a problem). As long as we're actually stopping union-based crime and not using the pretext of non-existent union-based intimidation to squash the ability of unions to form.

Frank Newgent
15th March 2011, 02:30 PM
As long as we're actually stopping union-based crime and not using the pretext of non-existent union-based intimidation to squash the ability of unions to form.


Well that's no fun.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 02:30 PM
As the union is running around and intimidating people, 30% can submit a petition to the NLRB that the union never gets to know about. This trumps the card check and there's a secret ballot.

That's only if the 30% of employees already know who each other are. That's a completely unrealistic scenario. What's actually going to happen if someone tries to collect such a petition is that whoever is collecting the signatures has to ask people whose opinion they don't know, and that will likely include union supporters who inform the union. The idea that you can keep this secret from the union is a rather fanciful notion.

But this is what I love: give me some example of this sort of union intimidation occuring. This sort of thing gets dealt with so swiftly by management and law enforcement. It just isn't a problem.

The fact that law enforcement and employers will try to act against intimidation does not mean it doesn't happen, and it does not mean it isn't a problem. It does happen, and it is a problem. Hell, it's not just intimidation. Actual union violence happens as well, including murder, such as the killing of Eddie York. So go on, tell York's widow and children that I'm just making **** up.

I've explained this 10 times. It does make a significant change

So your statement that it changes nothing was just bull ****. Good to know.

Card check is meant to curtail ACTUAL harassment and ACTUAL intimidation, as opposed to this fantasy nonsense you're babbling about.

What it's meant to do isn't what I care about. What I care about is what it will actually do. And what it will actually do is enable union intimidation and harassment of workers.

And there's no way for poor wittle corporate America to stand up against this...

It's not poor wittle corporate America I'm concerned about. Indeed, they can stand up to unions. Individual workers... not so much.

Please, you don't understand the law, you don't understand the facts (as evidenced by your continual failure to factually substantiate this idiocy about union intimidation), and so you're resorting to hollow bluster.

You're accusing me of hollow bluster, after having responded to one of my post with a post that contained nothing but strawmen? Yeah, sure, TW. Sure.

Is there currently a problem with rogue unions going around and intimidating workers into submitting petitions to the NLRB?

Why would there be when that won't help them, since they still MUST go through the secret ballot process? But you want to eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot, thereby giving them an incentive to do exactly that?

Do you have any evidence that during the lull between the petition and the secret ballot election these outside unions are intimidating workers?

Why would I provide evidence for something I never claimed? Again, we find that you are incapable of arguing without introducing straw men. The whole point of a secret ballot is that it prevents intimidation from being successful. Unions aren't going to try to intimidate workers when it won't work.

But with Card Check, the unions can retaliate against you for not signing the card. And then they can skip the secret ballot completely. Intimidation would become a successful strategy under card check. Your ONLY defense of this arrangement is that union intimidation doesn't happen. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. It does happen. And it will happen a lot more if you give the unions another motive and a mechanism for doing so.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:06 PM
This is just silliness. If the union has the name of the 30% who sign the petition after the union has formed, how are they going to intimidate a secret ballot vote? The person just says, "Hey, I didn't vote against you."
How do you sign a petition anonymously again? And why should the supporters of the status quo have to take affirmative action to prevent unionization?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:09 PM
This And for the 50th time, the reason for card check is to avoid the elaborate election process where it isn't needed making it easier to form unions and inhibiting employers' ability to intimidate and harass.

I've documented that, but, shockingly, it's more information you've willfully avoided reading.
I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that corporations have the amazing ability to intimidate workers to vote a certain way on a secret ballot.

It's cute the way you dance around the issue and all, but if I wanted to see dancing I'd go to a club.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:12 PM
The National Labor Relations Board certifies the signatures on the petition, not the union, not the employer. If 30% get together and send in the petition, the union doesn't have access to that.
You're going to organize 30% of the work force anonymously, without the other 70% finding out about it?

Surely you realize this is impossible, yes?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:17 PM
Employers intimidate in the run up to the secret ballot election. They threaten workers by declaring pay cuts, layoffs, and other consequences if the union is voted in. They make them attend mandatory anti-union meetings and hire anti-union consultants to do the intimidation.
How do they intimidate them in the voting booth? This is your claim.

Anyone could say "oh yeah boss, I ain't voting for no union" and then vote "yes" in the secret ballot. Just like in many cases they sign the card and then vote "no" in secret. Which is really why the union wants card check to replace the secret vote.

Because let's face it, the only way to intimidate a voter is by threatening to hold him accountable for his vote. And without a name to attach to a vote, such accountability is impossible. Do you disagree?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:20 PM
Nonsense. This is pure fantasy. Why wouldn't they be able to manage it? They manage it now with employers doing everything they can to intimidate workers from forming unions. Card Check just makes it easier.
Yes, when you can intimidate potential voters it gets much easier.

If 30% of the workforce doesn't oppose the union, then the union should be there. They don't have to tell anyone in the union what they're doing, they just have to submit signatures to the National Labor Relations Board. If a sizeable percentage of the workforce was upset with the card check, it could happen simultaneously.
Tell me again how you organize 30% of the workforce without the other 70% noticing?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:23 PM
Because only the secret ballot allows people to vote their conscience without being retaliated against. By either the employer OR the union. So only the secret ballot is a reliable gauge of people's true opinions. Why is that not obvious to you?
It astonishes me that anyone can actually argue against this point.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 03:34 PM
How do you sign a petition anonymously again? And why should the supporters of the status quo have to take affirmative action to prevent unionization?

I thought he'd answered that over and over. The petition goes to the NLRB, not the union or the employer. The NLRB does not disclose the list to either party. Is that not the definition of anonymous, as far as "intimidation" is concerned?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:36 PM
As the union is running around and intimidating people, 30% can submit a petition
So you have to organize 30% of your fellow workers while under union intimidation?

You really don't see the problem here?

Metullus
15th March 2011, 03:37 PM
I thought he'd answered that over and over. The petition goes to the NLRB, not the union or the employer. The NLRB does not disclose the list to either party. Is that not the definition of anonymous, as far as "intimidation" is concerned?Except that first one needs to circulate amongst his fellows asking for their signatures on the petition. This cannot be done anonymously...

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:39 PM
How about passing laws that speed up the time between the initial petition and the secret ballot as an alternative?
Because the goal here is for unions to grow via intimidation, since persuasion hasn't worked out so well for them in the last 30 years. That's why the card check provision is so sacrosanct.

Frank Newgent
15th March 2011, 03:43 PM
Because the goal here is for unions to grow via intimidation.


That is contrary to my (limited) experience with unions. I am curious as to why you believe this.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 03:46 PM
Except that first one needs to circulate amongst his fellows asking for their signatures on the petition. This cannot be done anonymously...

Really? A stack of blank cards and a locked box won't do? Private meetings in the office with management? It's not that hard to envision a way for an employer to get his employees to fill out a card. My wife joined a union at a time when everyone was being intimidated not to form one, and everyone filled out cards on the downlow. If it can be done one way, why not the other?

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 03:48 PM
I thought he'd answered that over and over. The petition goes to the NLRB, not the union or the employer.

And I've already answered that. The union doesn't need to find out from the NLRB. They can find out from an employee.

Is that not the definition of anonymous, as far as "intimidation" is concerned?

Not even close.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 03:48 PM
That is contrary to my (limited) experience with unions. I am curious as to why you believe this.

My wife's two unions certainly intimidated her into health benefits and a pension. She resented the higher wages and security and cursed them when they got her thousands in back pay.

And then they sent the thugs to get her into a 401k. That stung.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 03:55 PM
That is contrary to my (limited) experience with unions. I am curious as to why you believe this.
Because there's no other reason for the card check provision that makes any sense. At least to me. ;)

Do you think secret unionization ballots are more accurate, less accurate, or about the same as a ballot that has your name attached?

quixotecoyote
15th March 2011, 04:00 PM
Test my understanding.

As I understand it

Status quo:



Employees sign their names on certificates
Send them in to a non-employer, non-union, governmental third party for counting.
If 30% or more asked for a union, they have a secret ballot.
If more than 50% then vote union, they get a union.


The change (new rule in italics):


Employees sign their names on certificates
Send them in to a non-employer, non-union, governmental third party for counting.
If more than 50% asked for a union, they get a union and the names are then revealed.
If 30% or more asked for a union, they have a secret ballot.
If more than 50% of the voters then vote union, they get a union.


If I'm wrong, please cite me something that shows me where.

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 04:02 PM
Really? A stack of blank cards and a locked box won't do? Private meetings in the office with management? It's not that hard to envision a way for an employer to get his employees to fill out a card. My wife joined a union at a time when everyone was being intimidated not to form one, and everyone filled out cards on the downlow. If it can be done one way, why not the other?

So in other words, intimidation doesn't work if they don't know your true intent. Sounds like a perfect argument for secret ballots.

Oh, wait....

Ziggurat
15th March 2011, 04:05 PM
If more than 50% asked for a union, they get a union and the names are then revealed.

The unions can go around distributing and collecting the cards. That means that the union knows who has signed the cards from the start. And employees know that unions know who signed the cards and who didn't.

quixotecoyote
15th March 2011, 04:08 PM
The unions can go around distributing and collecting the cards. That means that the union knows who has signed the cards from the start. And employees know that unions know who signed the cards and who didn't.

Is that the way it works? That unions can look at and see who signed cards asking for a union and thus can go harass people who haven't signed cards in favor until they have 50% and then send them in?

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 04:14 PM
Is that the way it works? That unions can look at and see who signed cards asking for a union and thus can go harass people who haven't signed cards in favor until they have 50% and then send them in?

Both times my wife joined and the one time I joined, neither of us were ever directly contacted by the union nor were we pressured or even spoken to by other members. Perhaps some evidence of thuggery would be in order?

quixotecoyote
15th March 2011, 04:18 PM
Both times my wife joined and the one time I joined, neither of us were ever directly contacted by the union nor were we pressured or even spoken to by other members. Perhaps some evidence of thuggery would be in order?

Or even evidence of how the process works. I'm not taking a position. I mean, my bias is pro-union, and I'll own that up front, but the process should minimize intimidation options from either side.

So far we have actual evidence of employer intimidation, and only speculation that the proposed fix might possibly be a process that unions might use to intimidate.

First I need to know enough about the proposed change to see if its feasible for unions to intimidate.

johnny karate
15th March 2011, 04:23 PM
Perhaps some evidence of thuggery would be in order?

Clearly you're not paying attention to the rules.

Only those who argue in favor of unions are required to provide evidence of their claims.

If you're anti-union, you can throw around words like "union thugs" and "intimidate" and "violence" without being bothered to actually substantiate anything you say.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 04:31 PM
Or even evidence of how the process works. I'm not taking a position. I mean, my bias is pro-union, and I'll own that up front, but the process should minimize intimidation options from either side.

So far we have actual evidence of employer intimidation, and only speculation that the proposed fix might possibly be a process that unions might use to intimidate.

First I need to know enough about the proposed change to see if its feasible for unions to intimidate.

I can only speak to my personal experience. When a movie my wife was working on "went union", meaning the producers agreed to abide by union rules and admit workers into the union, she was given the opportunity to join or not join. She was not forced to join or pay dues in order to keep working, but as the union wages were so much better and she could get health insurance, she joined. No intimidation or coercion involved. Then, after joining, it became apparent that she was supposed to get the union wages for the time she worked on the film. The union got her thousands in back pay and she did not have to sue and confront the production company. This was done for her as part of being represented by a group rather than as an individual.

The second time her work "went union", she was working in animation and the animation house sent out brochures explaining all the ways their benefits were superior to the union benefits. None of which was true. No one from the union contacted her. None of her fellow workers asked her how she voted. But the vast majority was happy to join the Animators Guild and my wife immediately got better health insurance, higher pay, and better retirement options.

Now, I'm not sure where the intimidation is supposed to be occurring, and my anecdote is not data, but I sure would love to see evidence that others are being treated differently.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 06:01 PM
Status quo:



Union thugs organizers go from employee to employee, maybe to their homes, with union cards to sign
Employees sign their names on certificates
Send them in to a non-employer, non-union, governmental third party for counting.
If 30% or more asked for a union, they have a secret ballot.
If more than 50% then vote union, they get a union.
I added a step you forgot. That step may or may not include a mysterious epidemic of slashed tires, smashed mailboxes, phone threats, etc that seems only to strike workers who refused to sign the card...

quixotecoyote
15th March 2011, 06:47 PM
I added a step you forgot. That step may or may not include a mysterious epidemic of slashed tires, smashed mailboxes, phone threats, etc that seems only to strike workers who refused to sign the card...

evidence?

Newtons Bit
15th March 2011, 07:33 PM
evidence?

This was the first non-blog google result for "Union Intimidation":
http://www.nrtw.org/blog/video-union-intimidation-action

There were many more.

Unabogie
15th March 2011, 07:43 PM
This was the first non-blog google result for "Union Intimidation":
http://www.nrtw.org/blog/video-union-intimidation-action

There were many more.

That's not a blog? Surely it is also not an unbiased source, calling itself the "right to work" organization? Got anything better?

Again, having actually been in a union and having quite a lot of experience with.them, this whole charge seems divorced from reality. And I hope you will present something other than videos of jerks in skirmishes in heated settings. Oh, and unfortunately I can't watch video right now so apologies.

Frank Newgent
15th March 2011, 07:47 PM
Suddenly morphed from the process of joining a union to strike-breaking.

quixotecoyote
15th March 2011, 07:51 PM
That's not a blog? Surely it is also not an unbiased source, calling itself the "right to work" organization? Got anything better?

Again, having actually been in a union and having quite a lot of experience with.them, this whole charge seems divorced from reality. And I hope you will present something other than videos of jerks in skirmishes in heated settings. Oh, and unfortunately I can't watch video right now so apologies.

It's a CNN video, so it's not as fringe as you'd think from the source. However, it's about union intimidation to enforce a strike. Since I never said union intimidation never happens, this was about enforcing an existing union enforcing strike by going after scabs rather than people trying to create a union, and the sources for there being significant union intimidation at all were "experts say," it isn't good evidence.

They need to show that union intimidation is a common enough occurrence in the formation of unions that we should be more worried about a rule change that could possibly enable that than the endemic employer intimidation already in evidence.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 08:50 PM
evidence?
Evidence of what?

Do you deny that card check opens up the unionization process to intimidation? I really don't see how this can be disputed.

WildCat
15th March 2011, 08:53 PM
They need to show that union intimidation is a common enough occurrence in the formation of unions that we should be more worried about a rule change that could possibly enable that than the endemic employer intimidation already in evidence.
What employer intimidation already in evidence? I've asked TraneWreck several times to explain how an employer can intimidate an employee in the voting booth filling out a secret ballot. Maybe you can explain it?

TraneWreck
15th March 2011, 09:04 PM
What employer intimidation already in evidence? I've asked TraneWreck several times to explain how an employer can intimidate an employee in the voting booth filling out a secret ballot. Maybe you can explain it?

And I've given you multiple resources. This is how you argue, it's now happened on several threads. You're given evidence and you just keep repeating yourself over and over intentionally ignoring what was provided. You can either deal with it or accept it, but you cannot argue that it hasn't been explained.

Here is one of the studies again:

It has become standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for supporting a union. An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:

63%of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
34% of employers fire workers.
Employers have increased their use of more punitive tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment, disciplinary actions, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions. While at the same time, employers are less likely to offer “carrots,” such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, bribes, special favors, social events, promises of improvement, and employee involvement programs.
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications/general/no-holds-barred-the-intensification-of-employer-opposition-to-organizing-20090520-758-116-116.html

That's just from the summary. You're welcome to read the whole thing.

Regardless of the result and regardless of who voted, employers retaliate. Mostly they go after the employees that had a higher profile in the organization, but often times they intimidate at random because of the chilling effect it has on the rest of the workforce.

quixotecoyote
15th March 2011, 09:10 PM
Evidence of what?




Union thugs organizers go from employee to employee, maybe to their homes, with union cards to sign; That step may or may not include a mysterious epidemic of slashed tires, smashed mailboxes, phone threats, etc that seems only to strike workers who refused to sign the card...

this

WildCat
15th March 2011, 09:21 PM
And I've given you multiple resources. This is how you argue, it's now happened on several threads. You're given evidence and you just keep repeating yourself over and over intentionally ignoring what was provided. You can either deal with it or accept it, but you cannot argue that it hasn't been explained.

Here is one of the studies again:


http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications/general/no-holds-barred-the-intensification-of-employer-opposition-to-organizing-20090520-758-116-116.html

That's just from the summary. You're welcome to read the whole thing.

Regardless of the result and regardless of who voted, employers retaliate. Mostly they go after the employees that had a higher profile in the organization, but often times they intimidate at random because of the chilling effect it has on the rest of the workforce.
How does that work with a secret ballot? How can an employer retaliate when the employer cannot know how the worker voted?

WildCat
15th March 2011, 09:27 PM
this
Card check gives incentives for those things to happen, do you disagree? And it will happen, it's human nature.

In fact, this is exactly the point of card check - to accomplish through public intimidation what cannot be accomplished by a secret vote.

There is no reason in the world that the employer abuse TraneWreck is worried about cannot be rectified while still mandating a secret ballot.

Do you likewise think that votes for public office should have a name attached?

PMR30
15th March 2011, 10:38 PM
That Helpful Union Guy, that's how the organizer at my LU defines thug.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 04:31 AM
How does that work with a secret ballot? How can an employer retaliate when the employer cannot know how the worker voted?

Honestly, are you just trying to be obstinate? I explained this fairly clearly and the link goes into even more detail.

1) Employers retaliate against vocal union supporters.
2) They retaliate at random, not caring how people voted, in order to cause a chilling effect over the entire workforce.
3) They punish the entire workforce, regardless of how individuals vote.
4) The aggressively intimidate and suppress union movements EVEN BEFORE the petitions are filed:

23% all ULP charges and 24% of serious charges—such as discharges for union activity, interrogation, and surveillance—were filed before the petition for an election was filed; confirming that employer campaigning begins even before a formal election campaign kicks into effect.

How can an employer retaliate when the petition hasn't even been filed yet?

These are questions that have very obvious answers. These answers have been given to you multiple times with data to support them. My guess is you will just ask the same pointless query again without reading the study or even attempting to figure out what's actually going on.

stokes234
16th March 2011, 05:49 AM
Card check gives incentives for those things to happen, do you disagree? And it will happen, it's human nature.

But you can't show evidence that it does happen? You're just claiming that it does because you think people probably would do that, maybe. Gotcha.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 06:07 AM
Honestly, are you just trying to be obstinate? I explained this fairly clearly and the link goes into even more detail.

1) Employers retaliate against vocal union supporters.
2) They retaliate at random, not caring how people voted, in order to cause a chilling effect over the entire workforce.
3) They punish the entire workforce, regardless of how individuals vote.
4) The aggressively intimidate and suppress union movements EVEN BEFORE the petitions are filed:



How can an employer retaliate when the petition hasn't even been filed yet?
You'd have a poit, if card check actually addressed this issue. But of course, it doesn't. And all of those methods will backfire on the employer in a secret ballot.

These are questions that have very obvious answers. These answers have been given to you multiple times with data to support them. My guess is you will just ask the same pointless query again without reading the study or even attempting to figure out what's actually going on.
The problem is that none of the problems you describe are prevented by card check. You're just adding another group (the union) to intimidate workers. Nothing you've posted makes a case for eliminating the secret ballot.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 06:14 AM
But you can't show evidence that it does happen? You're just claiming that it does because you think people probably would do that, maybe. Gotcha.
My claim is if you give a group leverage they will use it. Once card check replaces the secret ballot the union can concentrate all of its power in getting those cards signed, whatever it takes.

The history of organized labor is one of violence and intimidation, on both sides. I don't think it's wise to further expose workers to such forces. No one here has been able to cite a single valid reason why card check should replace the secret ballot.

You do realize that card check is not the law now, don't you? As it stands today, a secret vote is still required to go union. So there's not nearly the incentive for the union to go all-out getting cards signed today. If card check passes (and thankfully it doesn't look like it has a chance), that restraint goes out the window.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 06:57 AM
You'd have a poit, if card check actually addressed this issue. But of course, it doesn't. And all of those methods will backfire on the employer in a secret ballot.

Jeez. Card Check does solve quite a bit of it, as the most vicious anti-union stuff happens in the lag between the petition and the secret ballot vote.

And again, it doesn't matter that the ballot is secret because the employer announces retribution if the union is voted for. It doesn't matter who votes for it, the consequences will be applied to everyone.

Once again, this is very much non-complicated and obvious from the material you've been given. Your dogmatic refusal to even attempt to understand the discussion is bizarre.


The problem is that none of the problems you describe are prevented by card check. You're just adding another group (the union) to intimidate workers. Nothing you've posted makes a case for eliminating the secret ballot.

This is just pure nonsense. Card Check doesn't solve ALL problems, but it makes union formation easier. When unions are formed, they are the best source of support for workers to combat the rest.

And for the 20th time CARD CHECK DOES NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOT.

GreyArea
16th March 2011, 07:27 AM
Before the usual dance starts, the party has nothing to do with the humor.
Persuasion Partners (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/13/wi-repub-lives-outside-district-with-mistress-says-wife/). Hmmm... Is that what they're calling it now?

And his name is "Randy Hopper"?!? The jokes write themselves.


Hmm, I wonder if he still lives in-district
If he has moved to Madison with his persuasion partner, he's no longer in District 18 (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/ltsb/redistricting/Maps/sen11_letter.jpg).

WildCat
16th March 2011, 07:28 AM
Jeez. Card Check does solve quite a bit of it, as the most vicious anti-union stuff happens in the lag between the petition and the secret ballot vote.
Card check doesn't address that at all. Why not just shorten the time before the secret ballot?

And again, it doesn't matter that the ballot is secret because the employer announces retribution if the union is voted for. It doesn't matter who votes for it, the consequences will be applied to everyone.
In that case card check solves nothing.

Once again, this is very much non-complicated and obvious from the material you've been given. Your dogmatic refusal to even attempt to understand the discussion is bizarre.
You're right, I'm having a very difficult time understanding how an employer can control how an employee fills out a secret ballot. And you don't seem capable of explaining it either.

This is just pure nonsense. Card Check doesn't solve ALL problems, but it makes union formation easier. When unions are formed, they are the best source of support for workers to combat the rest.
Of course it makes it easier, because it's much, much, much easier to retailiate against people when you know exactly how they voted.

And for the 20th time CARD CHECK DOES NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOT.
Once again, YES IT DOES provided the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign the card.

If you were a random lay person I could write off as ignorance your claim that no one would ever sign a union card who didn't support a union, and pressure (of all types) has no bearing at all on whether or not they sign a card. But you're an attorney, and you know damn well that people have signed false confessions for crimes as serious as murder under pressure from police, so I can only assume you know damn well that card check will lead to a lot of workers signing cards even though they'd rather not join a union. I would think the pressure required to get someone to sign a union card is much less than that. The secret ballot is assurance that the vote actually reflects the will of the workers.

Again, you have made no case whatsoever that a secret ballot shouldn't be required in all instances.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 07:40 AM
Card check doesn't address that at all. Why not just shorten the time before the secret ballot?

Finding an alternative solution to a problem does not mean that card check isn't also a solution.

But look at the statistics I gave you. Employers start these campaigns BEFORE the petition is filed. Card Check means the workers only need to gather their numbers once. Shortening the time would be better, but it would still require two elections, in essence, and allow time for intimidation.


In that case card check solves nothing.

Just really, really wrong.


You're right, I'm having a very difficult time understanding how an employer can control how an employee fills out a secret ballot. And you don't seem capable of explaining it either.

Start a poll. My guess is almost everyone at least understands the point, whether they agree with it or not.

If I as an employer say, "If you guys vote for this union, I'm getting rid of your health care." You really are incapable of seeing how this would affect that secret vote?

Perhaps if you read the studies I gave you, this would make more sense. Or you can keep acting befuddled when the answers are very direct and obvious. Up to you.


Of course it makes it easier, because it's much, much, much easier to retailiate against people when you know exactly how they voted.

All they need is >50%, and those names are publicized. Because card check is involved at the petition level, that says nothing about how the rest would vote on a secret ballot. Card Check is not a vote, it isn't an election.


Once again, YES IT DOES provided the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign the card.

No. Jesus, this is getting so stupid. EVEN IF >50% sign the cards, 30% of the workers can demand a secret ballot. This trumps the card check.


If you were a random lay person I could write off as ignorance your claim that no one would ever sign a union card who didn't support a union, and pressure (of all types) has no bearing at all on whether or not they sign a card. But you're an attorney, and you know damn well that people have signed false confessions for crimes as serious as murder under pressure from police, so I can only assume you know damn well that card check will lead to a lot of workers signing cards even though they'd rather not join a union. I would think the pressure required to get someone to sign a union card is much less than that. The secret ballot is assurance that the vote actually reflects the will of the workers.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics at play here. Unions cannot use coercion because they already are fighting a losing battle. Employers have a number of means to turn workers against the union, so if an employee is feeling pressure, they can go to the employer and receive a great deal of assistance.

This doesn't work in the other direction until a union is certified.

But this is why none of you goofballs can substantiate your claims about union intimidation on these votes, but it's really easy to provide data from employer intimidation.


Again, you have made no case whatsoever that a secret ballot shouldn't be required in all instances.

Once more, your astonishing ignorance of the process makes you look like a fool.

Card Check operates at the petition level, not the secret ballot level. Right now, 30% sign, and they send it in for the NLRB to set up an election. All card check does is automatically create a union if >50% of workers sign that petition.

And a secret ballot can still be held if they want it. Secret ballots continue to be used all through the union process. Resources to understand this have been given to you, your ignorance is now willful.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 08:16 AM
Finding an alternative solution to a problem does not mean that card check isn't also a solution.
You have nmade no case at all that card check is a solution to any problem except declining union membership. It's certainly not a solution for workers feeling the pressure.

But look at the statistics I gave you. Employers start these campaigns BEFORE the petition is filed. Card Check means the workers only need to gather their numbers once. Shortening the time would be better, but it would still require two elections, in essence, and allow time for intimidation.
In which case card check accomplishes nothing.

Start a poll. My guess is almost everyone at least understands the point, whether they agree with it or not.
You have shown no evidence at all that employers can influence a secret ballot.

If I as an employer say, "If you guys vote for this union, I'm getting rid of your health care." You really are incapable of seeing how this would affect that secret vote?
They could use the same threat for card check. Card check does not address that at all.

Perhaps if you read the studies I gave you, this would make more sense. Or you can keep acting befuddled when the answers are very direct and obvious. Up to you.
The answer is obvious, and yet here you are arguing against the obvious.

All they need is >50%, and those names are publicized. Because card check is involved at the petition level, that says nothing about how the rest would vote on a secret ballot. Card Check is not a vote, it isn't an election.
Who you crappin'? The card check is the de facto vote in this circumstance.

No. Jesus, this is getting so stupid. EVEN IF >50% sign the cards, 30% of the workers can demand a secret ballot. This trumps the card check.
The severe flaws in that plan have already been noted, with no rebuttle from you at all. Why not just have a secret balot in every case no matter what?

You completely fail to understand the dynamics at play here. Unions cannot use coercion because they already are fighting a losing battle. Employers have a number of means to turn workers against the union, so if an employee is feeling pressure, they can go to the employer and receive a great deal of assistance.
Tell me about the Tooth Fairy for your next story...

This doesn't work in the other direction until a union is certified.

But this is why none of you goofballs can substantiate your claims about union intimidation on these votes, but it's really easy to provide data from employer intimidation.
You haven't shown any data at all about employer intimidation. In fact, you call the employer making their case for no union to be "intimidation". Guess what? Unions can talk to workers also, and they do. An employee feeling pressure from both sides may well tell them both they agree with them just to make them stop pressuring him, but a secret ballot allows him to vote his conscience.

Once more, your astonishing ignorance of the process makes you look like a fool.

Card Check operates at the petition level, not the secret ballot level. Right now, 30% sign, and they send it in for the NLRB to set up an election. All card check does is automatically create a union if >50% of workers sign that petition.

And a secret ballot can still be held if they want it. Secret ballots continue to be used all through the union process. Resources to understand this have been given to you, your ignorance is now willful.
If those 50% really want to form a union there's no reason at all that a secret vote can't be held. All card check does, and IMHO what it is designed to do, is allow the union to pressure workers into signing in public what they wouldn't vote for in secret.

You're an attorney, stop pretending you're a hick who just stepped off the turnip truck and had no idea that people could be pressured into signing a petition. Once again, people have confessed to murders they didn't commit under non-violent pressure from police, you certainly realize that many people can be pressured to sign petitions they don't really agree with.

There are so many actual remedies to the problems you cite that don't involve getting rid of the secret ballot, and in fact getting rid of the secret ballot doesn't solve any problem at all, it just opens the door to new problems.

KoihimeNakamura
16th March 2011, 08:24 AM
You haven't shown any data at all about employer intimidation. In fact, you call the employer making their case for no union to be "intimidation". Guess what? Unions can talk to workers also, and they do. An employee feeling pressure from both sides may well tell them both they agree with them just to make them stop pressuring him, but a secret ballot allows him to vote his conscience

Because it.. is?


You're an attorney, stop pretending you're a hick who just stepped off the turnip truck and had no idea that people could be pressured into signing a petition. Once again, people have confessed to murders they didn't commit under non-violent pressure from police, you certainly realize that many people can be pressured to sign petitions they don't really agree with.

There are so many actual remedies to the problems you cite that don't involve getting rid of the secret ballot, and in fact getting rid of the secret ballot doesn't solve any problem at all, it just opens the door to new problems.

Pot, kettle.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 09:00 AM
You have nmade no case at all that card check is a solution to any problem except declining union membership. It's certainly not a solution for workers feeling the pressure.

You can only say this because you didn't read the study. More ignorance.


In which case card check accomplishes nothing.

Just because a solution doesn't solve ALL problems does not mean it doesn't solve some.

And yes, it does help with that problem. The earlier a union can be created, the more it can help battle against intimidation campaigns and retribution.


You have shown no evidence at all that employers can influence a secret ballot.

Haha, unreal. Yes, I really did. Again, you remain willfully ignornat on this score.


They could use the same threat for card check. Card check does not address that at all.

Of course they can. Once more, just because a solution doesn't solve ALL problems does not mean it doesn't solve ANY problem.


The answer is obvious, and yet here you are arguing against the obvious.

Amazing how little evidence your "obvious" has compared to all of the data in support of the "non-obvious." Curious thing, indeed.


Who you crappin'? The card check is the de facto vote in this circumstance.

No, it isn't. If 30% on a petition is all that's needed to get a vote, that AS A MATTER OF FACT tells you that no claims are made about the other 70%. You just need that number to start a vote.

Card check just causes automatic certification if >50% sign the petition, it says nothing about the other <50%.


The severe flaws in that plan have already been noted, with no rebuttle from you at all. Why not just have a secret balot in every case no matter what?

Jesus, this is so stupid. WHy have a second election if >50% said they want a union? If some number of employees are unhappy with that process, they can get a secret ballot election.

And yes, I've rebutted your idiocy, but like everything else, you choose to remain in blissfull ignorance. You still haven't read the studies I provided. That's VERY clear.


Tell me about the Tooth Fairy for your next story...

If it's so absurd, why don't you provide some data for your side?


You haven't shown any data at all about employer intimidation. In fact, you call the employer making their case for no union to be "intimidation". Guess what? Unions can talk to workers also, and they do. An employee feeling pressure from both sides may well tell them both they agree with them just to make them stop pressuring him, but a secret ballot allows him to vote his conscience.

More ignorance. I gave you a study that examined EVERY NLRB election over a multi-year period. Your choice to remain in the dark is the source of this endless, mindless repetition.

Secret ballots are great. Good thing Card Check doesn't change that process in any way. It just allows workers to choose a quicker route.


If those 50% really want to form a union there's no reason at all that a secret vote can't be held. All card check does, and IMHO what it is designed to do, is allow the union to pressure workers into signing in public what they wouldn't vote for in secret.

Your opinion is ignorant and wrong. You haven't provided a single bit of evidence to support it, you're just running on pure bias.

That's not "all" card check does, as multiple people have shown you. But you have no interest in learning, so you're just going to repeat the same incorrect ******** you started with.


You're an attorney, stop pretending you're a hick who just stepped off the turnip truck and had no idea that people could be pressured into signing a petition. Once again, people have confessed to murders they didn't commit under non-violent pressure from police, you certainly realize that many people can be pressured to sign petitions they don't really agree with.

This is irrelevant. There are many resources to deal with union pressure. Why don't you provide some data about that intimidation like I gave you for employer intimidation? Because this isn't really a problem. It hypothetically COULD be a problem, but it really isn't one.

If the union is intimidating people, they can go to their employer who can call a meeting, have 30% sign a petition, and get a secret ballot. Simple.


There are so many actual remedies to the problems you cite that don't involve getting rid of the secret ballot, and in fact getting rid of the secret ballot doesn't solve any problem at all, it just opens the door to new problems.

For god's sake. CARD CHECK DOES NOT "GET RID" OF SECRET BALLOTS.

You realize how many times you've repeated this same retarded lie?

AlBell
16th March 2011, 10:03 AM
It's fun reading pap provided by shills for the Teamsters and/or UAW.

DavidJames
16th March 2011, 10:23 AM
It's fun reading pap provided by shills for the Teamsters and/or UAW.hmmm, one side making claims w/o evidence and calling the side providing evidence shills...where I have I heard that before?

KoihimeNakamura
16th March 2011, 10:24 AM
It's like the CT forum all over again.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 10:36 AM
If I as an employer say, "If you guys vote for this union, I'm getting rid of your health care." You really are incapable of seeing how this would affect that secret vote?

Is such a threat legal to make? Is such a threat legal to carry out?

It seems the answer to both is "yes". In which case, from the government's perspective, there's no reason to consider that a problem that needs any solution. After all, is it really preferable for employees to vote on unionization while ignorant about their employer's response?

You're basically justifying the enabling of illegal behavior because it "solves" a problem of legal behavior.

All they need is >50%, and those names are publicized. Because card check is involved at the petition level, that says nothing about how the rest would vote on a secret ballot.

And because an employee's response to the cards is known to the people collecting the cards, that response rate ALSO says nothing about how the people who did sign the cards would vote in a secret election. You have pointed out that employees might not sign the cards even if they would vote yes in a secret ballot. You have failed to even acknowledge that employees also might sign the cards even if they would vote no in a secret ballot.

No. Jesus, this is getting so stupid. EVEN IF >50% sign the cards, 30% of the workers can demand a secret ballot. This trumps the card check.

Except, as has already been explained to you, it's not much of a trump card at all.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics at play here. Unions cannot use coercion because they already are fighting a losing battle.

That is a laughable assertion.

Employers have a number of means to turn workers against the union, so if an employee is feeling pressure, they can go to the employer and receive a great deal of assistance.

And if they're feeling pressure from their employers, they can turn to the NLRB and receive a great deal of assistance too.

You're satisfied with the 30% card signing to force a secret ballot when it comes to overturning a union, yet you aren't satisfied with that level when it comes to creating the union. Your reasons for adopting such an asymmetry are, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Card Check operates at the petition level, not the secret ballot level. Right now, 30% sign, and they send it in for the NLRB to set up an election. All card check does is automatically create a union if >50% of workers sign that petition.

So before, unions had little incentive to intimidate workers into signing the petition, because if they couldn't get 30% on petitions without intimidation, they were unlikely to get 50% on the ballot. Now you've given them a motive for intimidation: they can skip the ballot completely if they can intimidate enough workers.

And a secret ballot can still be held if they want it.

No, TW. A secret ballot can still be held if enough of them manage to organize it. Your own arguments regarding employer intimidation indicate that the difference between these two statements is critical.

Secret ballots continue to be used all through the union process.

Obviously not, if they can be bypassed.

KoihimeNakamura
16th March 2011, 10:38 AM
Is such a threat legal to make? Is such a threat legal to carry out?

It seems the answer to both is "yes". In which case, from the government's perspective, there's no reason to consider that a problem that needs any solution. After all, is it really preferable for employees to vote on unionization while ignorant about their employer's response?

You're basically justifying the enabling of illegal behavior because it "solves" a problem of legal behavior.

How is it illega.. Oh wait, you haven't proven that either.

Also, I'm pretty sure you know the difference between legal and ethical. :rolleyes:

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 10:47 AM
Is such a threat legal to make? Is such a threat legal to carry out?

It seems the answer to both is "yes". In which case, from the government's perspective, there's no reason to consider that a problem that needs any solution. After all, is it really preferable for employees to vote on unionization while ignorant about their employer's response?

You're basically justifying the enabling of illegal behavior because it "solves" a problem of legal behavior.

Jesus, you really have no clue what you're talking about. I mean, granted, I knew you were just talking out of your ass, but the bravado with which you say completely incorrect things is impressive.

Didn't even a small part of you think, "Maybe I should read the Nationa Labor Relations Act before I post this?"

The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or from working together to improve terms and conditions of employment, or refraining from any such activity. Similarly, labor organizations may not restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights.

Examples of employer conduct that violates the law:

■Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.
■Threatening to close the plant if employees select a union to represent them.
■Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act.
■Promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support.
■Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.
■Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they filed unfair labor practice charges or participated in an investigation conducted by NLRB.

http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-obligations

I chose that example for a reason. Why should I read anything else you produce on this subject?

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 10:51 AM
How is it illega.. Oh wait, you haven't proven that either.

Indeed I have not proven it. Because it should be so obvious as to not need any proof.

Can employers stop providing employees health insurance? Why yes, yes they can. Can employers inform employees about possible future changes in benefits they offer? Why yes, yes they can. So what possible law is being broken here? Well, generally speaking, none. If some specific workers have some specific legal or contractual right to those benefits, well, the threat isn't credible in such a case, and other remedies are sufficient if the employer tries to act on it.

Also, I'm pretty sure you know the difference between legal and ethical. :rolleyes:

It's not the government's role to enforce ethical behavior. And it's not government's place to keep people from threatening to take actions which are perfectly legal. :rolleyes: indeed.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 10:53 AM
Because it.. is?
And the remedy for that is elimination oif the secret ballot?

Pot, kettle.
Ecuse me?

KoihimeNakamura
16th March 2011, 11:01 AM
Indeed I have not proven it. Because it should be so obvious as to not need any proof.

Can employers stop providing employees health insurance? Why yes, yes they can. Can employers inform employees about possible future changes in benefits they offer? Why yes, yes they can. So what possible law is being broken here? Well, generally speaking, none. If some specific workers have some specific legal or contractual right to those benefits, well, the threat isn't credible in such a case, and other remedies are sufficient if the employer tries to act on it.



It's not the government's role to enforce ethical behavior. And it's not government's place to keep people from threatening to take actions which are perfectly legal. :rolleyes: indeed.

Sure, if you're not interested in anything remotely like equal rights. Or nonsense like that. And with that I'm going to just drop this argument. You don't think the government should enforce ethical behavior by employers (who by default have the power) with the employees. And I do. This argument is at an impasse.

@WildCat: It's not eliminated, you are pointedly not reading. Not worth arguing with you, either.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:01 AM
You can only say this because you didn't read the study. More ignorance.
I know a secret ballot is the best tool there is to prevent voter intimidation. Iraqis under Saddam had their names attached to the ballot... he got 100% of the vote. Under card check standards, 100% of Iraqis supported Saddam, case closed.

Just because a solution doesn't solve ALL problems does not mean it doesn't solve some.
It doesn't solve any problems, and opens the door for more problems.


No, it isn't. If 30% on a petition is all that's needed to get a vote, that AS A MATTER OF FACT tells you that no claims are made about the other 70%. You just need that number to start a vote.
Describe a scenario where 30% could organize without the knowledge of the union thugs who are intimidating them.

Jesus, this is so stupid. WHy have a second election if >50% said they want a union?
So we know they weren't intimidated into signing the card.

If the union is intimidating people, they can go to their employer who can call a meeting, have 30% sign a petition, and get a secret ballot. Simple.
Doesn't sound like an anonymous procedure to me. Why not just have a secret ballot to confirm?

For god's sake. CARD CHECK DOES NOT "GET RID" OF SECRET BALLOTS.

You realize how many times you've repeated this same retarded lie?
Claiming it is a lie doesn't make it so. If the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign a card there is no election, no secret ballot. Thus, a way is made for a union to pressure workers into joining.

You have yet to voice a single rational reason why a secret ballot shouldn't be used in all cases, no exceptions.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 11:03 AM
Jesus, you really have no clue what you're talking about. I mean, granted, I knew you were just talking out of your ass, but the bravado with which you say completely incorrect things is impressive.

Didn't even a small part of you think, "Maybe I should read the Nationa Labor Relations Act before I post this?"

Funny, but you don't link to the act (http://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act).

And as far as I can see (feel free to cite the actual law, including section number, if you think I'm wrong) the threats your link refers to are threats specifically against the employee for voting or joining a union. Your description was different. I took it to mean that the employer would revoke health care for employees across the board in the event of unionization, not specifically for employees who voted for or joined a union. But if the latter is all you're talking about, then it's already illegal, and there are already mechanisms to address it. If those mechanisms are insufficient now, well, Card Check doesn't actually remedy that either. Nothing about this unionization procedure provides any new enforcement mechanism to keep employers from doing exactly the same thing.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:04 AM
hmmm, one side making claims w/o evidence and calling the side providing evidence shills...where I have I heard that before?
Would you like your name attached to ballots for political offices, available to any public official when you apply for a building permit or a license or a government job or even disputing a parking ticket?

Why or why not?

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:12 AM
@WildCat: It's not eliminated, you are pointedly not reading. Not worth arguing with you, either.
It is eliminated. All the union has to do is pressure 50% of the workers to sign and there will ne no secret ballot. This is what the proposed law says, yes?

Why not have a secret ballot in every case, to confirm that workers are voting their conscience and didn't just sign a card because Joe, Bob, and the other pro-union guys are pressuring them 24/7.

I can see why you don't want to discuss this, it's hard to do when you have an indefensible position.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:14 AM
Does anyone have a rational reason why a secret vote shouldn't be held 100% of the time?

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 11:14 AM
Funny, but you don't link to the act (http://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act).

And as far as I can see (feel free to cite the actual law, including section number, if you think I'm wrong) the threats your link refers to are threats specifically against the employee for voting or joining a union. Your description was different. I took it to mean that the employer would revoke health care for employees across the board in the event of unionization, not specifically for employees who voted for or joined a union. But if the latter is all you're talking about, then it's already illegal, and there are already mechanisms to address it. If those mechanisms are insufficient now, well, Card Check doesn't actually remedy that either. Nothing about this unionization procedure provides any new enforcement mechanism to keep employers from doing exactly the same thing.

Hilarious. This is just awesome. So your argument is now that the National Labor Relations Board, the agency in charge of enforcing labor law, is incorrect about what the National Labor Relations Act says on its own website?

Wow.

I used their summary of the act that created that very agency because it's much more direct than the typical word salad federal statute. I would recommend reading at the part titled "Unfair Labor Practices."

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

[...]

(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided(exceptions)

Now, all of those terms have been explained in detail by subsequent case law. The NLRB has summarized the current state of the law ON THEIR WEBPAGE that I quoted for you. You are just amazingly, totally, incredibly wrong, and you're still trying to defend that statement.

If you can't even see that you've made this obvious of an error, there is literally no possibility of actual communication with you.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 11:16 AM
Does anyone have a rational reason why a secret vote shouldn't be held 100% of the time?

Yes, when it isn't necessary. If more than 50% of a workforce is willing to publicly state that they want a union, why have a vote at all? It's just a waste of time and money.

If others want a secret vote, they can have one.

Unabogie
16th March 2011, 11:16 AM
It is eliminated. All the unuon has to do is pressure 50% of the workers to sign and there will ne no secret ballot. This is what the proposed law says, yes?

No, it does not. I posted the exact text. It says all the union has to do is get > 50% to automatically form a union. But all those opposed need to do to force a secret ballot is get a petition to the NLRB with 30%. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:18 AM
Yes, when it isn't necessary. If more than 50% of a workforce is willing to publicly state that they want a union, why have a vote at all? It's just a waste of time and money.
We do it so we know the cards weren't signed under duress, and that 50% of the workers really do want to join a union.

And you know damn well time and money isn't the reason. Pressuring voters to sign a card when they wouldn't vote for a union in secret is why card check is so sacrosanct.

Frank Newgent
16th March 2011, 11:19 AM
I know a secret ballot is the best tool there is to prevent voter intimidation. Iraqis under Saddam had their names attached to the ballot... he got 100% of the vote. Under card check standards, 100% of Iraqis supported Saddam, case closed.


It doesn't solve any problems, and opens the door for more problems.



Describe a scenario where 30% could organize without the knowledge of the union thugs who are intimidating them.


So we know they weren't intimidated into signing the card.


Doesn't sound like an anonymous procedure to me. Why not just have a secret ballot to confirm?


Claiming it is a lie doesn't make it so. If the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign a card there is no election, no secret ballot. Thus, a way is made for a union to pressure workers into joining.

You have yet to voice a single rational reason why a secret ballot shouldn't be used in all cases, no exceptions.


Union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union sounds like fantasy to me.

I could be wrong. Is there objective evidence anywhere concerning such practices?

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:21 AM
No, it does not. I posted the exact text. It says all the union has to do is get > 50% to automatically form a union.
You just debunked yourself.

But all those opposed need to do to force a secret ballot is get a petition to the NLRB with 30%. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?
I'm not ignoring it, in fact I pointed out several times now that that's a very high bar to meet, especially for an unorganized group facing intense p[ressure from an organized group.

Maybe you have a rational answer why there shouldn't be a secret vote 100% of the time? TraneWreck says it's all about saving money. Some of these votes can cost tens of dollars!

Unabogie
16th March 2011, 11:24 AM
You just debunked yourself.


I'm not ignoring it, in fact I pointed out several times now that that's a very high bar to meet, especially for an unorganized group facing intense p[ressure from an organized group.

Maybe you have a rational answer why there shouldn't be a secret vote 100% of the time? TraneWreck says it's all about saving money. Some of these votes can cost tens of dollars!


You wrote " All the unuon[sic] has to do is pressure 50% of the workers to sign and there will ne[sic] no secret ballot."

This is false. There is no way to spin you making a false assertion, and you should just admit you were wrong about this. It's. In. The. Law.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:25 AM
Union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union sounds like fantasy to me.

I could be wrong. Is there objective evidence anywhere concerning such practices?
Do you know anything at all about the history of labor unions? Some of them can't even manage a scandal-free vote for their own leadership. Some are full-blown partners with organized crime.

In the OP butthurt union guys went to a state Senator's house to "talk to him".

I can't imagine why anyone would think unions would engage in such behavior! :boggled:

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 11:27 AM
I know a secret ballot is the best tool there is to prevent voter intimidation. Iraqis under Saddam had their names attached to the ballot... he got 100% of the vote. Under card check standards, 100% of Iraqis supported Saddam, case closed.

If Iraqis have a secret ballot vote under Saddam, 100% of Iraqis vote for Saddam. This is just idiotic.


It doesn't solve any problems, and opens the door for more problems.

You say this over and over and give no evidence. You don't know how it works, you don't understand anything about labor law, why on Earth should I listen to anything you say especially since you won't reference any quality sources?


Describe a scenario where 30% could organize without the knowledge of the union thugs who are intimidating them.

I already have: worker goes to management, says, "The Union bastards are intimidating me, I want to vote to get rid of the union."

Management questions the rest of the workforce, guaging opinions. The workers don't have to answer, they can claim support for the union, or they can be critical of it.

Management communicates only with the disatisfied workers that they aren't alone, asks if the employees mind having their names released to the other disatisfied workers, and tells them to submit a petition to the NLRB.

Petition is signed, petition is sent, NLRB verifies the signatures, secret ballot is held.


So we know they weren't intimidated into signing the card.

And it's just your worldly knowledge that lets you know this will happen, even though checks on that behavior are built into the procedure.



Doesn't sound like an anonymous procedure to me. Why not just have a secret ballot to confirm?

Because it's a waste of time and money and gives the employer an opportunity to intimidate the process.

If no employees want a secret ballot, why make them have one? They can just as easily demand one as sign the card check. If they're upset about union intimidation, they can file for a secret ballot as the card check process is going.


Claiming it is a lie doesn't make it so. If the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign a card there is no election, no secret ballot. Thus, a way is made for a union to pressure workers into joining.

No, claiming that it's a lie doesn't make it so, it actually being a lie when compared with reality makes it so.

Why don't you show that unions have intimidated workers from filing grievances to the NLRB AFTER the union has been certified? Do you have any evidence for that?


You have yet to voice a single rational reason why a secret ballot shouldn't be used in all cases, no exceptions.

You just have a bizarre understanding of what "rational" means. There's no way to satisfy the conditions of your perverse definition.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:28 AM
You wrote " All the unuon[sic] has to do is pressure 50% of the workers to sign and there will ne[sic] no secret ballot."

This is false. There is no way to spin you making a false assertion, and you should just admit you were wrong about this. It's. In. The. Law.
Why not have a secret vote 100% of the time Unaboogie? What's the problem with that, aside from discouraging union growth through intimidation and other pressure tactics?

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 11:30 AM
We do it so we know the cards weren't signed under duress, and that 50% of the workers really do want to join a union.

And you know damn well time and money isn't the reason. Pressuring voters to sign a card when they wouldn't vote for a union in secret is why card check is so sacrosanct.

You exist in this fantasy world where you think unions can just intimidate workers with no recourse. Management LOVES it when employees turn to them for help against their union. This is, incidentally, why unions don't intimidate their workers. That's a quick way to get the boot.

The problem of union intimidation of their own members is already adequately handled, if it isn't, show us some facts. The ACTUAL problem is one of employers intimidating and retaliating against employees.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:30 AM
If Iraqis have a secret ballot vote under Saddam, 100% of Iraqis vote for Saddam. This is just idiotic.
Really? Did anyone ever get 100% of the vote when there wasn't a name attached to a ballot?

I'm ignoring the rest of your post since I already responded to all your points.

Still waiting for someone to explain why we shouldn't have a secret ballot vote 100% of the time. I'm beginning to think none will be forthcoming.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 11:30 AM
Hilarious. This is just awesome. So your argument is now that the National Labor Relations Board, the agency in charge of enforcing labor law, is incorrect about what the National Labor Relations Act says on its own website?

Wow.

Wow indeed. Since that's not what I said, we see that (once again) you are incapable of arguing without strawmen.

If you can't even see that you've made this obvious of an error, there is literally no possibility of actual communication with you.

If you cannot refrain from constructing strawmen, then that is quite correct: no communication is possible when you continually misrepresent what I say.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 11:33 AM
You exist in this fantasy world where you think unions can just intimidate workers with no recourse. Management LOVES it when employees turn to them for help against their union. This is, incidentally, why unions don't intimidate their workers. That's a quick way to get the boot.

That, plus the whole secret ballot thing. Which you want to allow unions to bypass.

The problem of union intimidation of their own members is already adequately handled

Yeah, the secret ballot is great, isn't it?

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:33 AM
You exist in this fantasy world where you think unions can just intimidate workers with no recourse. Management LOVES it when employees turn to them for help against their union. This is, incidentally, why unions don't intimidate their workers. That's a quick way to get the boot.
Tell me what management is going to do about slashed tires and anonymous phone threats and social shunning.

The problem of union intimidation of their own members is already adequately handled, if it isn't, show us some facts. The ACTUAL problem is one of employers intimidating and retaliating against employees.
So address the problem rather than opening the door for more worker harassment by unions.

The die-hard defense of card check leads me to believe that this has nothing to do with stopping employer harassment and everything to do with enabling union harassment.

Unabogie
16th March 2011, 11:35 AM
Why not have a secret vote 100% of the time Unaboogie? What's the problem with that, aside from discouraging union growth through intimidation and other pressure tactics?

First admit you were wrong, then I will answer your question. Otherwise it's just goal post shifting.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 11:35 AM
Wow indeed. Since that's not what I said, we see that (once again) you are incapable of arguing without strawmen.



If you cannot refrain from constructing strawmen, then that is quite correct: no communication is possible when you continually misrepresent what I say.

Haha. Just be an adult. Admit that you were wrong.

It doesn't matter, under the act, whether the retaliation is specifically directed at a discreet group of workers because they, themselves, were involved in a union, or a threat is directed at the entire workforce if they choose to unionize. That is illegal activity.

The statute, again: "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7."

Such a threat, whether levvied against one or all employees, is a clear example of coercion.

You were wrong, the NLRB described it on their webpage, it's what the statutory scheme lays out.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:36 AM
First admit you were wrong, then I will answer you question. Otherwise it's just goal post shifting.
We both know you won't answer the question, look at how TraneWreck has been dancing away from it for 5 pages now.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 11:37 AM
Haha. Just be an adult. Admit that you were wrong.

It appears I was indeed wrong about what you meant when you described your scenario. Now, return the favor: admit that you have repeatedly micharacterized what I said. Can you too be an adult?

Frank Newgent
16th March 2011, 11:37 AM
Union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union sounds like fantasy to me.

I could be wrong. Is there objective evidence anywhere concerning such practices?
Do you know anything at all about the history of labor unions? Some of them can't even manage a scandal-free vote for their own leadership. Some are full-blown partners with organized crime.

In the OP butthurt union guys went to a state Senator's house to "talk to him".

I can't imagine why anyone would think unions would engage in such behavior! :boggled:


Do you have any objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union?

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:38 AM
Does anyone have a rational reason why a secret vote shouldn't be held 100% of the time?
Anyone?

Bueller?

WildCat
16th March 2011, 11:39 AM
Do you have any objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union?
There's no incentive for them to do so now, because such intimidation will backfire when the secret ballot vote is held. With card check that all changes, doesn't it?

Unabogie
16th March 2011, 11:41 AM
We both know you won't answer the question, look at how TraneWreck has been dancing away from it for 5 pages now.

No, I'll be happy to answer your question once you admit you were wrong. Otherwise, you'll dance right back to this incorrect assertion in a few pages. Admit you were wrong, then I'll answer.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 11:41 AM
Tell me what management is going to do about slashed tires and anonymous phone threats and social shunning.

Yes, if only there were a group of people in this country capable of dealing with acts of vandalism. Perhaps we should use tax dollars to pay for people to do such things.


So address the problem rather than opening the door for more worker harassment by unions.

The die-hard defense of card check leads me to believe that this has nothing to do with stopping employer harassment and everything to do with enabling union harassment.

But you literally understand nothing on this subject, thus whatever you believe is worthless. I'm more curious about what you can prove. So far that would be nothing.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 11:42 AM
It appears I was indeed wrong about what you meant when you described your scenario. Now, return the favor: admit that you have repeatedly micharacterized what I said. Can you too be an adult?

How, exactly, have I done so?

Frank Newgent
16th March 2011, 11:42 AM
Do you have any objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union?
There's no incentive for them to do so now, because such intimidation will backfire when the secret ballot vote is held. With card check that all changes, doesn't it?


You are not answering the question.

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

Unabogie
16th March 2011, 11:43 AM
Do you have any objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union?

Again, from personal experience this wasn't even close to reality. All the union did was hand out information. And actually joining the union was an amazing pleasure that reaped immediate benefits for all involved (except, of course, the shareholders who wanted to keep all that money for themselves).

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 11:53 AM
How, exactly, have I done so?

Most recently when you claimed that *I* claimed that the NLRB web page was wrong, when I said nothing of the sort. There are older examples which I noted at the time of you using straw men to represent my position.

johnny karate
16th March 2011, 11:54 AM
I see the evidence for union intimidation of workers just keeps not coming in.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 11:55 AM
Again, from personal experience this wasn't even close to reality. All the union did was hand out information. And actually joining the union was an amazing pleasure that reaped immediate benefits for all involved (except, of course, the shareholders who wanted to keep all that money for themselves).

That's great for you. It also appears that you didn't need Card Check either.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 12:00 PM
It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

I have no evidence that the president imprisons opposition members of Congress.

And yet, I would oppose the removal of the following clause from the constitution:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Clearly I'm just paranoid, since the president doesn't arrest members of the opposition party.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 12:04 PM
Most recently when you claimed that *I* claimed that the NLRB web page was wrong, when I said nothing of the sort. There are older examples which I noted at the time of you using straw men to represent my position.

I posted the NLRB's own summation of the NLRA on their own website, to which you said:

"Funny, but you don't link to the act."

What did you mean by that? It's not like you went on to quote a specific section of the act, you just gave the indication that somehow by linking the NLRB's summation of the act, I was being disingenuous or intentionally misleading.

I also find it comical that you linked to the act, then didn't read it. It's pretty clear, even for federal legislation. Though it should be pointed out, the NLRB summary is probably a BETTER source to understand the state of the law because the statute, even if updated recently, won't explain the state of case law and how it's been interpreted.

So your point is that the NLRB summary wasn't adequate, but there was no part of the statute that contradicted it, but I was supposed to look at the statute and not the NLRB summary because...

I don't have any idea what I'm apologizing for. That you can't be bothered to quote sources to make a point? It appears that you're trying to save face, here.

Frank Newgent
16th March 2011, 12:09 PM
I have no evidence that the president imprisons opposition members of Congress.

And yet, I would oppose the removal of the following clause from the constitution:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Clearly I'm just paranoid, since the president doesn't arrest members of the opposition party.


It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 12:14 PM
I posted the NLRB's own summation of the NLRA on their own website, to which you said:

"Funny, but you don't link to the act."

What did you mean by that?

Well, let's see. In the post I responded to, you said,
Didn't even a small part of you think, "Maybe I should read the Nationa Labor Relations Act before I post this?"

You said I should read the act. You didn't say I should read about the act. But you didn't link to the act, you linked to a page about the act. Even though you suggested that I should read the act, and not simply about the act. So my statement was pointing out an obvious incongruity in your post. That may not be particularly significant point, and I really wouldn't care if you simply ignored it, but what it sure as hell does NOT constitute is a claim that the NLRB link was wrong. That's a complete misrepresentation. I never said that, and I never implied it. And if you think I did, well, you need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

I don't have any idea what I'm apologizing for.

I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking you to acknowledge that you have repeatedly misrepresented my position. Whether or not you want to apologize for that misrepresentation is a different matter. If you feel that those were honest, good-faith mistakes, then a simple acknowledgment will suffice.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 12:16 PM
It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

It seems rational to assume that you have no idea what's actually being argued.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 12:16 PM
I have no evidence that the president imprisons opposition members of Congress.

And yet, I would oppose the removal of the following clause from the constitution:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Clearly I'm just paranoid, since the president doesn't arrest members of the opposition party.

Union intimidation is already illegal. Your notion that Card Check will somehow unleash a new era of unrestrained harassment is the dubious, unsubstantiated claim.

Currently, in businesses where unions have been formed, employees can (and have) voted to have them changed or eliminated. Do you have any evidence of unions harassing workers in these scenarios? That would give us an indication of how it would go with card check.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 12:22 PM
Well, let's see. In the post I responded to, you said,


You said I should read the act. You didn't say I should read about the act. But you didn't link to the act, you linked to a page about the act. Even though you suggested that I should read the act, and not simply about the act. So my statement was pointing out an obvious incongruity in your post. That may not be particularly significant point, and I really wouldn't care if you simply ignored it, but what it sure as hell does NOT constitute is a claim that the NLRB link was wrong. That's a complete misrepresentation. I never said that, and I never implied it. And if you think I did, well, you need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

Holy crap. You better stop, now. This is humiliating for you. You really want me to believe that you're incapable of understanding what I linked to? This is another situation where you could have avoided looking silly by just taking to read.

This is what happens when you make ignorant assertions, get called on them, and have to save face. You're just digging this hole deeper.

I actually linked you to a better source of information about the Act than the act itself (it considers case law), but the point was that you expended no effort in learning the state of the law before making bold, incorrect statements.

Now you're just resorting to trivialities in a vain attempt to make yourself look better. Weak.


I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking you to acknowledge that you have repeatedly misrepresented my position. Whether or not you want to apologize for that misrepresentation is a different matter. If you feel that those were honest, good-faith mistakes, then a simple acknowledgment will suffice.

Your explanation is more bizarre and less cogent than your initial goofy statements.

fuelair
16th March 2011, 12:31 PM
Wow, you're confused on the process.

Here's how it works now:

If 30% of workers want a secret ballot election, then one is held. But the election is long and drawn out. What actually happens during this interval is that "employers routinely fire union supporters, intimidate workers, put the union supporters on awful shifts as a warning, hire unionbusting consultants, and so on, and so forth."

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=that_the_crypt_would_simply

All card check does is eliminate that election if more than 50% of workers want to unionize. After the unionization process occurs, NOT BEFORE, the votes are made public.



This is just completely false. If a card-check union is established and 30% of the workers object, they can petition for a secret ballot election. Card Check through the Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate secret ballot elections. It simply allows workers to bypass that process if >50% want to unionize.

I'm shocked to learn that anti-union hysteria is based on completely false understanding of the process.Shouldn't be - false understanding is the reason for any time republickers win an election - the scared conservative voters actually believe the thugs and slime they are voting for care about and will push their wants and needs. Nothing could be greater false understanding than that. What's worse is even after the same thing happening groups of years after groups of years, they still think their "heroes" give a flying crap about them. They deserve the rain of crap they get for that - the rest of us don't though. That's why I feel like I do about republickers. Stupid and sucker-punched is not my choice of how to go.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 12:48 PM
Union intimidation is already illegal.

So is the employer intimidation you complain about. And yet...

Your notion that Card Check will somehow unleash a new era of unrestrained harassment is the dubious, unsubstantiated claim.

Once again, you just can't resist with the straw, can you? I said nothing about "unrestrained" harassment.

But it's a completely logical conclusion that if you give a group a strong motive for acting badly, it will sometimes do so. And Card Check gives unions a strong incentive to intimidate workers. Will they always do so? I'm sure they won't. Will they do so sometimes, and more often than without Card Check? That's really the only sensible prediction.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 12:54 PM
Holy crap. You better stop, now. This is humiliating for you. You really want me to believe that you're incapable of understanding what I linked to?

No, TW. I want you to believe that I'm ocassionally a smartass. I'd also like you to stop acting like a dumbass.

I never claimed the NLRB web page was wrong. I never suggested the NLRB was wrong. I pointed out a minor inconsistency in your post, because I'm a smartass. You, for reasons which escape me, misinterpreted that to mean something it doesn't. And now you can't even admit that your interpretation was wrong. You have to blame me because you can't accept that you actually misinterpreted anything I said. And yet, you lecture me about acting like an adult? Sure, TW. Sure.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 12:56 PM
So is the employer intimidation you complain about. And yet...

Here we go again. If you'd read the study I provided, you would see that laws against employer intimidation are very poorly enforced.

Provide similar evidence for laws against union intimidation being poorly enforced. That would mark the first time you've introduced any factual substantiation to your arguments.



Once again, you just can't resist with the straw, can you? I said nothing about "unrestrained" harassment.

Haha, ok, baby steps. You think there will be more union intimidation with card check? On what are you basing this? Surely not your obviously insufficient knowledge base.



But it's a completely logical conclusion that if you give a group a strong motive for acting badly, it will sometimes do so. And Card Check gives unions a strong incentive to intimidate workers. Will they always do so? I'm sure they won't. Will they do so sometimes, and more often than without Card Check? That's really the only sensible prediction.

Except that you aren't giving them any motivation to act badly. This is pure fabrication on your part.

Right now there's a strong incentive for existing unions to stop workers from holding votes that change their union afiliation or eliminate the union altoghether, can you provide evidence unions are intimidating workers in such ways now?

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 12:58 PM
No, TW. I want you to believe that I'm ocassionally a smartass. I'd also like you to stop acting like a dumbass.

I never claimed the NLRB web page was wrong. I never suggested the NLRB was wrong. I pointed out a minor inconsistency in your post, because I'm a smartass. You, for reasons which escape me, misinterpreted that to mean something it doesn't. And now you can't even admit that your interpretation was wrong. You have to blame me because you can't accept that you actually misinterpreted anything I said. And yet, you lecture me about acting like an adult? Sure, TW. Sure.

Ok. I'll let it end there. The history is there in black and white, anyone who cares to look over it can draw their own conclusions.

My bad for misinterpreting.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 12:58 PM
Shouldn't be - false understanding is the reason for any time republickers win an election

When you believe stuff like that, then this:

Stupid and sucker-punched is not my choice of how to go.

is in fact exactly how you're going to go. But you'll cling comforably to your myth, and be continually surprised at how often "false understanding" wins, never actually learning the real causes of victory and defeat.

johnny karate
16th March 2011, 01:50 PM
But you'll cling comforably to your myth...

If we could somehow harness the power released from the explosion of irony meters this chastisement caused, all our energy problems would be solved.

Unabogie
16th March 2011, 01:59 PM
This thread has been really fun. I don't usually get to see so much willful denial of evidence outside the Birther threads.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 02:12 PM
If we could somehow harness the power released from the explosion of irony meters this chastisement caused, all our energy problems would be solved.

Sure, johnny. Sure. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155203/the-perfect-storm-of-self-satisfaction)

johnny karate
16th March 2011, 02:16 PM
Sure, johnny. Sure. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155203/the-perfect-storm-of-self-satisfaction)

How is it smug to point out that a fantasy of rampant union intimidation and violence has been manufactured in this thread without the least bit of substantiation?

WildCat
16th March 2011, 02:20 PM
:words:
Hey TraneWreck, why not have a secret ballot vote in every case, so we know there was no intimidation involved?

WildCat
16th March 2011, 02:22 PM
You are not answering the question.

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.
I'm not claiming that this is happening now, I'm claiming it will happen once there is incentive to do so. And this proposed law provides such incentive.

Can you think of a reason a vote by secret ballot shouldn't be used in every case, just so we know the cards accurately reflect the will of the workers?

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 02:30 PM
Hey TraneWreck, why not have a secret ballot vote in every case, so we know there was no intimidation involved?

And so it came to this.

Because no one ever admits to losing on the internet, we can only infer when a debate has been won. Posts like WildCat's are clear indicators that he's given up the ghost and is now just trolling to try and save his fragile ego.

I accept your surrender.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 02:31 PM
How is it smug to point out that a fantasy of rampant union intimidation and violence has been manufactured in this thread without the least bit of substantiation?
Hey johnny, maybe you'll be the first person in ths thread to explain why there shouldn't be a secret ballot vote in every case. You know, just to make sure the signed cards actually reflect the will of the workers just in case some signed under duress.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 02:36 PM
And so it came to this.

Because no one ever admits to losing on the internet, we can only infer when a debate has been won. Posts like WildCat's are clear indicators that he's given up the ghost and is now just trolling to try and save his fragile ego.

I accept your surrender.
I'm tired of going in circles with you. I answered every single one of your points, you're just repeating them.

My problem with the card check proposal is that it bypasses a secret ballot in many cases. I'm not at all comfortable with that, because it greatly increases the incentive to pressure workers to sign the card.

What harm is there in conducting a secret ballot vote?

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 02:36 PM
How is it smug to point out that a fantasy of rampant union intimidation and violence has been manufactured in this thread without the least bit of substantiation?

Well, we could start with the fact that that isn't something I ever claimed. So you can always burn that strawman for fuel if your irony meters don't explode.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 02:43 PM
I'm tired of going in circles with you. I answered every single one of your points, you're just repeating them.

You answered with an assortment of demonstrably false assertions and uninformed opinions that you refuse to substantiate with anything resembling facts.

In the perverse world of argument you inhabit, that may count as an "answer," but most thinking people rightly recognize it as nonsense.


My problem with the card check proposal is that it bypasses a secret ballot in many cases. I'm not at all comfortable with that, because it greatly increases the incentive to pressure workers to sign the card.

Yes, we know that's your problem. If >50% of a workforce wants a union, why make them go through a vote? All it does is allow management to run anti-union campaigns, which, the data shows, are highly destructive. You have not shown a single example of union intimidation of elections.

If people want secret ballots, they can have them. Union decisions continue to be determined by secret ballot after it forms.


What harm is there in conducting a secret ballot vote?

This has been explained to you multiple times.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 02:48 PM
Why don't you show that unions have intimidated workers from filing grievances to the NLRB AFTER the union has been certified? Do you have any evidence for that?
I'm sure this is the only time it ever happened...
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have successfully negotiated a settlement with the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 1103 union for Patricia Pelletier, a worker who was targeted by CWA operatives for a vicious campaign of retaliation after she attempted to remove the union from her workplace.
http://www.identitytheftblog.info/identity-theft/retaliatory-identity-theft/1402/

WildCat
16th March 2011, 02:51 PM
More anti-union liars, probably a bunch of teabaggers. I bet the union guys just showed up at their door to sell them girl scout cookies!

fOJEXi8YH2Q

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 02:57 PM
I'm sure this is the only time it ever happened...

http://www.identitytheftblog.info/identity-theft/retaliatory-identity-theft/1402/

So an organization dissatisfied with their union runs a decertification campaign as allowed by law, decertifies the union, and then wins a retaliation lawsuit.

Looks to me like the system works great from that end.

Ziggurat
16th March 2011, 03:01 PM
So an organization dissatisfied with their union runs a decertification campaign as allowed by law, decertifies the union, and then wins a retaliation lawsuit.

Looks to me like the system works great from that end.

That's quite the walk-back from your previous position.

WildCat
16th March 2011, 03:02 PM
So an organization dissatisfied with their union runs a decertification campaign as allowed by law, decertifies the union, and then wins a retaliation lawsuit.

Looks to me like the system works great from that end.
You claimed there was never any intimidation, I have just documented that there is.

So why not have a secret ballot vote in every case?

Frank Newgent
16th March 2011, 05:16 PM
You are not answering the question.

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.
I'm not claiming that this is happening now, I'm claiming it will happen once there is incentive to do so. And this proposed law provides such incentive.


Not sure I understand this fear unless, of course, you mean union membership no longer contingent on having a job.

Can you think of a reason a vote by secret ballot shouldn't be used in every case, just so we know the cards accurately reflect the will of the workers?


Sounds great if such elections were expedited elections.

If political opponents compromised and agreed to secret ballot elections conducted expeditiously would you agree to support the rights of workers who seek to organize?

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 08:38 PM
That's quite the walk-back from your previous position.

You claimed there was never any intimidation, I have just documented that there is.

So why not have a secret ballot vote in every case?

Nope, I said it wasn't really a problem. It isn't. You found one case.

I gave a study of EVERY NLRB ELECTION over a 5 year period.

Surely even you two goofballs can see the difference in data.

But most importantly, the issue with employer intimidation, as I've said multiple times and supported with empircal data, is that it's poorly enforced and the chilling effect goes far beyond any individual illegal acts.

Now be my guest, show a problem with enforcement of rules against union abuse. You just gave me an example that showed the system to be working fine.

TraneWreck
16th March 2011, 09:09 PM
Here is some more empirical evidence that will be ignored by the usual suspects.

Hey, I've got an idea!!! Why don't we see how card check works where it's actually been implimented:

In the spring of 2009 the School of Labor and Employment Relations (LER) at the
University of Illinois conducted a study of the state’s nearly six-year old mandated
majority authorization process for organizing employees in the public sector. The project
was inspired by the national debate surrounding the proposed federal Employee Free
Choice Act. Corporate allegations that the national law will allow employees to be
coerced into signing “card’ or “petitions” motivated LER to conduct an objective
assessment of how Illinois’ law is working. The results of the study unambiguously
revealed that the majority sign-up provision was used extensively without hint of union
or employer abuse.

In brief, from 2003-2009, 21,197 public sector workers employed in state, county,
municipal and educational institutions voluntarily joined a union. Most importantly,
contrary to business claims, in nearly eight hundred petition cases, there was not a single
confirmed incidence of union coercion.
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/efca_illinois.pdf

Although Illinois is known for its tame political culture, so maybe it's just local politeness.

It is illegal now for unions or their agents to coerce employees
to sign a union authorization card. With the Employee
Free Choice Act, it will still be illegal—and any
person who breaks the law will face serious penalties.
Academic studies show that, with majority sign-up
as compared to NLRB election campaigns, employees
report less pressure from co-workers to support the union
and less pressure from employers to oppose the union.
In the first 70 years of the National Labor Relations Act,
only 42 cases found fraud or coercion by unions in the
submittal of authorization cards. By contrast, there were
29,000 documented cases of intimidation or coercion by
employers in 2007 alone.
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/brokensystem.cfm

Read that bolded part a couple of times, really let it sink in.

"But, but, this one time someone from a union did something..."

Skeptic
16th March 2011, 10:40 PM
Does protesting outside someones house, or ringing the doorbell and talking to their wife make you a "thug"?

No, when you do it alone as part of (say) taking a survey. Yes, when you are one of a group of "activists" that gang up on the private house unannounced.

Ziggurat
17th March 2011, 02:48 PM
Read that bolded part a couple of times, really let it sink in.

It's sunk in. The message: secret ballots work. They make union intimidation mostly pointless. And as your own references to the difficulty in enforcing laws against employers shows, making illegal behavior pointless is much more effective at preventing it than trying to punish it.

So, given how effective secret ballots are in preventing unions intimidation (something your own numbers show), why on earth do you want to give unions a mechanism to bypass it?

TraneWreck
17th March 2011, 02:52 PM
It's sunk in. The message: secret ballots work. They make union intimidation mostly pointless. And as your own references to the difficulty in enforcing laws against employers shows, making illegal behavior pointless is much more effective at preventing it than trying to punish it.

So, given how effective secret ballots are in preventing unions intimidation (something your own numbers show), why on earth do you want to give unions a mechanism to bypass it?

Yet secret ballot doesn't do **** to stop harassment and intimidation from management, interesting.

But that's beside the point. We have another feeble attempt by you to slink around the facts. I think I should have bolded more. Go read the first excerpt again.

Card Check does not lead to union intimidation. It's documented, it's fact.

Ziggurat
17th March 2011, 03:14 PM
Yet secret ballot doesn't do **** to stop harassment and intimidation from management, interesting.

I didn't say that (but you're back to your old habits, I see). I'm sure it does a lot to reduce employer intimidation.

TraneWreck
17th March 2011, 03:26 PM
I didn't say that (but you're back to your old habits, I see). I'm sure it does a lot to reduce employer intimidation.

No, at no point did I accuse you of saying that.

That's the implication of the statistics. You claim secret ballot is the reason there have only been 42 confirmed incidents of union harassment, yet there were 29,000 documented cases of harassment and intimidation from management IN 2007 ALONE.

Thus, secret ballots don't do **** to stop management from harassing people, unless you want to argue that 29,000 is a good result.

Ziggurat
17th March 2011, 03:44 PM
No, at no point did I accuse you of saying that.

That's the implication of the statistics. You claim secret ballot is the reason there have only been 42 confirmed incidents of union harassment, yet there were 29,000 documented cases of harassment and intimidation from management IN 2007 ALONE.

Thus, secret ballots don't do **** to stop management from harassing people, unless you want to argue that 29,000 is a good result.

Unless you have statistics to indicate the level of management harassment in the absence of a secret ballot, your claim is obviously unsupported. Basic logic fail.

TraneWreck
17th March 2011, 08:47 PM
Unless you have statistics to indicate the level of management harassment in the absence of a secret ballot, your claim is obviously unsupported. Basic logic fail.

Haha, what?

Under the current system, that includes secret ballot, there were 29,000 incidents of harassment from management in 2007. That means secret ballot ain't stopping the bosses from acting up.

Ziggurat
17th March 2011, 11:03 PM
Haha, what?

Under the current system, that includes secret ballot, there were 29,000 incidents of harassment from management in 2007. That means secret ballot ain't stopping the bosses from acting up.

I never claimed secret ballots stopped any employer misbehavior. I claimed it reduces employer misbehavior compared to what it would be without a secret ballot. That this is so should be obvious. That this was my point was clear. And your response did nothing to address this. Your statistics do nothing to invalidate my claim. This was an elementary mistake on your part. Whether the mistake was in your reading comprehension or your basic grasp of logic I cannot say, nor do I care.

TraneWreck
18th March 2011, 07:00 AM
I never claimed secret ballots stopped any employer misbehavior. I claimed it reduces employer misbehavior compared to what it would be without a secret ballot. That this is so should be obvious. That this was my point was clear. And your response did nothing to address this. Your statistics do nothing to invalidate my claim. This was an elementary mistake on your part. Whether the mistake was in your reading comprehension or your basic grasp of logic I cannot say, nor do I care.

Look, you have been absolutely demolished over the course of these last pages. You have not provided a single citation to support your claims, you're just babbling and then getting smacked by the actual studies.

Obviously I know secret ballots don't need to stop 100% of the intimidation to have value, just like card check isn't invalidated by the one or two incidents of violence that your anemic side dredged up. That's why I said this:

Thus, secret ballots don't do **** to stop management from harassing people, unless you want to argue that 29,000 is a good result.

I recognized the very fact that you're claiming I ignored in the very statement that began this exchange. You have chosen to argue that it's a good result; things would be way worse without secret ballot.

But, of course, this is yet another point you have completely failed to prove. It's entirely possible, for example, that secret ballot elections actually INCREASE the incidents of intimidation and harassment from management. If the ballots were public, they could just retaliate against those that supported the union. Because it's secret, they retaliate against everyone.

Now, if I were the sort of person who thought that making **** up in front of a computer was the proper way to argue, I would just say that's my position. But people study these things. They examine the facts and draw conclusions. If you want to support the idea that secret ballots have stopped EVEN ONE incident of violence, go ahead and prove it. Show us the data. Because as I said, it may very well CAUSE harassment.

So much easier to whine and complain about people not understanding the workings of you beautiful mind, though...

So, what's you point? State it clearly and provide factual support. This, of course, won't happen, because your actual position really isn't that different from the position you imagine I'm accusing you of holding. So long as you remain vague and never substantiate your claims, you can always contend that you have some awesome argument hidden from view that no one is dealing with. This is, of course, ********.

WildCat
18th March 2011, 08:38 AM
If political opponents compromised and agreed to secret ballot elections conducted expeditiously would you agree to support the rights of workers who seek to organize?
I have no issuea at all with speeding up the process, my one and only issue is the elimination of secret ballots in instances where >50% of the workers have signed cards.

I think a secret ballot vote should be used in every single case. This protects workers from being pressured by both the union and management.

Imagine if this was reversed, and management could call workers into their offices one by one (perhaps even as a condition of a job offer) to have them sign a petition against unionization, and unions would be prohibited from any organization attempts if >50% of the workers signed such a petition. The unions and I suspect those here defending card check would cry foul, and rightly so, because all this does is open the door to intimidation by management.

WildCat
18th March 2011, 08:43 AM
Here is some more empirical evidence that will be ignored by the usual suspects.

Hey, I've got an idea!!! Why don't we see how card check works where it's actually been implimented:


http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/efca_illinois.pdf

Although Illinois is known for its tame political culture, so maybe it's just local politeness.
Government workers in Illinois? Seriously? :rolleyes:


http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/brokensystem.cfm

Read that bolded part a couple of times, really let it sink in.

"But, but, this one time someone from a union did something..."
Once again, what's the incentive to do so without card check? Why not just have a secret ballot vote to confirm? What's the harm?

stokes234
18th March 2011, 08:53 AM
I have no issuea at all with speeding up the process, my one and only issue is the elimination of secret ballots in instances where >50% of the workers have signed cards.

I think a secret ballot vote should be used in every single case. This protects workers from being pressured by both the union and management.

Imagine if this was reversed, and management could call workers into their offices one by one (perhaps even as a condition of a job offer) to have them sign a petition against unionization, and unions would be prohibited from any organization attempts if >50% of the workers signed such a petition. The unions and I suspect those here defending card check would cry foul, and rightly so, because all this does is open the door to intimidation by management.

My bold. Are you sure this is how it works? From wikipedia:

"If over 50% of the employees sign an authorization card requesting a union, the employer can voluntarily choose to waive the secret ballot election process and just recognize the union. The other exception is a last resort, which allows the NLRB to order an employer to recognize a union if over 50% have signed cards if the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely."

Wiki isn't always right of course, but it says that the 50% card check only prevents a secret ballot if the employer has engaged in unfair practices. Is this correct?

TraneWreck
18th March 2011, 08:55 AM
Once again, what's the incentive to do so without card check? Why not just have a secret ballot vote to confirm? What's the harm?

Look, I have nothing against secret ballots, but the answer is that there is no harm to card check. The data proves it.

Secret ballots are still allowed with card check. Since there is no union intimidation is states that use card check or similar systems, the harm you're desperate to avoid doesn't exist.

The real problem, as is more than evidenced by the actual data, is employer intimidation. Card check eliminates a lot of that, therefore it's a better system than the status quo. That does not mean, however, that it's a perfect system. If you have other ideas for dealing with the ACTUAL problem, as opposed to the imaginary problem of union intimidation, I'm all ears.

WildCat
18th March 2011, 09:20 AM
Look, I have nothing against secret ballots, but the answer is that there is no harm to card check. The data proves it.
You have data on a law which doesn't even exist? :rolleyes:

TraneWreck
18th March 2011, 09:23 AM
You have data on a law which doesn't even exist? :rolleyes:

Are you just trolling at this point? Did you even read the study I provided?

Illinois has card check. It hasn't been implimented at the federal level, thus applying it to all states, but some of the states do use and have used it for years.

I just find it amazing that I provide a study that literally says, "We studied 20,000 employees that unionized by card check and there wasn't a single incident of intimidation from a union," and you're having difficulty following.

And again, if there is no union intimidation going on in Illinois, with all the mobbed-up unions in Chicago, that says something significant about the process.

WildCat
18th March 2011, 09:27 AM
Is this correct?
No, it's not correct. Nothing of the sort is in the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1409:):

SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.


(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

WildCat
18th March 2011, 09:28 AM
Illinois has card check.
No, it doesn't. The law you cite applies only to the union-friendly public sector.

TraneWreck
18th March 2011, 09:32 AM
No, it's not correct. Nothing of the sort is in the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1409:):

[/LIST]



Notice the part about the NLRB investigating? They can interview employees confidentially and ask them if they were intimidated into signing. It is, in essence, a secret ballot.

The union intimidates them into signing the card, the NLRB shows up and asks them in a confidential setting, a bunch of workers say they were threatened, no automatic certification.

That process is more than adequate, as is evidenced by the lack of union intimidation in these elections and card checks.

TraneWreck
18th March 2011, 09:34 AM
No, it doesn't. The law you cite applies only to the union-friendly public sector.

So? Card check hasn't led to union intimidation, what evidence do you have that it would be any different in the private sector?

The only relevant difference is the degree to which management would put pressure on the process, which is an argument in favor of card check.

WildCat
18th March 2011, 09:41 AM
Notice the part about the NLRB investigating? They can interview employees confidentially and ask them if they were intimidated into signing.
No, it doesn't. The sole responsibility of the NLRB is to verify that the cards represent more than 50% of the workers. There is nothing in the bill authorizing or requiring the NLRB to investigate if anyone signed under duress.

And even if there was (and there certainly isn't in HR 1409) that works against your claim that card check saves money because a secret ballot vote wouldn't be required.

WildCat
18th March 2011, 09:44 AM
So? Card check hasn't led to union intimidation, what evidence do you have that it would be any different in the private sector?

The only relevant difference is the degree to which management would put pressure on the process, which is an argument in favor of card check.
Because worker-bee government workers in Illinois don't need to be intimidated into joining a union any more than flies need to be intimidated into landing on feces.

Again, why not just have a secret vote in every case? What's the harm?

TraneWreck
18th March 2011, 10:07 AM
No, it doesn't. The sole responsibility of the NLRB is to verify that the cards represent more than 50% of the workers. There is nothing in the bill authorizing or requiring the NLRB to investigate if anyone signed under duress.

This is just pure fantasy on your part. If you read the NLRB procedures, employers have the ability to challenge petitions based on intimidation. Because it's very easy for an employee to go to his boss and say, "the union pressured me into signing," that process is more than adequate:

Any party alleging fraud (other than forgery), misconduct or supervisory taint in connection with the showing of interest must take early action on raising such allegations, in a timely manner relative to gaining knowledge of the alleged conduct. General Dynamics Corp., 213 NLRB 851 (1974). When a party raises such allegations, it should be directed, in writing, to present its supporting evidence to the Regional Director within 7 days after raising them. Globe Iron Foundry, 112 NLRB 1200 (1955). If the Regional Director is presented with supporting evidence that gives reasonable cause to believe that the showing of interest may have been invalidated, the Regional Director should conduct a further administrative investigation.
http://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/documents/44/chm2.pdf

That manual is produces by the NLRB to guide its investigators. There is ample opportunity to ensure that the signatures were legitimately obtained, and a rather large number of the petitions are turned down:

Every year, thousands of petitions are filed in NLRB regional offices by employees, unions and employers for secret ballot elections to determine whether a majority of employees want to form or join a union, or to decertify an existing union. In the case of a representation election, Board agents first determine whether the unit of employees is appropriate and ensure that at least 30 percent of employees in that unit have signed the petition. About one-third of petitions are withdrawn or dismissed during this process.
http://www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do/conduct-elections




And even if there was (and there certainly isn't in HR 1409) that works against your claim that card check saves money because a secret ballot vote wouldn't be required.

More trivial failure. They investigate the ballot whether or not a majority sign. If a majority sign, a union is automatically certified, if not, it goes to a secret ballot. The money and time is saved by not going through a second election after the first proved a majority want a union.

TraneWreck
18th March 2011, 10:09 AM
Because worker-bee government workers in Illinois don't need to be intimidated into joining a union any more than flies need to be intimidated into landing on feces.

Yes, I know your thoughtless bias. Are you allergic to factual argument?


Again, why not just have a secret vote in every case? What's the harm?

The harm is that the elections give employers time to intimidate workers out of forming a union. In 2007 alone, there were 29,000 confirmed incidents of management intimidating and retaliating against their employees.

This has been explained to you over and over, yet you repeat it with no evidence.

Find me the evidence that card check leads to union intimidation. A number of states have implimented card check.