 |
Complete Labor
Law Poster for $24.95 from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements |
|
|
|
#1
08-21-2007, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Employee Free Choice Act Federal
I am interested in thoughts (both sides) of the pending Employee Free Choice Act.
This proposed legislation would eliminate secret ballot elections for representation purposes and will eliminate the ability for employees to express their preferences in secret. If passed, a union would gain recognition if 50% of workers sign authorization cards. Unlike secret ballot elections where a voter makes his or her decision in private, authorization cards are signed in the presence of a pro-union employee or a union organizer. You do not have to read long to find thousands of examples where organizers threatened workers and of pro-union workers exerting all kinds of pressure, threats and violence to get employees to sign authorization cards. When there is a secret ballot, however, workers are able to vote their conscience and not be intimidated......by either side. I find it interesting that unions support card check for organizing yet favor secret ballot elections when it comes to decertifying a union. This is where I belive the unions have tipped their hand. Clearly they are not interested in fairness, rather they are more interested in adding to their coffers. I favor maintaing the current democratic system which allow voters to make their decision in private, supervised by the NLRB. Anything else seems..........unAmerican Let the debate begin! |
|
#2
08-21-2007, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First off lets get the record straight your not neutral. We have a legislature to pass and change laws.The NLRA came thru the legislative process it has been amended through the legislative process. A card count by a the NRLB is a secret ballot as well.
The structure as it is set up now a majority can vote in the union thru card count,and the election is scheduled 6 months down the road giving the employer ample time to clean house. You think thats fair ? What if every election in the country ran like that. I think when employees vote for a union thats what they should get a union. Not a delay where management can engage in coercion to stop it. If your so worried about Union coercion the sword cuts both ways. The employees can vote out the union as fast as they can vote it in. JoeC Last edited by joec; 08-22-2007 at 10:43 PM. |
|
#3
08-21-2007, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
 There are two of us that are not neutral Joe. Here's the question. Why is it unions want card check for representation elections but want to maintain elections for decertifications? If unions pushed card check for both representation and decertification and allowed employees to go through either process any time they wanted.....now that would be fair. |
|
#4
08-22-2007, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Haaa ha Nice try. The act precludes decertification of Union by either a rival union, or removal of a union under 9(c)(3) for obvious reasons. To decertify a Union in a shop that has a current contract in force, you would also have to remove the existing contract, not just the Union you agreed on the contract with.
The contract has a fixed term on all party’s, contracts have 3 basic tenants offer, acceptances ,and consideration once all party’s have agreed on the final version mutual assent has occurred ,and the contract is binding on all party’s. The employees have entered into contract for the fixed term of the contract, as well through its representatives. Your whole argument is, management should be able to do and end run around the contract they agreed on, to make the EFCA fair. The employee free choice act deals with establishing a contract where none existed in the first place. By adding (if its passed) 9(c)(6)(7) provisions to the act. You want to repeal 9(c)(3) as well as basic contract law which goes back to Magna Charta at the least. You got to be joking me with that. If thats the case why cant we all do end runs around contracts left ,and right. Not living up to contracts that is Un-American. Which is why Unions exist in the first place,employers don't keep promises,unless they are in contract. JoeC Last edited by joec; 08-22-2007 at 05:47 PM. |
|
#5
08-22-2007, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The machinery already exists in the act under Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (1)(B)), as amended by § 101 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 141 et seq.) makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to restrain or coerce an employer in the selection of representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. This statute, its legislative history, and purposes, were examined, reevaluated, and construed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1974 in the landmark case of Florida Power & Light Co. v International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (1974) 417 US 790, 41 L Ed 477, 94 S Ct 2737, 86 BNA LRRM 2689, The employer does not give up his right to challenge the election under 8(b)(1)(B) by the passage of the EFCA. You don't have to read long to find employers,hiring Union busters like yourself to be out of compliance,before you find coercion. Who is in better position to coerce ? Common sense ,and history point at the employer which is why the act needs amending. JoeC Last edited by joec; 08-22-2007 at 09:55 PM. |
|
#6
08-22-2007, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If he had his way he would repeal the entire act,not just the proposed amendment. Under the proposed legislation the only jobs in Jeopardy are those of the Union Busters. Union busters are professional consultants or lawyers, who may represent a legal consortium or consulting firm. These individuals or firms advertise their ability to manipulate the labor law system and specialize in advising employers on how to thwart union organizing drives or how to decertify unions. Union busters usually self-identify as ‘union avoidance firms,’ ‘management consultants,’ "H.R Consultants" or ‘labor consultants". They are extremely well paid, make no mistake they are staunch opponents of the proposed legislation. JoeC Last edited by joec; 08-22-2007 at 09:57 PM. |
|
#7
08-22-2007, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Now Joe, please remember the rules of the board, no personal attacks.
Here's one simple fact. Even with the secret ballot process where people get to make their choice in a private fashion...unions in have fallen from 30% to 7.4 % of private employers since 1978. There are a lot of reasons behind that. One is that most people believe not only that unions are irrelevant but they are dangerous. Let's face it...there is nothing to sell any more. Unions do not add any value and in fact they destroy it and people see this very clearly....just look at the numbers Joe....7.4% down from over 30% in the span of less that one working career. We all know why unions are pushing this Act...they are desperate. They cannot survive under fair rules where people vote so they are attempting to take away one of tenets of American democracy...the secret ballot election. You state my argument is is that "management should be able to do and end run around the contract they agreed on". That is incorrect, My argument is that if you believe in your product and it's good to have card check for representation elections then it must be good to have card check for decertification elections too. If unions truely believe that we should all do what is in the employees best interests then why would you not support allowing them to card check out of the union? The answer Joe is that unions are a business and they do not care about employees...they care about getting employees dues. You ask me "Who is in better position to coerce ?" Please tell me, is there anyone on this earth who feels comfortable with giving the Teamsters the power to intimmdate peole into signing cards without the security of a secret ballot election? Now before you answer....please review a selection of some of the Teamsters finest hours.... Atlanta Teamsters boss Sentenced for Thefts Teamsters Benefits Manager for Westchester County, N.Y. Local Sentenced Convicted Teamsters Boss Sentenced for Fraud, Embezzlement Ousted Chicago teamsters boss Faces Fine, Jail for Violating Gag Rule Billionaire Clinton Friend, Union Accused of Racketeering Boston Local Defends Convicted Brother of Fugitive Mobster Teamsters Houston Boss Convicted for Fixing Re-Election, Taking Kickback Hoffa Re-Elected for Third Term; Corruption Still a Factor Atlanta Local Boss Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement Election Czar Rules Hoffa Crony Stole Funds National Convention Marked by Tension, Violence Rochester, N.Y. Local Teamsters boss Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement Ex-Treasurer of D.C. Local Sentenced, Forced to Repay Whistleblowers at Houston Local Leads to Boss's Indictment NYC Waste Haulers' Strike a Legacy of Organized Crime Former International Union Executive Assistant Sentenced Ex-Bookkeeper for Tennessee Local Indicted for Embezzlement Former Teamsters Bookkeeper in Virginia Sentenced for Embezzlement [b]Union Reformers Accuse Chicago Local of Ballot-Stuffing Union Dissenters Point to Campaign Violations by Hoffa Allies Washington, D.C. Treasurer Pleads Guilty to False Entries New Report Claims Union Is Mob-Free, but May Be a Cover-up Bonanno Crime Boss Gets Two Life Terms Members Sues Local Chief & Hoffa Feds Acting on Report of Teamster Corruption in Chicago Top Hoffa Assistant Suspended Chicago Local in Turmoil over Officer Elections Ex-Bookkeeper Charged with Embezzlement in Mass. Court Top NY Teamsters Boss Ousted by Review Bd. IRB Bars Ex-Houston Chief from Union Son of Frmr. N.Y. Union Chief Indicted Frmr. Teamsters Secy. Confesses Falsification in Indiana Fed. Court Feds Charge 1st Member of Doyle Dynasty in NY Case against NY's Top Teamster Boss in Hoffa's Court Former Ethics Watchdog Points Finger at Hoffa Teamsters Internal Ethics Watchdog Resigns; Claims Hoffa Obstructs Investigation of Houston, Chicago Locals Trustee Uncovers Embezzlement, Faces Harassment in NY Independent Rev. Bd. Hears Charges against Houston Bosses DOL Obtains Nearly $5 Million Settlement in Cap. Consultants Cases : Houston Local Under Investigation for Possible Kickbacks & Embezzlement Boston Teamster Boss, Accomplice Plead Guilty New Indictments of Boston Teamster Boss More Allegations Surface of Union Featherbedding on Boston Film Sets Boston Electronics Owner Convicted of Helping Teamsters Boss in Theft Ring Hoffa NJ Vice President Charged by Union with Mob Links Ky Sup. Ct. Upholds Indictment of Teamsters in ‘95 Election Case Ex-Ky. President Sentenced for Using Union Funds to Pay for Car Independent Rev. Bd. Forces IBT Takeover of NY Local Ex-Bookkeeper Sentenced for Falsification in Calif. Ex-NY Teamster Boss Indicted for Extortion Boston Teamsters Goon Sentenced for Racketeering Controversial Boston Local under Spotlight for Possible Embezzlement at Airport Parking Garage Convicted Extortionist Goes from Mass. Sheriff to Union FEC Finds Widespread Irregularities with Teamster PAC Union Pension Manager Gets Light Sentence for Kickbacks Whistleblower on Teamster Racketeering in Mass. Film Industry Vindicated Ex-Ky Pres. Used Union Funds to Pay Off Car Lease Ex-Bookkepper Pleads to Falsification of Records in CA Teamsters Charged with Using Corrupt Audit Firm in Pol. Spending Disclosure Buffalo Teamsters Hit with NLRB Complaint for Illegal Dues Seizures Hoffa Seizes NW Airline Affiliate, Fearing Break from IBT Fed. Investigation of Mobbed-Up Bos. Local Chalks up First Conviction Did Boston Teamsters Plot with Corrupt Government Agents to Frame Federal Investigators? IRB Ousts Hoffa's "Duke" for Nepotism Government Recovers $8.583 Million in Chicago Racketeering Case NLRB to Prosecute Alaska Local for Beck Violations Judge Enjoins Inter-Union Infighting to Protect Trouble Local's Integrity (5.12 06/10/02) Troubled Boston Local's School Ordered to Vacate Rent-Free Lot Davis, Ansara Sentenced; Pay $1,345,000 in Restitution IRB Probing Scandal-Scarred Boston Local Nash Finally Sentenced, Gets Off Easy Mississippi Teamsters Boss Stole $2,700 Inspector General Sees an Increase in Racketeering Case Activity Death Threats Alleged in Connection to Racketeering Probe of Boston Local Indicted Boston Boss Targeted by the Mob Cleveland Local in Trusteeship; Boss Accused of Unauthorized Salary Increases Union Fund Manager Admits to Kickbacks Longshore Union Allegedly Infiltrated by Genovese Indicted Boston Boss Resigns from Board of State Agency Boston Boss Faces Embezzlement and Bribery Charges NLRB Brings Charges Against Youngstown Local Union Fund Manager Charged Honolulu Local Liable for Additional $544,000 DOL Attacks Tainted Seattle Election DOL Wins Subpoena Dispute over Honolulu Local IRB Accuses New Yorker of Visiting with Reputed Genovese Mobster Four Months Home Detention for Dayton Boss Who Stole $6,400 Mississippi Boss Allegedly Stole $2,400 Alleged Associate of Boston Boss in Custody Hawaiian Local Must Pay Nearly $1 Million in Tort Damages to Employer ) California Local’s Videotaping of Employees is ULP New York Local Violated Federal Labor Law Appeals Court Reinstates Conviction and Sentence of Chicago Boss Minnesota Local Liable to Overnite for Property Damage Feds Raid Boston Boss' House Boss Accused of Fixing Chicago Election; Union Training School Linked to Corruption Probe (4.12 06/19/01) Leedham Slate Violated Election Rules; Ohio Boss Accused of $4,800 Theft IBT Settles Florida Violence Case Carey's Permanent Expulsion Upheld Hoffa Campaign Ordered to Return $42,000 in Contributions Boston Boss Reportedly Targeting Informants Bush Nominee Tied to Boston's Local 25 Scandal HQ Staffer Resigns over $3,400 Discrepancy Overnite's RICO Suit Rolls On Attorney Predicts Action on Money-Laundering Scandal New Info on McAuliffe's Role in Money-Laundering Scandal Review Board Hears Case Against Detroit Bosses Carey Indicted! Trumka Next? Hamilton Loses Appeal Hollywood Talks to Boston Grand Jury Hoffa Ally Lied about Organized Crime Ties Teamsters Ethics Code Behind Schedule Union Pension Managers Guilty of Racketeering Florida Boss Charged with Extortion & Drug Crimes Las Vegas Trustee Replaced Pennsylvania Unionists Sentenced for Assault Federal Grand Jury Now Probing Trumka Probe of Boston Local Reportedly Expands NLPC Files Complaint to Disbar Corrupt Trumka Massive New York Probe Nabs 11 Union Bosses Boston Drug Indictment Linked to Local 25 Gore and Corrupt Bosses at Democratic Convention Chicago Boss Sentenced for Bribery Film Industry has Massachusetts Local Probed Kentucky Indictments for 1995 Elections Revisited Minnesota Local Must Pay Overnite $30,000) Indiana Bosses Charged with $894,000 Diversion Detroit Bosses, Hoffa Pal, Accused of Embezzlement Judge Rejects 2001 Election Rules) Discrimination Suit Against New Jersey Local Proceeds Minnesota Teamsters Plead Guilty to Crimes Against Overnite Employees Ex-Indiana Boss Admits to Conspiracy Pennsylvania Union Boss Sentenced for Union Violence Chicago Pension Funds' Scandal Uncovered Another Teamsters Scandal Figure Sentenced No DOJ Oversight of 2001 Election Corrupt Long Island Local Gets Election Go-Ahead IRB Wants Civil Charges Against Three New York Bosses Shooting Believed Tied to West Virginia Strike New Jersey Fund Violated ERISA; Wrongly Denied Pension California Local Loses Union Dues Suit Gore Asked to Repudiate Support of Corrupt Unions Illinois Boss Guilty of Accepting Bribe (3.1 1/3/00) Hamilton Convicted, Criminal Probe may Expand Cleveland Plain Dealer's Editorial on the Teamsters Money-Laundering Scandal Philly Boss Removed, Local in Trusteeship IRB Charges Carey-aide with $12,650 Embezzlement Yonkers Local Taken Over, Bosses Ousted Fired Business Agents Sue Kentucky Boss Teamsters Corruption Trial Kicks Off Ohio Local Blamed for Failure of Union Health Plan Pennsylvania Teamsters Arrested for Beating Clinton Protesters UPS Employee Files Civil Conspiracy Lawsuit After Stabbing by Teamsters Assailants in Florida Corruption Charges Oust New York Boss, But Not Family Felon Returns to Power in Cleveland California Local Fined Worker Improperly ) Hoffa Campaign's Fine Upheld IRB Member Didn't Recuse Himself Hawaiian Teamsters Indicted for Arson Texas Boss Disqualified from Office Illinois Boss Guilty of Intimidation Corrupt New Jersey Local Oversight to End Ohio Local Charged for Threatening Employee Three Hoffa Slate Members in Trouble DOL Forces Return of $20 Million to Pension Plan Carey Fundraiser, Blitz, Fined $2,000 New York Bosses Return $1.5 Million Cleveland Boss Sentenced for Perjury Congress Probes Kentucky Corruption $729,000 Returned to Teamsters Pension Fund More Union Arrests in Florida Kentucky Governor Linked to Union Indictments A Fifth, Charney, Pleads Guilty in Teamsters Scandal Hoekstra Investigation gets Hard-Won Documents ) Boss Sentence for Embezzlement New Jersey Kickback Agent get Probation ( Hoekstra Turns Probe to DOL Federal Sting Nabs Corrupt Boss Rerun Election Pushed Back Texas Boss Gets 51 Months for Theft Teamsters Bosses Ante-Up $2 Million A Fourth, Blitz, Pleads Guilty in Teamsters Scandal Acting-President Sever Reprimanded Ex-Teamsters Boss to Pay $136,000 for Clean-Up Cleveland Teamsters Boss Guilty of Perjury Teamsters Cited for Illegal Dues Collection Libel Suit Against Teamsters Continues Tainted Family Returns to Power Election Monitor Tries to Blackmail Congress New York Teamsters Indicted Violent Teamsters Shut Down California Port |
|
#8
08-23-2007, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok, keep everything the same, but stop the captive audience meetings. Employers can not "coerce" employees in regards to their decision to join (or not) an existing union (in a right to work state). Or have the employers rep (union buster) and a union rep engage in a debate on the merits in front of the members of the potential bargaining unit. Unions want a level field staggerwing, and they've never had one. As an elected rep for a bargaining unit if i can gain an advantage for my members thru bargaining or legislation i will take it.....that's my "job"
As far as the "list" goes wing....all i have to say is enron.....halburton.....etc, etc. IMHO big business has taken far more from the people than anyone else could ever dream of.... for the record wing i am a 4 yr union member. I was "active" in the organizing of our shop. Former steward, currently serve the members as a trustee and committeeman. |
|
#9
08-23-2007, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe,
I don't understand something. You state that keeping the elections secret enables the company to clean up their act until no union is necessary... at least in the eyes of the voting workers. Quote:
That is why union membership has dropped more than 75%. Unions are becoming dinosaurs and their intentions are become too clear. Unions are slowly becoming a bad joke where the punchline is intimidation and corruption. You have talked often about union busting. What about the heavy handed tactics used by the unions to bolster membership? To intimidate non union shops opening up in classically "union" towns? The unions' hands aren't exactly clean here. Your answer will, of course, be that the union landscape has changed. The corruption is gone and new management and union bylaws keep the corruption from returning. What you should review is that labor law has also changed significantly mirroring many (but not all, admittedly) of the wants of labor. Governments move more slowly than they should... but in an economy with less than 5% unemployment, the power is IN the workers' hands. Sorry. Give me a reason for the change in legislation that doesn't end with "and the Unions, as entities, benefit." My congressmen and women are not being paid to protect your unions, but, instead, the people in them. I don't see how this change gives the workers an iota of benefit that they didn't already have.
__________________
Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable. I am not now nor ever was an attorney. Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law. |
|
#10
08-23-2007, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You say that employers cannot coerce workers one way or the other (agreed), but all elections are held in the open. Why are debates held between pro and con opinions such a bad idea? What are you so very afraid of. You say you want a level playing field. A level field is where BOTH sides are heard. Not where only the union's voice is heard, the employer isn't given time to respond, and an open election is held. C'mon. If you are going to cheat the rubes, at least be honest that you are running a con.
__________________
Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable. I am not now nor ever was an attorney. Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law. |
|
#11
08-23-2007, 07:02 PM
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Ok what you have just read above (STB)is the Union Busters calling card FEAR, don’t be fooled it’s the Union Busters stock, and trade. If Unions were irrelevant as he says, what is there to be afraid of?
Basically that list of headlines posted boils down to is the Teamsters have been guilty, and brought before the board for violations under Section 8(b)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (1)(B). Which only makes the point I made earlier, what is noticeably absent on the Union Busters list. Is the corporations that have violated 8(a)(1) through (5) I could put them all down, as well basically it reads like a who’s who of every major corporation in America. Including all class1 Railraoads, every major U.S airline the biggest chemical, mining, the big 3 automotive manufactures, as well as all the oil companies. I certainly would not call any of these company’s irrelevant or dangerous, on the contrary most of the major corporations in the company in the above mentioned are unionized. Now lets straighten out some lies put forth by a known Union Buster. Quote:
This is obvious through the posts that you posted previously. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No they want a fair election that would put union Busters out of the loop, the card count is a secret ballet reviewed by the NLRB. As well as impose civil penalties on employers that violate 8(a)(1) through (5) Quote:
Quote:
From: Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,…………… Propose To: Employees shall have the right to join, labor organizations, to bargain collectively through labor organizations representatives, for the purpose of collective bargaining……… Nothing in the act requires employees to join a Union affiliated with the AFL- CIO or any other organization in which dues is required. This is another reason for the bogus numbers that the Union buster handed out earlier the numbers of Unions does not include non affiliated groups. The number of assoc that deal with the employer directly through self-organization is not counted, and those numbers have grown substantially particularly in the immigrant community’s. Quote:
Ask any Local organizer, how it usually happens is this way. A group of employees who have been working without a contract for a substantial amount of time, have a gentlemen’s agreement in place with management, on terms ,and conditions of employment. The company either changes owners or through merger or, new ownership new management does not honor any of the unwritten terms. The employees at that point find they have been the victim of a sham. They take the initiative to contact the local; the local puts them in touch with the organizer. The organizer hands over the blank cards to the perspective members, and tells them to get at least 55% signed, and bring them back for processing. This idea of a bunch of happy employees minding their own businesses are suddenly swooped down upon by an outside force of Teamsters demanding signed cards is ridiculous. The organizer keeps tabs on the employees that came to him through meetings. Most locals only have one organizer, many have none at all. If you believe your co-workers are a bunch of goons muscling you tell the organizer. The organizer does not want any controversy over the card count. Once the organizer has signed cards in hand he notifies the employer he is the exclusive agent for the employees. Management refuses, the organizer drops the card to the NLRB with a petition and an election is scheduled, for six months down the road. At that time the Union busters are called. Union buster first tries to get the employees to sign cards saying they made a mistake signing the card through coercive union busting techniques. Potential yes voters are fired for various reasons. The only time the NLRB is involved is during the election. If after all that the union still wins. The employer challenges the election. Something that has to be made clear is the union cant win an election when management has terminated half the electorate. That would be like one party precluding known voters of the other party from voting. The other alternative the employees have is when the Union tells the employer that he is the exclusive agent,and the employer declines the workers automatically strike for recognition. This is very effective,also very unusual ,and it also will preclude an election. So even under the current schemes the employer does not have an absolute right to an election. JoeC Last edited by joec; 08-31-2007 at 06:05 PM. |
|
#12
08-23-2007, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
JoeC |
|
#13
08-23-2007, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, no surprise that the other side of the argument has scurried about in an attempt to change the question.
Again, the simple question is....if according to unions, card check is the only fair way to decide representation elections....why do the unions demand an election for decertification elections? We all know the answer. Unions are not interested in employee welfare, they are interested in maintaining a steady revenue stream. Unions in America are nearly dead, 92.6 of all employees in the private sector chose to be union-free. Since the unions have no product to sell, this is one last desperate attempt to gain through legislation what they cannot win in a fair, secret ballot election. 94% of all union PAC money goes to bought and paid for democrate politicians who have in exchange for this blood money are supporting this un-American legislation. If the union product is so good....unions should not be afraid of allowing the employees to decert with card check. For the record, I am a former union member with first hand experience of how union thugs steal the members hard earned pension plan. |
|
#14
08-23-2007, 08:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
JoeC |
|
#15
08-23-2007, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You missed my point cyjeff. The point was that employers can not coerce employees ref- membership AFTER a successful election takes place. prior to said election it is a captive audience meeting free for all. I and many (most) of my coworkers found the films humorous, but the fact remains that the employer has a distinct advantage of being able to "force" the employees to "hear" their opinions on the subject. Unions do not have this benefit. If you don't want to listen to them you just "close the door" (literally)......If the "meetings" were a debate between employer reps and union reps it would be a far more "democratic" way for employee's to get the information they need to make an informed decision.
|
|
#16
08-23-2007, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well Joe, I'd like you to take as many shots at it as possible until you come up with a truthful answer.
You don't think the law which provides secret ballot elections is fair so you want it changed. Yet, your position that requiring a contract is very fair and you want that to stay the same. Finally you state that the current law which requires an election for a decert is fair and you want that to stay the same. Even a child realizes that you want your cake, eat it too and want the employees to pay for it. Let's try to talk about WHATS FAIR. If fairness to employees is important to you and to unions and this is what it's all about to you....then pray tell...why would you not support changing the law to allow employees to card check in and out whenever they decide? Could this possibly be about money? Their money moving to your pockets? I think so...and so do most of working Americans. |
|
#17
08-23-2007, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And let's get a couple of other facts out there while we are at it.
If a company has no union, how in the heck could someone be a union buster? If I was working decert's the term would be accurate howver this is not the case so please attempt to come up with a more accurate and clever term. Personally I like "Truth Gospel" Take a look at every unions LM-2 and you will find tons of people called "organizers". In the spirit of Item #1...let's start calling them "Union Pushers". There are several differences between the Union Pushers and the Truth Gospels. Pushers have no product to sell. Americans realize the uselessness of unions and union pushers and union membership has fallen from 30% to 7.4 %. Union Pushers resort to using fear, intimindation and skull cracking. They are an angry, angry lot. Then they wonder why they can't win an election? Could it possibly be that people do not want to join a club where they might wake up dead one morning if they step out of line, or lose their pension cause the union boss needed a new house and boat? Unions are dead my friend and the revenue stream is drying up. All the yelling, screaming, threatening, back office politics and violence is not going to change the future. My prediction...2012 = 3.5%, 2016 = 1.8%, 2020 = .9% 2024 = ZERO |
|
#18
08-23-2007, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The contract has a fixed term on all party’s, contracts have 3 basic tenants offer, acceptances ,and consideration once all party’s have agreed on the final version mutual assent has occurred ,and the contract is binding on all party’s. The employees have entered into contract for the fixed term of the contract, as well through its representatives. Your whole argument is, management should be able to do and end run around the contract they agreed on, to make the EFCA fair. The employee free choice act deals with establishing a contract where none existed in the first place. By adding (if its passed) 9(c)(6)(7) provisions to the act. You want to repeal 9(c)(3) as well as basic contract law which goes back to Magna Charta at the least. I have already pointed out why that can not be done; the act gives plenty of leeway to decertify a union. If you inserted what you want into the act, the whole act would not survive a Supreme Court challenge. You have already lost that argument as a matter of law. JoeC |
|
#19
08-23-2007, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You've somehow forgotten to add a few facts. First, the reason the law allows an employer to have meetings is because they are paying the employee. If you guys want to have a meeting somewhere else...feel free to start paying them to come. To balance that, the law allows the union pusher to visit employees at their home to use their fear and intimindation tactics to coerece employees to sign a card. In fact, the law even requires the employeer to violate employee privacy and give the union pusher their address. As for the debate issue...even the most incompetent union pusher knows the reason why employer don't engage in debate. The law currently allows union pushers to make any promise they want while it is illegal for the employer to make the same promise. This is why employers Guarantee Cards with the promises the union pushers printed on them with a guarantee that the union will make up the difference if they don't fulfill the promise. Thousands of Guarantee Cards issued......not one signature. Last edited by staggerwingbeech; 09-03-2007 at 07:13 PM. |
|
#20
08-23-2007, 09:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wrong Joe...it can be changed. Unions and union pushers simply do not support it.
Come on now....yer getting close, just be honest. Here it is in the most simple terms. 1. Unions want to change the law so it's really, really easy for them to get people into a union. 2. Then they want to lock them into a contract for a long, long time. 3. Finally they want to make it really, really hard for them to get out of the union. 4. It's ALL about getting the employees money into the unions pocket. Come one now...just admit it, I promise you'll feel better |
|
#21
08-23-2007, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
How 'bout we just agree that we will never agree. You keep contributing to the RNC and I'll keep giving to the DNC, and we'll point fingers at each other when something goes wrong.........THAT'S the American (political) way !! |
|
#22
08-23-2007, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You said you want to debate now you are telling us what the answers to your questions are supposed to be. This is a joke. Quote:
JoeC Last edited by joec; 08-23-2007 at 09:29 PM. |
|
#23
08-23-2007, 09:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not even a good try Joe. Try all you want to cover, mix-up, misdirect like all the other union pushers.
I did not say Act, I said law. The application of the law is defined by the NLRB who requires employers (by law) to give you union pushers the addresses of the employees before an election. I sure hope you are not claiming that this is not the case as it would seriously hurt your credibility. Last edited by staggerwingbeech; 08-23-2007 at 10:12 PM. |
|
#25
08-23-2007, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here you go Joe. Please come back and tell us all about it.
Excelsior Underwear, Inc. 156 NLRB 1236 (1966) |
|
#26
08-23-2007, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I will help you out a bit Joe. Please read below..
Under federal labor law, seven days after the NLRB schedules an election, the union is entitled to an “Excelsior List” that includes the names and addresses of all the employees in the bargaining unit. I know you would never believe me....you'll probably not believe the NLRB either. So...just for you, click on the link below...it will take you to The International Marine Division of ILA AFL-CIO. Perhaps you will believe a union. http://www.bridgedeck.org/mmp_mags/2...y-February.pdf Can't wait for the next spinjob Last edited by staggerwingbeech; 08-23-2007 at 11:09 PM. |
|
#27
08-23-2007, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe....I know you are busily reviewing Excelsior and coming to the realization that union pushers do in fact get employee addresses by law. I also know that I have been perhaps unfair by simply showing a small piece of one union (Teamsters) violent past. So please allow me to educate the readers about another fine example of Americas unions, the UAW.
A nine-member special grand jury investigated harassment, intimidation and terrorist acts committed by UAW union militants. Included in the evidence were records of violence directed against Shucheng Huang, a mother of four who continued to do her job during the UAW walkout. During the strike, union thugs vandalized her car with paint, and smashed her windows. Additionally, the severed head of a cow was dumped on the hood of her car. After the strike was over, UAW terrorists fired a ball bearing at Mrs. Huang as she was driving onto the company parking lot and one of the UAW terrorists was arrested in connection with the attack. Local newspapers reported the incidents involving Mrs. Huang on June 28, and included photos of her and of the crime scene. Unknown persons then posted her picture the next day on bulletin boards throughout the Abex plant under the caption, "Wanted Dead or Alive." Also, a few days later, Mrs. Huang received an anonymous letter, with a photo of her face superimposed where the cow's head had been on her vehicle. Acts against other Abex employees who worked during the strike included slashed tires, theft of property, harassing phone calls, pornographic mail, and cases of stalking. Now please tell me Joe. 1. If your daughter was working there, would you be even slightly concerned with her safety? 2. Would you be concerned if these guys had her home address? 3. Would you be concerned if these thugs visited her home late one night with a union card and a ball bat? 92.6% of Americans agree there is no place in this country for these thugs. And I do not care how much of the Hoffa Kool-Aid you drink....you know the answer to these three questions is yes. Last edited by staggerwingbeech; 08-23-2007 at 10:33 PM. |
|
#28
08-23-2007, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whats that you say....Teamsters and the UAW not enough? Lets look at the United Mine Workers.
Dissident local officers and rank-and-file coal miners were brutally attacked April 1 by supporters of the United Mine Workers of America leadership at a union rally in southwestern Pennsylvania. The incident took place at the UMWA's annual Mitchell Day celebration in Bentleyville, just south of Pittsburgh, attended by some 250 union officials and miners. Outside the hall a dozen miners from Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio held up signs and passed out leaflets criticizing the policies of the union leadership. Almost immediately, a group of union thugs surrounded the protesting miners and began punching and kicking them. They pulled down the workers' signs and ripped the flyers from their hands. A protesting miner was hit on the head with a piece of lumber and had to be hospitalized. The attack only ended when state and local police intervened. Rich Cicci, the financial secretary of UMWA Local 1197 and a worker at Rochester and Pittsburgh's Eighty-Four Mine in Washington County, suffered a gash by his ear. He told the World Socialist Web Site, "We were standing with signs and they brought in people on the International [union] payroll. I call them thugs. They pulled away our signs and I got hit with something. The violent attack on the protesters was publicized in western Pennsylvania and produced widespread disgust among working people. After the rally, however, UMWA International President Cecil Roberts justified the assault in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. "This is not the way we want to resolve disputes," he said, "but you can't curse the union and its leadership and expect that no one will take exception to that." This is just too funny. Union thugs being assualted by union thugs. And the International President condones the behavior. Were there no good hard working union free pepole for these guys to beat up so they had to do it to their own members? This is not the type of club I want to join.....and 92.6% of Americans agree. |
|
#30
08-23-2007, 11:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
More UMW terrorist behavior.
In spring 1993, the union ordered more than 17,000 miners in seven states out on strike. Thugs vandalized homes, fired shots at a mine office and cut power to another mine, temporarily trapping 93 miners underground. West Virginia heavy-equipment operator Eddie York wasn't as fortunate as the trapped miners. On July 22, 1993, this husband and father of three was shot in the back of the head as he drove past militant UMW strikers away from a work site. He died instantly. UMW goons then pounded would-be rescuers with stones. Boss Trumka's public reaction to the strike violence was chilling. He implied, as quoted in the Washington Times on Sept. 3, 1993, that employees who work during a strike deserve whatever happens to them: "I'm saying if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you're going to burn your finger." In June 1994, a federal jury found UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe guilty on conspiracy and weapons charges in the death of York. By then, York's widow Wanda had already filed a $27 million lawsuit. In addition to Lowe, it named Trumka and several other UMW officials, charging that union strike tactics and directives had contributed to Eddie York's death. For four years, UMW lawyers zealously fought Wanda York's suit. But the course of the legal battle suddenly changed after federal prosecutors announced on June 23, 1997, that they would release evidence from Lowe's criminal trial to her attorneys. After that bombshell, it took UMW lawyers just two days to reach a secret settlement with Wanda York. Since 2000, union thugs have given nearly $600,000,000 to buy democrat politicans trying to buy their survival though the Employee Free Choice Act. Nearly half a billion came from union dues. These thugs have used murder, fear, beatings, intimidation, theft, ebezzelment and terrorism in an unsuccessful attempt to revive their failing business. Now they are trying to buy their survival by bribing politicans. It shall not pass. |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The Oklahoma Drug Dealer Liability Act | Dane Metcalfe | Drugs | 8 | 11-13-2009 08:07 PM |
| Suspended Florida | rnb123 | Florida Labor Laws | 14 | 10-15-2007 01:12 PM |
| EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. v. McVEIGH (No. 05-200) | Bernie Cosell | Legal Lounge | 0 | 06-16-2006 09:09 AM |
| The big lie and the truth about Right-to-Work | futureoftheunion | Consumer Law and Fraud | 4 | 02-21-2006 06:12 AM |
Linear Mode
