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

  • #31
    Joe, I don't care how well you think the point has been established.

    STOP CALLING PEOPLE UNION BUSTERS

    or this debate will end.
    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


    • #32
      Joe, that list on the teamsters was put there to among other things, describe some of the more interesting election conduct by unions. If you'd like to see some examples of union violence, please read below.

      2004 AFL-CIO members push their way into a Republican field office in Orlando FL, breaking the wrist of one staffer. AFL-CIO member Van Church is unrepentant: "If his wrist was fractured, it's a result of his own actions in jerking the door the way he did"

      1999 - During protests by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 against a non-unionized workforce getting a contract, picketters threatened and assaulted workers, spat at them, sabotaged equipment, and shot guns near workers. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the union had engaged in "ongoing acts of intimidation, violence, destruction of property".

      1999 - During protests by Laborers' International Union of America Local 310, picketters punched a worker, and threw coffee cups at workers.

      1999 - Members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120 were convicted of striking a worker, and imprisoning another one in a truck trailer.

      1998 - Teamsters Orestes Espinosa, Angel Mielgo, Werner Haechler, Benigno Rojas, and Adrian Paez beat, kicked, and stabbed a UPS worker (Rod Carter) who refused to strike, after Carter received a threatening phone call from the home of Anthony Cannestro, Sr., president of Teamsters Local 769.

      1998 - During the Communications Workers of America U.S. West strike a worker was threatened with a gun, and a manager was hit in the head with a rock.

      1990 - on the first day of The New York Daily News strike, trucks were attacked with stones and sticks. One union member was immediately arrested for transporting Molotov ****tails. Strikers followed replacement laborers and threatened them with baseball bats. Strikers then started threatening newsstands with arson, or stole all copies of the Daily News and burned them in front of the newsstands. Independent sources estimated over a thousand reports of threats. The newspaper recorded over two thousand legal violations. The Police Department, recorded more than 500 incidents. 50 strikers were arrested. Bombings of delivery trucks became common, with 11 strikers arrested on one day in October.

      1983 - Eddie York was murdered for crossing a United Mine Workers (UMW) picket line.

      I eagerly await your examples of CEO's that murder, imprision, beat and assault employees.

      My point is and has always been.....unions continue to be places where violence, intimidation, graft, corruption and murder occurs.

      While it makes it easier when the employer has to give them a list of the employees addresses, unions do not need the list. Usually they have their internal spies who provide names and they can get most of the infomration on-line. Or as happens regularly they follow people home from work.

      I do not and cannot support the idea of the law changing to eliminate secret ballot elections. If it does, we all know what will happen.

      1. Unions like the Teamsters, UAW, UMW etc. will figure out where people live.
      2.Teams of "organizers" will visit people at home.
      3. For those that don't sign the card, a ball bat will be waved in their face....or worse.
      4. Then, magically, the union will present 50% + 1 signed authorization cards.

      This Act is un-American. Secret ballot elections are the foundation of our democracy and need to be preserved.
      Last edited by staggerwingbeech; 08-26-2007, 12:18 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Whether you like it or not, Joe, I am bending over backwards to be fair to both sides here, and I am getting PM's from both sides wanting to know why I am letting (the other side) get away with so much.

        No matter what I say or do, you are going to see anything short of a whole-hearted endorsement or labor unions as "management taking sides against labor". So why should I bother to try?
        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


        • #34
          in another post, you stated that there was 7-8 months of meetings with a union rep prior to the election.
          No, jeff, that would not be "level". The meetings i refered to were 12 to 15 employees (the "core" group, bargaining unit is 160+) who met clandestinely (sp?) with a grand lodge rep talking about what was happening, what we hoped to accomplish, and how it would work. this all took place before the organizing blitz, and it took that long to convince the glr that we were committed, and ready for the "battle" (an appropriate word in a "right to work" state........but not chosen to infer any violent acts)

          I think the concept of an actual debate between "management reps" (i won't use the phrase cbg) and union reps is a wonderful idea, but i'm not naieve (SP?) enough to think that will ever happen. And it (almost) certainly will never be legislated.....

          cbg...you are being very tolerant of this debate...that has not gone unnoticed.......but you knew this one was gonna be a prize fight before it even started......
          Last edited by noiddodge; 08-26-2007, 05:41 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by noiddodge View Post
            No, jeff, that would not be "level". The meetings i refered to were 12 to 15 employees (the "core" group, bargaining unit is 160+) who met clandestinely (sp?) with a grand lodge rep talking about what was happening, what we hoped to accomplish, and how it would work. this all took place before the organizing blitz, and it took that long to convince the glr that we were committed, and ready for the "battle" (an appropriate word in a "right to work" state........but not chosen to infer any violent acts)

            I think the concept of an actual debate between "management reps" (i won't use the phrase cbg) and union reps is a wonderful idea, but i'm not naieve (SP?) enough to think that will ever happen. And it (almost) certainly will never be legislated.....

            cbg...you are being very tolerant of this debate...that has not gone unnoticed.......but you knew this one was gonna be a prize fight before it even started......
            so... a core group of employees are educated about unions and their rights in one... for months prior to the vote.

            Do they remain quiet at work? Or is part of their job as the core group to start asking the right questions and providing the right answers. To stoke the flame, so to speak.

            So, after MONTHS of being subtly manipulated, the workers are now primed to take management out behind the warehouse and beat them to death.

            Now, let's have a debate about both sides. After, of course, the workers have already been given a heads up as to what the answers management provides will be and what those words REALLY mean.

            C'mon. As I said before, if you are gonna shuck and jive the rubes, at least be honest about it.
            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


            • #36
              so... a core group of employees are educated about unions and their rights in one... for months prior to the vote.

              Do they remain quiet at work? Or is part of their job as the core group to start asking the right questions and providing the right answers. To stoke the flame, so to speak.

              So, after MONTHS of being subtly manipulated, the workers are now primed to take management out behind the warehouse and beat them to death.

              Now, let's have a debate about both sides. After, of course, the workers have already been given a heads up as to what the answers management provides will be and what those words REALLY mean.

              C'mon. As I said before, if you are gonna shuck and jive the rubes, at least be honest about it.
              HUH ???? WHAT ???? Sorry jeff, it has always been a policy of mine to "never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man". Since, IMHO, you appear to be the grand poobah of the unarmed people i shall cease adding further fodder to your delusions.........good luck.....seek help.....

              Comment


              • #37
                noiddodge...you are pushing the limits.
                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


                • #38
                  from the sidelines

                  I really don’t know if there is any point in jumping into this fray, but here goes

                  <<I eagerly await your examples of CEO's that murder, imprison, beat and assault employees. >>

                  You’re kidding, right? The turn of the 20th century is littered with examples of corporate owners hiring private firms in order to shoot and kill striking workers and their families. Just because our children are not taught about these historical facts does not mean they didn’t occur.

                  Killings of striking workers were commonplace in steel towns, mining towns and during strikes for the 8 hour day.

                  What everyone here is failing to address, at least from what i have gleaned from my admittedly cursory reading of the posts, is that THE PLAYING FIELD IN THE EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP IS NOT LEVEL.

                  The current system that gives ample time for employers to intimidate, fire, and coerce employees before secret ballot elections are conducted does not work. Again, the EMPLOYER HOLDS A DECIDED ADVANTAGE IN THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.

                  The National Labor Relations Act was passed in order to LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. The labor board is SUPPOSED TO SIDE WITH WORKERS. As can be seen from the recent Kentucky River decision, which defined anyone that directs other workers more than 10-15% of their day as supervisors unable to avail themselves of collective bargaining rights, the National Labor Relations Board is not doing its job of ACTIVELY PROTECTING WORKERS RIGHTS TO ORGANIZE.

                  In the industrialized world the United States of America is unique in its support for corporations in their coercive rights over workers rights to organize. This fact is what has driven the percentage of organized workers down over the last 50 years. Until workers no longer fear coercive conduct by employers in organizing drives representational elections will continue to be a farce.

                  If political elections in this country were conducted like union representational elections there would be riots in the streets. Anyone who would argue otherwise is not being honest.

                  The rise of the middle class in America is a direct result of collective bargaining. If it were not for collective bargaining there would be no employer provided pensions (which, by the way, are disappearing at a rate directly proportionate to the disappearance of collective bargaining relationships) employer provided health care (which is also disappearing) the 5 day work weeks (which is also disappearing) and the 8 hour day ( which, for all intents and purposes is gone forever, Americans now work more hours per year than any workers on the planet).

                  I do not honestly believe that anything that is communicated here will do any good. I am firm in my belief that when economic conditions deteriorate to a point where working class Americans can no longer maintain a decent standard of living by working more the nation will wake up and take affirmative measures to restore the American workers rights to bargain collectively with their employers.

                  The economic elite of this Nation will continue financing their propaganda machine. It’s all about the American public waking up, turning off their televisions and getting angry enough to take the fight to the streets. It’s only a matter of time. History tells us that unregulated capitalism is doomed to failure.

                  For all you anti union types... Just to let you know I put my money where my mouth is.... I am currently investing a great deal of time and money in a legal education so I will be able to help those that need help the most. I take great pride whenever I can help working men and women in their fight for fair wages and a voice in their workplace.

                  I'll see all you in hell

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Sposito,
                    You are indeed correct and in a previous post I acknowledged that there were employers in the early 1900's that took great advantage of their employees.

                    This is 2007 and Unions continue to be places where violence occurs every day.

                    Eliminating the secret ballot election process will increase this violence and any honest person (reading the papers) will agree. .

                    That aside.......can you, Joe or anyone else for that matter, please tell me why unions support eliminating the election in representation elections but support elections for decertification elections?

                    Just a bit transparent don't you think?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Joe, I understand why you don't want to change the law to allow employees to card check out anytime. Everyone knows once the union gets their hooks into an employees pocket, they want it to last as long as possible.

                      But lets just say for the purposes of the debate that I agree that the law should not be changed on that point and the contract stays in place for a defined period of time.

                      Now Joe...once the contract runs out....WHY not have a card check for a decert?

                      Why all of a sudden is an election the fair way to go when a card check was more fair for representation?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        <<That aside.......can you, Joe or anyone else for that matter, please tell me why unions support eliminating the election in representation elections but support elections for decertification elections?>>

                        Because THE EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP IS UNEQUAL.

                        Why is it that you have a tough time with this concept. THE EMPLOYER IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO COERCE HIS EMPLOYEES INTO DOING ANYTHING HE WANTS. ALL AN EMPLOYER HAS TO DO IS OFFER INCENTIVES TO ITS WORKERS,AND THEY WILL DO JUST ABOUT ANYTHING HE WANTS,EVEN IF ITS AGAINST THIER OWN SELF INTEREST.

                        Oh yeah, union violence in the papers, GEE, WHO OWNS NEWSPAPERS... LEMME THINK... OH YEAH.... ONE OF ABOUT FIVE PUBLISHING CORPORATIONS... I'M SURE NEWSPAPERS ARE FAIR IN THIER REPORTING OF VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE.... YEAH, RIGHT....

                        Dont bother expecting any more replies from me. I'll leave it up to anyone who has taken the time to inform themselves on what position is more legitimate.

                        Nothing it going to happen legislatively in any event as CORPORATIONS HAVE PERVERTED THE ELECTION PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA.

                        When politians take millions of dollars in donations in order to get elected they are no longer beholden to the voters. They are only beholden to business.

                        God, i'd love to debate you in a public forum. It would be so much fun to watch you melt down. Too bad I'll never have the chance.

                        Good day sir

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Spositio quote:
                          When politians take millions of dollars in donations in order to get elected they are no longer beholden to the voters. They are only beholden to business.


                          I almost fell out of the chair when I read that one. How ironic that you would make that comment.

                          Please take a look at the the union political contributions over the past 7 years. I'll help you out...it's $600,000,000.

                          96% of it went to Democrats to bribe them to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

                          In the future, if you are going to throw one down the middle....put a bit more speed behind it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            corporate donations to political campaigns

                            Ok, wise guy. If unions were able to contribute 600 million dollars in the last 7 years, how much did corporatate interests contribute? I dont have any figures, but i'll be willing to bet it was on the order of at least 20 times that much, or over 5 billion dollars.
                            I know your used to bull****ing people, but dont bull**** me.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Hard numbers on PAC contributions

                              OK, from a study done at the University of Rochester...

                              In the years between 1978 and 1998 corporate contributions to both Political Action Committes accounted for between 41 and 47 percent of all cash contributions. Unions accounted for between 23 and 29 percent. So that means that corporations outspent organized labor almost 2 to 1.

                              Oh yeah, and let’s forget what unions fight for. Health care, pensions and jobs.

                              Let’s see what corporations fight for. Lower corporate taxes, less regulation amongst other warm and fuzzy things.

                              In 1998 corporate interests contributed over 1,000,000,000 to PACs. Let’s see, that’s over a billion dollars. in one year. What say ye?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Joe, you are correct, and I overlooked that. The posts in question were so long that I skimmed them and did not see the objectionable phrases.

                                Stagger, you are to stop using the terms Joe has outlined as well.
                                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

                                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