posted on March 1, 2007 06:05:36 PM new
If you bothered to read deeper in the bill you would see it is actually a bill that will bar secret union ballots thus limiting free speech.
Walter Reuther's Ghost
Democrats vote to bar secret union ballots.
Thursday, March 1, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The House of Representatives has scheduled a vote as early as today on a bill that strips 140 million U.S. workers of the right to decide in private whether to unionize. Naturally, it's called the Employee Free Choice Act.
Big Labor has been agitating to ease union-formation requirements for more than a decade. And prior to last year's election, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and their allies made it clear to Democrats that this vote would be the most important return they expected on their investment in a Nancy Pelosi Speakership. This is payback day.
The union claim is that employers are engaging in rampant unfair labor practices to prevent employees from exercising their right to organize. But data from the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union elections, show no rise in such activities. The reality is that union membership has been in decline for decades, and labor leaders are desperate to rig the rules in order to reverse the trend. In the 1950s, 35% of private-sector workers were unionized. By the early 1980s the number had fallen to 20%, and today it stands at just 7.4%.
The reason for this decline isn't illegal management meddling in organizing efforts. The problem is that unions haven't been able to persuade the workers themselves. Our own, longstanding position is that when a company is organized it is almost always the company's fault. But workers of all classes and skills can also read the news and understand that unions no longer provide job security, if they ever did. The most heavily unionized industries--such as airlines and Detroit carmakers--are typically those that are financially beleaguered and shedding jobs. Workers know that unions often provide short-term wage gains at the cost of longer-term job insecurity.
All of which explains the drive to rewrite the rules and do away with secret-ballot elections administered by the NLRB, a procedure in place since the 1935 Wagner Act. Under current rules, once 30% of employees at a workplace express interest in unionizing by signing an authorization card, organizers can go to management and demand voluntary "card-check" recognition. The employer then has the option of recognizing the union or demanding an election.
It shouldn't be surprising that many workers who sign these cards later have second thoughts after getting the employer's side of the story. Workers sign cards for all kinds of reasons, including peer pressure and intimidation. It's not uncommon for an organizer to approach an employer with cards that show 90% of the workforce wants to unionize, only to have the percentage plummet once employees hear about the downside of a union shop and have a chance to vote by secret ballot. So Big Labor wants to dispense with these petty elections and make union recognition mandatory as soon as a simple majority of workers sign a card.
Notably, nearly every American business group is united in opposing this affront to worker freedom. They understand this will make organizing that much easier, thus making their own businesses that much less competitive. One business response would surely be to hire fewer workers--the opposite of what the unions claim to want.
The bill nonetheless has 234 co-sponsors, including seven Republicans, mostly from blue Northeast states such as New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Because the Senate is expected to filibuster the bill and the White House is threatening a veto, these Republicans may figure they can have it both ways: Score points with the unions by supporting a measure that isn't going anywhere. But Members who go on record opposing secret-ballot elections will also have some explaining to do the next time they ask for business support.
So far this Congress, Democrats have been trying to present themselves as "moderates" who won't return to their bad special-interest selves pre-1994. But this union-enabling bill strips away that mask and exposes an anti-business animus out of the 1970s, if not the 1930s. Even if it fails this Congress, this week's vote is a warning about what could become law if Democrats and their union backers hold all the levers of power after 2008.
-------
Democrats' Payoff to Big Labor Comes at the Expense of American Workers
by Rep. John Boehner (More by this author)
Posted: 02/28/2007
Americans aggressively guard not only their right to vote, but their right to a private ballot. Whether we’re electing a school board, a mayor, or a member of Congress, we believe in the sanctity and privacy of a secret ballot election.
So who do you think would say something like, “There’s no reason to subject the workers to an election?” A socialist dictator like Hugo Chavez? Fidel Castro?
Actually, it was one of Big Labor’s many union bosses -- the same guys who helped put Democrats back in control of Congress by pouring hundreds of millions into their campaign coffers. This week, House Democrats are set to return the favor.
Under the guise of “protecting” workers, a bill by House Democrats would strip American workers of the right to choose -- freely and anonymously -- whether to unionize. The misleadingly titled Employee Free Choice Act offers neither freedom nor choice, and will leave workers open to ugly union harassment, intimidation, and pressure that still persist today. The San Francisco Examiner called it “exquisitely Orwellian… anti-freedom, anti-democracy.”
Why would Democrats want to change current law, which already gives workers a choice between a private ballot election and the union-favored card check process? Simple: to pay back Big Labor for the millions it has poured into congressional races across the country on behalf of Democrats.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, seven of the top 10 biggest political contributors in the last few election cycles were unions -- that means big money for the Democrats. In fact, organized labor gave more than half a billion in contributions to Democratic candidates since 1994 -- with more than $1 million in direct contributions to House Democratic leaders in the 2006 cycle alone.
To get a feeling of just how undemocratic the Democrats’ bill is, imagine it is November 2008 and community leaders all across America decide not to hold elections. Instead of heading into a voting booth like you always have, you’re told to show up at town hall and declare publicly -- in front of your neighbors and community leaders -- for whom and what you’re voting.
Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Well this is exactly what House Democrats are proposing for your workplace. Workers will no longer be able to express their wishes privately; their “votes” will be public for everyone -- union organizers, employers, co-workers -- to see.
Democrats haven’t exactly tried to hide their intentions. When Republicans on the House Education & Labor Committee offered an amendment to allow employees to conduct a card check campaign to decertify a union, Democrats balked. Republicans figured that if Democrats think a card check is good enough to organize a union it should be good enough to break ties with one. But labor unions argued passionately for secret ballot rights in decertification elections calling them “solemn” occasions requiring “privacy and independence.” Committee Democrats fell in line and rejected the amendment.
Republicans also offered an amendment that would have simply protected Americans from being forced to join a union or pay union dues or agency fees against their will. After all, the First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of assembly -- and that includes the right to not join an organization against their wishes.
Committee Democrats rejected that amendment too. Besides, the easier it is to force workers into unions -- and keep them there -- the more money will be available for Democratic candidates and causes in the future.
The remarkable thing about the Employee Free Choice Act is the enormous amount of power over the lives of Americans it gives to Big Labor. No other group has the authority to simply draw up a few signatures in order to force others to start paying them money. But that is exactly what Democrats are giving their union buddies. By stripping workers of their right to a private ballot election, Democrats are raiding the wallets of and stripping away fundamental rights from American workers.
House Republicans have an alternative proposal -- the Secret Ballot Protection Act, introduced by the late Rep. Charlie Norwood (R.-Ga.). This bill would insist that a union be recognized by an employer and certified by the National Labor Relations Board only if it has won majority support in a private ballot election. The question, ironically, is whether Democratic Leaders will allow the House of Representatives to vote on it.
In the end, the Employee Free Choice Act strips workers of their fundamental right to a private ballot. If Democrats are willing to take that away, what else could be in store?
Mr. Boehner, a Republican, is minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. He represents the 8th District of Ohio.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on March 1, 2007 06:48:10 PM new
Gosh....lol....I didn't realize union membership had fallen so LOW....it's at only 12% now.
LOL....no wonder they want the dems to 'pay them back' for their support.
But as usual, 'waco' was calling the HOUSE, "congress". Will he EVER learn it's only ONE part of congress. And that the SENATE has to ALSO approve ANY bill.
[probably not]
But here....from yahoo news, five minutes ago.
The celebrations may be short-lived.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., has pledged to block the bill and the White House says President Bush will veto the measure if it reaches his desk.
The House vote was short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to overturn a veto.
Thirteen Republicans voted for the measure; two Democrats voted against it.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 1, 2007 06:51 PM ]
posted on March 1, 2007 07:23:15 PM new
Bear,
More blogs from the king of blogs. Its so stupid and funny. Blog away old boy if that is all you got.
Bear I am sorry to say I didn't realize what a neophyte and how naive you really are. Its time for me to leave you alone for awhile. I am starting to feel pity for you.
posted on March 1, 2007 08:38:37 PM new
LOL....I don't think there's going to be as much for the President to veto .....all because we have a GREAT leader in the Senate.....McConnell.
He's been doing an OUTSTANDING job of making sure the dems don't get enough votes to pass their nonsense....and I have no doubt he'll be successful on many many more the dems try to pass.
Matter of fact....McConnell's doing SUCH a FINE job....the President will be doing a benefit party to raise money for McConnell's '08 senate race.
posted on March 2, 2007 07:36:52 AM new
It's just like the bigdopa to alter reality when the opposite is really true.
I was an active union member and am even vested for retirement. But I can state for a fact, the only thing the union ever did for me was to put me on strike. Not once did they increase my pay to cover it. Even when I had a legite complaint against my employer, the union did NOTHING. I have been away from the union for over 12 years now and I would never go back. I make more money, no union dues to pay, and my 401k will pay me for more than the miniscule pension will ever pay.
The unions suck, are out of touch, just like bigdopa, and simply have not kept up with the times.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The current Demomoron motto.
posted on March 2, 2007 12:04:45 PM new
LIAR_K said,
"Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell R-Ky., has pledged to block the bill and the White House says President Bush will veto the measure if it reaches his desk."
That is my point the working and middle class American will see this and realize about the repug war on the middle class.
I say "BRING THEM ON" the veto's that is so the majority can dump a lot more repugs in 2008.
In 2008 BUSHY will be retired to his ranch living in the disgrace of a failed Presidency. The new-cons will lose even more of their lawmakers.
Nothing will stop the vast majority of Americans in making a better way for the working and middle class.
posted on March 2, 2007 12:21:40 PM new
Yes, 'waco' it's VERY clear that you don't have a problem with the UNIONS taking away rights the American workers have to this point had.
EVERYTHING is okay....no matter how it affects workers as long as it's done by the UNIONS. tsk tsk tsk
And here you CLAIM to support the average American worker.
Your words are PROOF you obviously DON'T.
And should the next President be a democratic one.....and when we are attacked again.....more will come to appreciate [TOO LATE] all this President HAS DONE to protect our citizens from harm.
BUT until that next attack comes we're going to continue to hear from idiots like yourself who had NO PROBLEM when we were ATTACKED FIVE TIMES during the clinton administration....each time the terrorists grew MORE bold....and he did NOTHING.
Then because of that LACK of protecting America....we experienced 9-11.
I fully understand that it will take ANOTHER terrible attack before many voters see how VERY WEAK ALL democrats are on NATIONAL SECURITY.
Except Joe Lieberman INDEPENDENT...because the dems refused to fight our enemies.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 2, 2007 04:01:35 PM new
No wonder waco supports big unions, he supports the idea of banishing secret votes, thus allowing the union leaders to monitor the so called dissident members.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
Are YOU a Bunghole?
