Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Employee Free Choice Act Federal

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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, 11:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      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, 10:33 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          I continue to dispute the fact that the rules of the board favor management over union. I have yet to see a single unbiased statement in support of that contention.
          The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Free Choice Act

              Originally posted by staggerwingbeech View Post
              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!
              I have been involved with labor unions my entire life and have been a member of five labor unions. I have never seen or been involved with a situation where a union organizer threatened or stong-armed a worker to join a union. If I had, I would be the first to denounce such behavior and I would fight vigoroursly to stop it. Whereas I am not so naive to believe this has never happened, the reality is that such claims are hollywood fantasy. The true reality is that employers tend to be vicious towards anyone who attempts to exercise their legal right to join a union.

              The Free Choice Act will allow the employee to make a "free choice" by joning a union without interference by the employer. Making the same free choice as joining a political party by signing a card.

              Reagrding the issue of secret ballot elections, I am all for them. Enforce the law so that employees can vote in a timely election without employer interference. Impose serious penalties upon any employer who attempts to impede the basic human right of bargaining collectively.

              Governments in many countries encourage employees to exerecise their right to bargain collectively and protect that right. Presently, the U.S. government does not protect this right. Instead, it protects the employer.
              In Solidarity,

              Wayne

              www.waynemarshall.org

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by noiddodge View Post
                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.
                So you are saying that unions come completely unbidden to a work site? That there is no discussion between the workers and the union prior to the revelation to the employer that there is going to be a union vote.

                Of course there is.

                What your "level playing field" is would work like this...

                Union reps approach certain workers for the employer. These workers say, "heck yeah, I would like to make more money, never be fired, get a pension plan and healthcare til the day I die and stick it to management".

                Certain workers go to management and say, "we are having an election and you, cannot by law, talk any of the employees out of it".

                The employer sits on the sideline and waits for the election to be held...

                No where in there was the employer's side of the argument ever portrayed. How, exactly, is that a level playing field?
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by unionwayne View Post
                  The Free Choice Act will allow the employee to make a "free choice" by joning a union without interference by the employer. Making the same free choice as joining a political party by signing a card.
                  may I assume that "without interference" means without having any input into a worker's decision to join a union?

                  I still don't understand why, if unions are just so darn helpful, that an informed worker - informed on both sides of the argument - is such a terrible thing.

                  Now, before you say it... my wife is in a union. She has a job where she had no choice but to join to have her job.

                  You want to know about intimidation? There it is. She knows that unless she is a member of the union she will never advance her career. It would be much harder to transfer to another location and, God forbid, if she was ever accused of a work related incident, the union would work WITH management to throw her under the bus.

                  You tell me how this isn't intimidation or coercion. You tell me how this isn't a strong arm tactic. You tell ME how this is "free choice".

                  Worse, the union keeps incompetents on staff far longer than they are either effective or valuable... because management doesn't want to fight the union. Because management doesn't want to spend the millions of dollars in legal fees necessary to bring meaningful changes to the system because the unions will fight it.

                  Meaningful changes that mean teachers will be fired if they don't do their job of educating YOUR children. Simple as that. If you don't do your job, you will be fired.

                  Our children are suffering because teachers with better union contacts than teaching skills are on the payroll LONG after they have become bitter, mean and their knowledge is out of date. Long after children learn from them.

                  Better, look at it this way. Spending on education in this country is up 700% in like dollars since 1979. Spending per child on education in this country is up 4% in like dollars since 1979.

                  You tell ME where the rest of our money went. It certainly didn't go to teacher salaries or student materials. What, exactly, has the union been doing, anyway?
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Jeff,

                    your argument ref- employers not talking to workers about the union, doesn't happen and would not happen in my suggestion in post #8

                    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
                    ref- your wife's union.....sorry to hear that.....but......have you ever had a bad job ?????? do you still work ???????

                    we will never agree on this issue.....cbg must have taken an extra tolerance pill today....i'm shocked this has gone on as long as it has......

                    ( not a slam cbg........just an observation...)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by noiddodge View Post
                      Jeff,

                      your argument ref- employers not talking to workers about the union, doesn't happen and would not happen in my suggestion in post #8



                      ref- your wife's union.....sorry to hear that.....but......have you ever had a bad job ?????? do you still work ???????

                      we will never agree on this issue.....cbg must have taken an extra tolerance pill today....i'm shocked this has gone on as long as it has......

                      ( not a slam cbg........just an observation...)
                      Sure I have had bad jobs. I quit them.

                      My wife, to do her chosen profession, must join a union. Her alternative is to not teach children. She loves to teach and is a great teacher - as can be attested by the cards and letters she receives each year from present and former students.

                      Sure, she could make more money doing something else. Sure, she could just leave and avoid all the hassle.

                      But she doesn't. And won't. Because your kids are worth it to her.

                      Same with cops. Same with firefighters. Join the union or don't work.

                      You tell me how this isn't strong arm.
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by noiddodge View Post
                        Jeff,

                        your argument ref- employers not talking to workers about the union, doesn't happen and would not happen in my suggestion in post #8



                        ref- your wife's union.....sorry to hear that.....but......have you ever had a bad job ?????? do you still work ???????

                        we will never agree on this issue.....cbg must have taken an extra tolerance pill today....i'm shocked this has gone on as long as it has......

                        ( not a slam cbg........just an observation...)
                        I encourage the debate....

                        But, in another post, you stated that there was 7-8 months of meetings with a union rep prior to the election.

                        So, the employer gets a single shot at answering all of the charges, and charges they be, brought up in the months of meetings by the union?

                        This constitutes a level playing field how?
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          And joe...

                          Let's leave the name calling out of it.

                          Not everyone that doesn't understand the attraction or opposes a union is a union buster. By using labels, you are trying to grant general stereotypes to individual people...

                          And this debate is too important for that.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I tend to agree.

                            Joe, I'd like to see the use of the term "union buster" reduced if not eliminated, if this experiment is going to succeed. Not everyone who does not jump headfirst onto the union bandwagon qualifies for that title.
                            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Joec quote:
                              Nope how about I am right ,and your wrong. Are you familiar with the act at all,or just what the Union busting firm you work for tells you what to spout about it ?
                              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.

                              Staggerwingbeech quote:
                              In fact, the law even requires the employeer to violate employee privacy and give the union pusher their address and phone numbers.

                              Joec quote:
                              Union Busting lie show me that in the act.



                              Well Joe,
                              The fact is, federal law does require an employer to turn over the names and addresses of employees to a union before an election. Considering your response...I guess this comes as a surprise to you.

                              This law has been in place for over 40 years. Even the dullest of bulbs who have gone through one election knows this.

                              Have you actually been involved in an election? I am wondering if I should find someone with election experience to have this debate with.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                [B]Joec quote:
                                The debate was supposed to be about the EFCA, instead we get rhetoric with very little on the other side presenting a good reason to not support it.


                                [/B]
                                Joe,
                                Here's the point. Unions have a terrible reputation here in the US for violent behavior and utilizing fear and intimidation. This is happening TODAY, I am not talking about the 1930's....TODAY!

                                To give these thugs, who continue to "crack skulls" the ability to force people into their club without the safety net of the secret ballot election is in my view....criminal.

                                Joec quote:
                                I don't have to go through hundreds of posts to point out that company's violate the law,and in the past have even shot to death striking workers.


                                OK Joe, you are correct. back in the early 1900's there were cases where employers hired strike breakers and people got hurt, even killed. The key to the last sentence Joe is 1900's....as you might be surprised to know...it is now 2007.

                                Can you provide one article since 2000. (that was the year I went back to on the teamsters violent record) of a CEO stabbing an employee to death? A manager beating someone to death. A Director leaving the severed head of a cow on an employees car hood?

                                I look forward to seeing the links of all that terrible CEO violence
                                Last edited by staggerwingbeech; 08-25-2007, 08:58 PM.

                                Comment

                                The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                                Working...
                                X