Clash Over Labor-Rights Bill Appears Likely

[Kilmer17]

I especially like the end where the union boss cries about how employers want to "frustrate the ability to vote", when that is PRECISELY what the unions want to have happen. They want to be able to create unions without voing on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003581.html

President Obama has hinted that although he supports the Employee Free Choice Act, he would be open to revised legislation that commands broader support, and is not exactly burning to push the labor-rights bill anytime soon.

But as the legislation, which would make it easier for unions to organize, was re-introduced yesterday, all signs were pointing to the kind of incendiary clash the president hoped to avoid.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), two leading sponsors, announced the bill's arrival as hundreds of union members and business owners swarmed Capitol Hill to start making their case for and against the measure.

The business owners, drawn from the states of key senators, got their marching orders at U.S. Chamber of Commerce headquarters, where leaders of the organization and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) praised them as the "first Marines hitting the beach" to defeat a "job killer" bill.

"Go up and tell them what will happen [if the bill passes], that no one is going to add a single job in the United States," Chamber President Thomas J. Donohue said. "Will I put a job here where it'll get unionized in an illegal way? No, I'll put it somewhere else."

The bill would allow employees to form unions by getting a majority of workers to sign cards, without having to hold a secret ballot; at present, it is up to employers to decide whether workers must hold an election or organize via "card check." And the bill would mandate that if employers and workers cannot agree on a contract in 120 days, a government arbitrator will intervene.

Workers say the bill would level the playing field after decades of labor decline. They assert that employers intimidate workers before elections and go years without agreeing to a contract. Employers say the bill would expose workers to union intimidation and allow the government to interfere in how owners run their businesses.

The bill has majority support in the House and the Senate, but it needs 60 Senate votes to survive a filibuster. The bill's backers are counting on the only Republican who sided with them during the last Congress, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), and centrist Democrats such as Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), and Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

An AFL-CIO lobbyist said last week that he was sure of 60 votes, but Lincoln and Landrieu, among others, have been outwardly ambivalent, hinting at the need for revisions to the bill. And compared with its last go-round, the measure has six fewer sponsors in the Senate and seven fewer in the House, even though there are more Democrats on the Hill now. The bill will not be taken up right away, as Democrats hope that Al Franken will be able to claim a contested Senate seat from Minnesota.

Chamber leaders told their troops to demand a filibuster vote and not settle for senators saying they would improve the bill. "There is no compromise," said Chamber general counsel Steven J. Law.

Labor leaders were similarly defiant. Andy Stern, president of the Services Employees International Union, said the push for a filibuster echoed attempts to quash workers' voice on the job. Employers "don't want democracy," he said. "They try to frustrate the ability to vote. They threaten and intimidate, and when that doesn't work, they try to frustrate the process and kill it."

[karmacop]

So right now there are currently two valid ways to form a union - either a secret ballot election OR card check. Both are valid. The only thing is that the employer gets to decide which to use under current law, and of course employers don't want unions to form and so will always pick secret ballot election.

The only thing this law does is let the employees themselves decide whether they want a secret ballot election or a card check. It doesn't mandate either one specifically, just whichever the employees want.

Seems fair to me. Why wouldn't the employees themselves get to decide how they want to make the decision to unionize themselves? Seems very democratic (small case "d").

And why is a card check "not voting"? If you check the box on your card that says "Yes, I want to join a union if enough other people check this same box," isn't that a vote too?

[Kilmer17]

A secret ballot allows for individuals to vote no without having to face union intimidation or simple disapointment from friends and coworkers.

If the employees are "allowed" to use card check, then the unions will absolutely make sure everyone knows who doesnt sign.

If employees want a union, then a seecret ballot does nothing to prevent that from happening.

[Larry]

I especially like the end where the union boss cries about how employers want to "frustrate the ability to vote", when that is PRECISELY what the unions want to have happen. They want to be able to create unions without voing on it.

I like the way Kilmer says "They want to be able to create unions without voting on it." when it says nothing of the kind.

The law would do away with secret voting. Not with voting.

(And I oppose it, for exactly that reason.)

[Larry]

A secret ballot allows for individuals to vote no without having to face union intimidation or simple disapointment from friends and coworkers.

If the employees are "allowed" to use card check, then the unions will absolutely make sure everyone knows who doesnt sign.

If employees want a union, then a seecret ballot does nothing to prevent that from happening.

Admiring the way the only intimidation used in this process is used by the Unions.

(Although me, if I were the Union, I'd demand secret ballots. Because I don't want the employer to know how I voted. IMO, I'd be a lot more worried about intimidation from the employer, if for no other reason than because I'm so much more vulnerable from that direction.)

If I'm in Congress, what I'd be trying to do would be to split this bill. Vote on the "arbitration if there's no agreement" clause as a separate issue. I suspect it would be a lot more likely to pass.

[SnyderShrugged]

what is the union mindset rationale against secret voting? (what they say, not what they actually feel)

[Kilmer17]

Admiring the way the only intimidation used in this process is used by the Unions.

(Although me, if I were the Union, I'd demand secret ballots. Because I don't want the employer to know how I voted. IMO, I'd be a lot more worried about intimidation from the employer, if for no other reason than because I'm so much more vulnerable from that direction.)

If I'm in Congress, what I'd be trying to do would be to split this bill. Vote on the "arbitration if there's no agreement" clause as a separate issue. I suspect it would be a lot more likely to pass.

The unions know that they can use intimidation if the ballots arent secret. That's why they want them to use card check.

[Kilmer17]

Lots of other articles on this. Quite a few Sens adn Congressman who supported this in the past (knowing Bush would veto it if it ever got that far) are all of a sudden not so enthusiastic.

[The Evil Genius]

Either way, this isn't as repugnant as fair-share unions.

[Duckus]

When I was in HS I worked part time at a grocery store. There was an effort to have the staff unionized. The management at the store used an incredible amount of intimidation to shut it down. All our bosses would talk about how we would all be fired if it was unionized and even showed us 2 videos on how bad unions were for people.

Personally, I did not care, I worked 15-20 hours a week, was 16 years old, and knew I would be leaving for college in a few years. But they were pretty harsh and it was openly known that if you were in favor of unions they would **** you over (cut hours, make horrible schedule, make your life suck).

[Larry]

Lots of other articles on this. Quite a few Sens adn Congressman who supported this in the past (knowing Bush would veto it if it ever got that far) are all of a sudden not so enthusiastic.

You mean, there are people in Congress who would vote in favor of something that would be bad for the country, (but that their base wants), as long as they know the vote won't actually lead to anything?

I'm shocked.

[Kilmer17]

I know Larry. Not everyone can be as altruistic as you and me.

[Larry]

I know Larry. Not everyone can be as altruistic as you and me.

Altruistic and non-partisan. :halo: