Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee

Schwacher Dollar-Bank Fed

Der Dollar ist unsere Währung und euer Problem,“ nach diesem altbekannten Motto versuchen sich die Vereinigten Staaten wieder einmal aus der selbst verursachten Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise zu mogeln.

Die Ankündigung der amerikanischen Notenbank Fed am Mittwochabend, Staatsanleihen über 300 Milliarden Dollar sowie hypothekenbesicherte Wertpapiere über 750 Milliarden Dollar zu kaufen, hat die Kurse für Staatsanleihen deutlich steigen lassen, dagegen den Dollar stark fallen lassen.

Dollar wertet in wenigen Tagen mehr als fünf Prozent ab

Waren am Mittwochmorgen noch 1,2987 Dollar nötig gewesen, um einen Einheit der europäischen Einheitswährung Euro erwerben zu können, so waren am Freitag bis zu 1,3738 Dollar nötig. Das entspricht einer Abwertung von rund 5,5 Prozent in gerade einmal zwei Tagen.

Also, shareholder voting is NOT secret ballot. If it's good enough for the titans of capitalism and their owners, it should be OK for the little workers.

Yeah, but, but, but unions claim to be democratic. The RNC doesn't.

How often do you think the secret ballot will be offered by the union? Come on. Try to recall that the secret ballot was a major factor in the consent decree that freed the Teamsters from the Mob. It's odd to see Jimmy Hoffa forget that.

Is there anything the conservatives are honest about?

Come one, I'm sure if Russia introduced the rule that they're going to have Presidential elections with a secret ballot at the option of the incumbent you'd scoff at claims that they haven't eliminated the secret ballot. So long a secret ballot isn't guaranteed then a secret ballot isn't guaranteed.

I seem to recall that a number of years ago George Will on This Week was arguing (perhaps merely to hear his own voice and maybe not entirely seriously) that we should elliminate the secret ballot altogether. If people believe in their convictions they'll stand up for them in the face of opposition, he claimed. I'm sure he envisioned the feeble minded democrats being swayed by GOP "thinkers". I guess a hard working "Joe the Plumber", however, can't stand the pressure of a union organizer...

Also note that the RNC does as this post points out guarantee secret ballots for the most important type of vote: elections to office. So I really don't get the point of this post.

C'mon how often do you think anything relavant or meaningful will be offered by Mike K.

This is also a blatant FOX News misquote of the WSJ. The WSJ ed page wrote: "The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act but in practice makes it a dead letter." Cutting the citation just before the 'but' is, well, what is it?

The Union doesn't get to make the choice of the secret ballot. Currently in the bill IIRC, you only need 30% of the people voting to request a secret ballot and it happens.

edmund dantes:
"The Union doesn't get to make the choice of the secret ballot. Currently in the bill IIRC, you only need 30% of the people voting to request a secret ballot and it happens."

That is not how the EFCA is written. 50% of cards signed and the union is recognized. That's it. Only if less than 50% of cards are signed can the employer request a secret ballot.

"the Wall Street Journal editorial page, of all outlets, concede today that the bill 'doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act'."

Did hell just freeze over ?

Stefan, 51% have to sign a card requesting that they be represented by the union without the secret ballot for that to happen. Alternately, only 30% can sign cards requesting a vote on whether to be represented by the union to force the vote. The second is a much easier goal to meet, so it will get used more often than critics of the bill want to acknowledge.

More importantly, in Canada where card-check is available at employee option or in union elections under existing rules here, intimidation of workers by the organizing union is very rare. Whereas illegal intimidation and firings of pro-union workers by the employers is very common here under current rules. Therefore, card check is much, much more likely to result in the workers true choice being followed.

What is going on at the WSJ editorial page?

It is clear that 51% or more signed cards guarantees union recognition unless the union, itself, requests an election. To ignore the potential for intimidation of employees in the card signing process is to live in a pretend world.

To obsess over the "potential" for union intimidation while ignoring existing intimidation by employers is the real fantasy.

To ignore the potential for intimidation of employees in the card signing process is to live in a pretend world.

You're right.

Employers should be watched very carefully.

(Are you not thinking? What new forms of intimidation would be applied unilaterally here?)

Steve Benen has got to be the dumbest and hackiest blogger out there. The RNC party rules seem to be more like vote taking by show of hands or by voice vote in a meeting. No one is arguing that that is "undemocratic." What is being arguing that a long, drawn-out process in which union thugs can coerce, cajole, or trick members into signing cards, thereby leading to a union that may not really be desired is not very democratic.

The issue at hand is the intimidation of workers, which could happen if the secret ballot is removed. It's not about being undemocratic. The debate should center on Republican fears of unions intimidating workers once the secret ballot is taken away.

On a related note, why do I always hear people say "there's no secret ballot in Canada and also no union intimidation, so removing the secret ballot is great". One example does not an argument make.

Raivo Pommer

raimo1@hot.ee

Bank LBBW Krise

Dies erfuhr die Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa am Freitag aus Finanzkreisen. Im Vergleich zu 2007 hat sich die Summe damit mehr als vervierfacht - damals lag der Betrag bei 186 Millionen Euro. Vor einigen Wochen hatte es in Finanzkreisen geheißen, 2008 habe sich die Risikovorsorge auf mehr als 500 Millionen Euro erhöht.

Baden-Württembergs Sparkassen-Präsident Peter Schneider sagte den «Stuttgarter Nachrichten» (Samstag), diese Entwicklung sei kein Widerspruch zu den derzeit gut laufenden Geschäften: «Wir kommen an Kunden, die wir vorher nicht hatten und das zu Konditionen, die das Risiko abbilden», sagte Schneider, der auch Vorsitzender des Verwaltungsrates der LBBW ist, dem Blatt.

Grund für den rapiden Anstieg sind Informationen aus Finanzkreisen zufolge vor allem sinkende Bonitätsnoten für Unternehmen. Da die Finanzkrise zunehmend auf die Realwirtschaft übergreift, steigt die Gefahr, dass Kreditnehmer ihren Verpflichtungen nicht mehr nachkommen können.

übergreift

I speak hardly any German. I just hope this means "ubergraft." That'd be cool.

Only if less than 50% of cards are signed can the employer request a secret ballot.

So all the whining about “union thugs� intimidating workers is reviled as bullshit, its not the rights of employees that you care about, just the poor oppressed employer

Alas, shortstop, @ 18:07... It's more like "super grip" (which has been exerted by the financial crisis).

"'Only if less than 50% of cards are signed can the employer request a secret ballot.'

So all the whining about “union thugs� intimidating workers is reviled as bullshit, its not the rights of employees that you care about, just the poor oppressed employer."

No, I'm stating the rule that the EFCA creates. I think there should be secret ballot for union certification not matter what. Preferably a mandated union certification election by secret ballot on a rolling schedule for all bargaining units. If the EFCA created that I'd support it.

I think there should be secret ballot for union certification not matter what.

Whether the workers want one or not?

If the EFCA created that I'd support it.

Possibly, I don’t know you personally so I could be wrong
But I don’t believe you would ever support anything that would tip the balance of power between the employer and employee in the direction of even rather then massively pro employer

'Only if less than 50% of cards are signed can the employer request a secret ballot’
Your Freudian slip is showing

"What is being arguing(sic) that a long, drawn out process in which union thugs can coerce, cajole or trick..." posted by Brad @ 4:54 PM.
Replace "union" with "management" and you've just described the present conditions unions are forced to operate under.

Hopefully, when this gets to the floor of the Senate (where, of course, the trouble will be), somebody on the union side will have the brains to point out that the United States Senate doesn't vote by secret ballot.

EFCA allows employees to keep a union vote potentially SECRET FROM THE EMPLOYER.

People are missing that EFCA makes it possible to keep a union vote SECRET FROM THE EMPLOYER.

That's what the right wing is freaking out about: the possibility that they won't know a union vote is being planned.

Employers want to maintain as a right their ability to interfere and even intimidate employees who want to start a union. EFCA could take that away from them.

News Reference

As I understand it EFCA means that the employees can keep the union vote SECRET FROM THE EMPLOYER and that's what is freaking out the right wing.
.
Am I misreading EFCA? Are employees who are gathering card checks required to tell their employer what they're doing?

News Reference

"'I think there should be secret ballot for union certification not matter what.'

Whether the workers want one or not?"

Well, how do you know what the majority of workers want? I presumptively favor a secret ballot and workers can then vote the way they want.

If the EFCA created that I'd support it.

Possibly, I don’t know you personally so I could be wrong
But I don’t believe you would ever support anything that would tip the balance of power between the employer and employee in the direction of even rather then massively pro employer.

Well, how do you know that? How come we're in a situation where supporting a secret a ballot makes you presume I'm a employer stooge? Come on.

"'Only if less than 50% of cards are signed can the employer request a secret ballot’
Your Freudian slip is showing."

No Freudian slip: that is situation EFTA creates.

"As I understand it EFCA means that the employees can keep the union vote SECRET FROM THE EMPLOYER and that's what is freaking out the right wing."

I seriously doubt a union can get to 50% of all workers and not have them employer catch wind of it. I do have serious problems with a system where a union knows how every worker voted.

�Well, how do you know that? How come we're in a situation where supporting a secret a ballot makes you presume I'm a employer stooge? Come on. “

As I said, I don’t know you, so I could be wrong

Well, how do you know what the majority of workers want?

We could ask them? But no, let the company
decide for them, its only fair

"'Only if less than 50% of cards are signed can the employer request a secret ballot’
Your Freudian slip is showing."
No Freudian slip: that is situation EFTA creates.

Again, your first impulse was to worry whether the employER could demand a secret ballot, not whether the employEE could demand a secret ballot

Stefan, the problem is that the current system results in a considerable delay between when enough workers have requested a vote on union representation and when the vote actually happens.

And there is a very well-documented pattern of employers using and abusing the process to delay the vote for as long as possible and to intimidate, harrass and fire workers as needed to ensure the final vote loses. Not every employer does this, but it is far, far more common and damaging to the employees than the vague "what if" warnings about union actions under EFCA.

The fact that you repeatedly refused to even acknowledge this shows you are not offering a serious debate.

"Again, your first impulse was to worry whether the employER could demand a secret ballot, not whether the employEE could demand a secret ballot."

Jefft452:

please don't attribute opinions to me that I don't hold and don't express, just because it would make your life easier. Currently the only way for a secret ballot to take place is for there to be a situation where the employer elects to have one -- that is the legal situation now and is the legal situation under the EFCA. Don't blame me for pointing this out. And yes, I think this is a problem. Secret ballots should be mandatory no matter what employers elect.

My view is that the only way to assure workers a secret ballot is to mandate a secret ballot in all cases and not to make this matter something for unions or employers to decide over the head of workers.

tanstaafl:

yes, in Canada card check is available for union certification, but it requires 65% of employees to sign cards. Which seems like a reasonable system: if a union can get 65%, basically 2:1, it seems likely it has majority support. Just making 50%, on the other hand, means it could always be that intimidation of a few workers was key. Pointing to Canada as a card check system without intimidation problems ought to point out the 65% trigger -- for a secret ballot 50% suffices for union certification.

So yes, if the EFCA raised the trigger for card check certification to 65% as in Canada I'd think this would remove lots of the concern.

please don't attribute opinions to me that I don't hold and don't express, just because it would make your life easier.

You may not hold that opinion, but you certainly expressed it, as I quoted you in my first comment

Stefan: "I seriously doubt a union can get to 50% of all workers and not have them employer catch wind of it."

But that's the right wing's real fear, isn't it? That the employer wouldn't know that employees were unionizing? That the employees would be able to carry of a vote to unionize in secret.

As opposed to the system now, where the employer knows way before a vote for unionization is taken and so the employer is able to use intimidation tactics like firing the employee, or otherwise threatening the employee (threats of shutting down the shop, for instance).

Stefan, you do know that there are companies who's entire mission is to prevent unionization? That those companies are regularly accused of using intimidation tactics?

Stefan, you're either not informed about employer intimidation of employeees or are conveniently pretending it doesn't happen. It leaves your "concern" about the "employee" seem strained at best and feigned at worst.

News Reference

And of course no secret ballot is required to De-certify a union, 50%+1 cards signed is just fine for that

Kudos to the WSJ, but the secret ballot for all argument is weak.

Union members represent only themselves. Their vote represents an equal share of the decision.

RNC representatives are put in place by many and therefore must vote according to the wishes of others. Secret ballots would interfere with the purpose of votes.

What would it look like if the RNC voted 90% in favor of tossing the pro-life plank of their platform but no one could tell who the properly Christian 10% were?

Hmmm... bad example, but I still stand by the crux of the argument.