I'll answer your entire post if you like
Yeah derpa derp accuse me of being a conservative/Republican because I disagree with you on one issue. A hivemind isn't a good thing, that's generally something Republicans are known for.
When your first post on the board is in the labor section, going against the Employee Free Choice Act and you titled it "You don't care about the worker", I, as a frequent user of this and many other forums have a right to state that I personally think that you have an ulterior motive. There is nothing "hiveminded" about it, comparing me to what "Republicans" in your opinion "known for" is moot. Here's some thoughts on your first posting
A signature is not the equivalent of a vote. The latter is much, much, much more likely to represent your true opinion than the former. Having your voting information be public opens you up to intimidation from everyone (Unions and employers alike)
But for the majority of years that unions have existed, majority sign up has been the way it is done, the "secret ballot" was created to thwart unionization.
Is the current system flawed? Yes, heavily so. Currently workers are intimidated by employers. The solution here is to eliminate intimidation- not to open them up to intimidation from unions.
I'm with Chris Mathews- clean up the employer side intimidation and enforce a 2 week secret ballot rule. Boom, problem solved. The pro-EFCA side seems to paint the issue as a moronic false dichotomy- either the current bad system or the proposed terrible system.
Why would the problem be solved if we go from the average of 6 weeks to 2 weeks? Why do you claim that the Employee Free Choice Act would be a "terrible" situation and what is currently in use is only a "bad" situation. You also fail to mention that there would be actual fines for labor violations against workers, unlike the current system where the employer may have to pay back wages if they fire a union supporter, minus whatever money they have earned in the interim, and possibly post a notice far after the "secret ballot" election is over.
The funniest argument in favor of it is the "It lets the workers CHOOSE whether or not they want to use the secret ballot system or not!" as if that is inherently good. The choice in this case is the illusion of choice. There is hardly any "choice" involved if you are surrounded by heavily ideological friends (Either pro-union or anti-union) and the union organizers can repeatedly approach you to sign their card.
Right now as it stands it's extremely hard to get to an employee to organize once a drive is declared, the workers are scared from speaking to organizers while the employer has their ear for the workday, you claim union intimidation, and I can tell you from a matter of factual stand point of being in one, that unions are terrified of being penalized before a court of law. If there is intimidation on the union side I would expect there to be NLRB charges filed against the union and appropriate penalties.
Now more from your second
Do you have a reasonable response or just ad hominem attacks?
Lets go back to where you claim that a NLRB 2 week election rule would be better off than the Employee Free Choice Act, you are guilty of your own ad hominem attacks. You state that signing cards is not a good way to get into a union, you group all supporters of The Employee Free Choice Act into a category of pushers of a much worse system and thereby giving your argument for the 2 week election credence and making EFCA supporters out to be against the interests of the workers. Then in another line you state "And you outlined another problem with unions" and point at the decertification process that was created by business, how on earth is that a problem with unions. You then also add how concerned you are with workers, giving your argument leverage against your terms of "intimidation from unions". You are either playing word games or are sincere in your writing, but there is a strong anti-union message in your words and that is the way propagandists work, they distort words and get a rise. You offer a slight change in the NLRB as a true change, closed to the facts of what an organizing drive is really like. You just fire away with "you don't care about workers" and show no supporting evidence to your argument.
Workers rights is an issue I feel strongly about, and that includes the right to freedom from intimidation. Freedom from worker intimidation, freedom from employer intimidation.
We'll see if you keep posting on this board, in another post you use the anti-union think tank talking point about "Orwellian" and "anti-democratic", further solidifying my belief that you are a shill.
Let me ask you a question: Would you support a bill that effectively neutered the employers ability to intimidate and enacted secret ballots, mandatory within 2 weeks of all card checks with 30% or more of employees signing on?
Let me ask you a question, why are you spewing that a 2 week interim would eliminate employer intimidation? How about this one, who do you work for? Cause the bullsh!t detector has been beeping since you signed up.
Calling us a bunch of people "who do not care about workers", stating out of context that "another problem with unions" and calling the Employee Free Choice Act "Orwellian" and a "piece of **** bill" paints you out to be anti-union, anti-worker and, in my eyes, a traitor to this country. Hows that for derpa derp?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
