Why do republicans hate the troops so much?

EFCA will not pass.

Too many corporate $$$ buying rethug & dumbocrap politicians. Too many corporate $$$ buying ignorant peoples' opinions. Too many corporate media talking heads presenting 'fair and balanced' discussions on why EFCA is bad.

stevio, Ever read Kevin Drum's thoughts about the NY transit workers being overpaid?

Is there anyone out there who can point me towards solid arguments in favor of card check and defusing accusations that it undermines the secret ballot? I am a lifelong Democrat, the child of two union workers, and a strong supporter of unions. Like the majority in the survey, I support making it easier to unionize. But card check smells wrong on the face of it and despite looking for months, I haven't found anything that makes it more palatable.

Please don't respond that "card check doesn't get rid of secret ballot; workers can still opt for that". It's a BS argument. If the open card is a valid method for unionizing, then the secret ballot is history, or at least, can largely be made so. Don't tell me that "employers already use intimidation to suppress votes" -- nothing I've seen makes that less likely. I've read bizarre conspiracy theories that an employer will hire experts to divine how any given employee would vote in a secret ballot. If that's so, it's still tremendously easier to know if someone supported the union when they have to put their name on a public card.

I really am not anti-union, but supporters of this bill seem to be putting their fingers in their ears and ignoring the easy way it can be spun badly. If EFCA is indeed so great, if card check isn't really an end-run around a recognized system of fairness in democratic decisions... why isn't anyone making that case cogently?

Anyone?

let's just forget about unions and go back to feudalism. that's where we're headed at this rate anyway.

bernard hp -- anything can be spun to look bad, no union organizing effort is perfect, everything can be corrupted, life is very untidy.

but the direct result of the decades of union busting is the UAW contract giveback while AIG's financial wizards are receiving million dollar bonuses.

if republicans don't like EFCA, you can be pretty sure it's actually a good idea.

i say bring out the tumbrels and set up the guillotines.

stevio, Ever read Kevin Drum's thoughts about the NY transit workers being overpaid?
Posted by: berttheclock on March 17, 2009 at 9:24 AM

and a big screw you to berttheclock.

when transit workers start receiving million dollar bonuses, then we can start talking about them being overpaid.

bernard hp -- anything can be spun to look bad, no union organizing effort is perfect, everything can be corrupted, life is very untidy.

If it doesn't get it wrong, why is it so hard to find any commentary making that clear? What do we get, that makes obviating a secret ballot worth the trade?

karen marie, I was responding to the idea that only RepuGs are against the unions. Must have been a couple of years ago, Kevin Drum wrote a thread on PA where he criticized the pay scale of NYC transit workers. Kevin was taken to task by many PA posters. Kevin wrote his piece from behind a desk - Has he ever had a real blue collar job in his life? Has he ever had his hands from other than picking up one of his cats? So, it is not only the RepuGs who are anti-union

karen marie, I typed too quickly - meant to ask "Has he ever dirtied his hands from physical labor other than handling his cats?" KD turned a lot of union supporters, including myself, off that day.

This is the wrong way to ease the ability to form unions. This will simply lead to union organizer harassment of workers who may not want to sign, but won't want to face the inevitable retaliation that will come if they refuse to sign. This measure is anti-democratic. There are far better ways to achieve the same result, like having government labor regulators manage the vote instead of allowing the company to do so, which would address the concerns that EFCA supporters raise. If anything would support the rabid Right's overblown claims about "socialism" and "communism" EFCA is certainly it; it smacks of the type of organizing Lenin and company used to consolidate their power in Russia, pressuring workers to join their efforts through the intimidation allowed by non-secret balloting, which is what this amounts to.

Bernard,

"Is there anyone out there who can point me towards solid arguments in favor of card check and defusing accusations that it undermines the secret ballot?"

You are operating under a misconception. Workers do not have any guarantee to a so-called "secret ballot" under current law.

"Please don't respond that 'card check doesn't get rid of secret ballot; workers can still opt for that'. It's a BS argument."

No, it isn't. It's HALF an argument.

This is really VERY simple:

* Under current law, there are TWO choices: a card check (a majority of workers sign a card indicating their desire to join a union) or an election certified by the National Labor Relations Board.

* Under the EFCA, there are TWO choices: a card check (a majority of workers sign a card indicating their desire to join a union) or an election certified by the National Labor Relations Board.

The difference ?

Under current law, the EMPLOYER makes the choice. Under EFCA, the EMPLOYEES, by democratic vote, make the choice.

If there is to be a union, it will belong to the employees, not the company, therefore who should be making that choice ?

"This is really VERY simple"

This is really VERY misleading.

"Under current law, the EMPLOYER makes the choice. Under EFCA, the EMPLOYEES, by democratic vote, make the choice."

No. Under EFCA, union organizers will make the choice, through intimidation and coercion.

"If there is to be a union, it will belong to the employees, not the company . . ."

No, again. It will belong to the union organizers, who will control whether a democratic vote takes place, through intimidation and coercion.

Neither the current law nor EFCA are "good" laws and neither protects the employees or give the employees control, either individually or collectively.

The mere fact that the current law is bad and gives employers too much control over the process doesn't mean that anything that replaces that is per se "good" and a "better" system.

Both the current and the proposed laws take control away from workers and give it to corporate or union goons.

It's time for a better solution.

"This is really VERY misleading."

Only to the those who are gullible enough to be swayed by RightWing propaganda.

Got anything substantive ?

"Under EFCA, union organizers will make the choice, through intimidation and coercion."

Nope.

It's one man, one vote. It's called democracy.

So, you obviously DON'T have anything substantive, eh ?

"It's one man, one vote. It's called democracy."

Only if 30% of the employees petition will there be a secret ballot, and the petition must be obtained in the face of union intimidation and coercion.

So, obviously you have nothing but lies, eh?

Typical of those gullible enough to be swayed by Far Far Far Left propaganda and who can't think for themselves or even bother reading the act.

Why is it they can get away with the nonsense that it's anti-american to certify a union without a secret ballot, but not to decertify a union? The way it sits right now, business holds all the cards.

"The choice of whether to use an election process or majority sign-up to form the union is now exclusively controlled by companies. If enacted, the Employee Free Choice Act would require the NLRB to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed such cards through the majority sign-up process."

The bottom line is, there should ALWAYS be a secret ballot election, after a majority of employees sign cards, and there should never be any control over whether to hold such an election by either the employer or the union organizers.

Union organizers don't want this, arguing that it is duplication of effort since a majority has already signed the cards - obviously, the majority wants a union, they say!

But because many workers may sign under duress from union organizers, a secret ballot election is the only way to ensure that unionization is truly the will of the majority.

There should be nothing wrong with ALWAYS holding a secret ballot election and yet unions oppose this as a solution, even though it would also remove employer control over the process.

Unions and their organizers simply want to transfer control from employer to themselves, not the employees.

Anyone who doesn't see this and opposes a mandatory secret ballot election to determine whether a union will be formed IN EVERY CASE is either lying in service to unionization radicals or too dumb to walk and talk at the same time.

Control needs to be placed with employees, not employers or unions, and the only way to ensure that is TO HAVE A SECRET BALLOT VOTE IN EACH AND EVERY CASE.

My understanding is that there are two major things in EFCA: card check, and putting real teeth in enforcement of current laws against employer intimidation of pro-union employees.
For example, currently an employee fired for organizing must be reinstated with back pay. Under EFCA, they get triple back pay.
I'd be perfectly happy to drop the card check provisions to get the remainder of EFCA.

"Why is it they can get away with the nonsense that it's anti-american to certify a union without a secret ballot, but not to decertify a union?"

ALL unionization or decertification decisions should be by secret ballot - ALL!

What is it about this that you don't get?

That is democracy; that is placing control in the hands of the workers and anyone who opposes holding a secret ballot election in all cases and who insists on allowing EITHER the employer OR the union/organizers to control the process instead of a majority of workers by secret ballot is showing their true colors and they ain't the colors of democracy and respect for workers.

Neither side in the debate really wants to give workers control - neither Democrats (liberals/unionists) nor Republicans (conservatives/anti-unionists).

It's time to give it back to the workers entirely and allow anyone to collect sufficient signatures to force a vote and then ALWAYS have that vote by secret ballot prior to unionization or decertification.

What is it about this that you don't get?

Not a damned thing, Bub. But the way the system is gamed now, it favors business in both instances.

They should kick the ass of anyone (union or employer) who intimidates, coerces, or retaliates against employees for any lawful union-related activities and the stronger the teeth the better.

It is time for employees to stop being a volleyball, pummeled by union reps and employers alike.

It is time for Republicans to get their heads out of the butts of employers and for Democrats to get their heads out of the butts of unions and give real power and opportunity to employees everywhere to exercise their rights of association and organization without fear of reprisal, coercion, intimidation, extortion, or blackmail by people who do not have their best interests at heart: unions who achieve power through unethical means and employers through draconian anti-labor laws.

". . . the way the system is gamed now, it favors business in both instances."

And changing it to give union organizers all the control, leaving the actual employees in the lurch isn't any better.

You don't have to give unions control to take it away from employers - simply give control back to employees where it belongs, by preserving the secret ballot IN ALL CASES while at the same time taking control away from the employer to decide when and if such a vote will be held.

WHY DO UNIONS OPPOSE SUCH A SIMPLE SOLUTION?!!!!!

WHY DON'T YOU HEAR OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS OFFERING UP SUCH A SOLUTION TO THE CRITICISM THAT THE SECRET BALLOT IS BEING DONE AWAY WITH IN MOST INSTANCES?

Because the unions, not employees, are in control of the Democratic agenda, just as employers, not employees are in control of the Republican agenda.

"If enacted, the Employee Free Choice Act would require the NLRB to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed such cards through the majority sign-up process."

Why not simply REQUIRE A SECRET BALLOT ELECTION after a majority sign cards?!

The employer gets a choice now, so why not take that away and simply MANDATE A SECRET BALLOT ELECTION if a majority of employees sign cards?

From the union standpoint, the answer is simple: we can coerce and intimidate people to sign cards, but not how they vote in a secret ballot election.

So, even though holding a secret ballot election in all cases when a majority of employees sign cards takes control away from the employer, the very criticism of the current law, unions refuse to endorse this easy solution BECAUSE IT TAKES CONTROL AWAY FROM UNIONS and leaves it in the hands of employees.

The conservative criticism of EFCA would have NO TEETH if the act required a secret ballot election in ALL CASES.

As long as unions are allowed to be certified by a majority of card signers without a followup election, conservatives have a club to wield against the legislation and it simply isn't necessary to do away with the secret ballot, except to preserve union power to control the process through intimidation and coercion.

The only ones with free choice in the EFCA will be unions and their organizers - once again, "employee free choice" will be an unrealized fantasy existing only in the minds of left wing dupes who can't see how this corrupts democracy and fetters individual employees in making a fair, informed, and uncoerced decision on unionization.

I'll type slow...maybe you will understand this time...level the playing field, because it has to be one or the other - either allow unions to organize via cardcheck, or make decertification require an election be set up by the NLRB before that action can be taken.

Look at my comments in this thread. That is the only position I have taken.

". . . because it has to be one or the other . . ."

That's the problem with radicals; it has to be either the unions in control or the employer, never the employees, never balance.

You are not describing a level playing field, by saying "either one or the other" but a playing field favoring one side or the other.

No matter how slow you type it.

Maybe you should think slower.

Or maybe you should just look up "level playing field" which is a field which favors neither side.

You are, at best, willfully obtuse, and you are creating strawman arguments, to boot, and instead of addressing the content of my statement simply dismissing me as a 'radical.' Whatever, I've been called worse things by better people.

A level playing field means that both sides have to play by the same set of rules. The way it stands right now is that business has the advantage on both ends.

Jackass.