How'd he win in the first place?

[stokes234]

Do you even know what card check is? It's the elimination of the secret ballot. Why don't the unions want a secret ballot? So they can put pressure on those who voted "no".

If you can think of another reason, I'm all ears. A secret ballot is key to a democratic process.

Does that mean that the pressure is physical intimidation?

Would it really have mattered if the ballet was secret or not? It was obvious that it was the republicans voting in favour of removing collective bargaining anyway.

 

[sarge]

Quite the feat of mind reading here. Evidence?

Not that I ascribe to the general "unions are evil" belief system, but the only reason for a "card check" ballot initiative is so that the unions can identify and communicate with workers that fail to vote for the union. Whether or not that constitutes coercion is open for intimidation. I mean interpretation.

It is unavoidable that there will actually be coercion - either by the union itself or by the employees that voted yes, or both. A card check ballot has only one purpose - to make it more likely that a workforce will vote to unionize. Unless one believes that unionizing is inherently good, there can be no logical argument in favor of card check ballots. If one believes that unionizing serves some greater good, then card check ballots make sense.

 

[sarge]

Does that mean that the pressure is physical intimidation?

Would it really have mattered if the ballet was secret or not? It was obvious that it was the republicans voting in favour of removing collective bargaining anyway.

You seem to be confusing two seperate things. The Wisconsin House vote had nothing to do with the concept of card check ballots.

In a card check ballot, the workforce must vote for or against forming a union, and the results of each persons vote is made public, and is subject to scrutiny by the union and by the workforce.

 

[TraneWreck]

Do you even know what card check is? It's the elimination of the secret ballot. Why don't the unions want a secret ballot? So they can put pressure on those who voted "no".

If you can think of another reason, I'm all ears. A secret ballot is key to a democratic process.

Oh the irony.

Card check bypasses the usual process if over 50% of employees vote to unionize. The votes are made public AFTER the union has come into being.

The reason for this is that under current procedure, the time it takes for a secret ballot vote gives employers, yes EMPLOYERS, time to spend company funds running anti union campaigns, intimidate their employees by threatening to close down the business, and firing union organizers. The last is technically illegal, but a recent study revealed that about 25% of emloyers fire workers that try to unionize.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=reports

The union has no impact on the card check vote. The WORKERS take the vote. If it's more than 50%, automatic union. If it's between 30 and 50%, then it goes to a secret ballot.

At no point are votes made public when the union has a chance to sway them.

 

[Ziggurat]

You used words that imply violence, and I pointed out that no violence was reported.

They're at his house to imply violence. They do so with plausible deniability, but why do you think they went to his house and not his office?

I don't know if they'll show up at the girlfriends house, but i've had protestors outside my house (one of my family members is a politician) and really, it wasn't all that intimidating.

That's nice that you weren't intimidated. But plenty of people would be, and with good reason. Especially when death threats have, in fact, been circulating over this issue.

Protesting at personal residences is intended as a threat. The threat may be idle, and you may even recognize it as idle, but that's still what it is.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Hmm, I wonder if he still lives in-district

Doesn't sound like it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does protesting outside someones house, or ringing the doorbell and talking to their wife make you a "thug"?

Yes, protesting at someone's house makes you a thug.

I had always assumed you had to do something violent.

Nope. A threat of violence is enough to merit the label as far as I'm concerned. And that's exactly what protesting at someone's house is. The threat may be implicit, but it's there.

 

[Mooseman]

It seems funny to me, unless the girlfriend vote put him over the top.

 

[stokes234]

They're at his house to imply violence.

Provide evidence.

They do so with plausible deniability, but why do you think they went to his house and not his office?

Maybe he wasn't at his office.

That's nice that you weren't intimidated. But plenty of people would be, and with good reason. Especially when death threats have, in fact, been circulating over this issue.

To this guy? By any of these protestors? If so, you have a case. If not, you don't have a case.

Protesting at personal residences is intended as a threat. The threat may be idle, and you may even recognize it as idle, but that's still what it is.

Provide evidence.

 

[stokes234]

Nope. A threat of violence is enough to merit the label as far as I'm concerned. And that's exactly what protesting at someone's house is. The threat may be implicit, but it's there.

As above, provide evidence of an implied threat.

 

[TraneWreck]

Please provide one iota of evidence that any threat of violence existed.

Voters going door to door with a recall petition in a district in Wisconsin who then travel to their representative's house to confront him is in no way violent. How many people were there? Were they shouting? What do you actually know about this event?

I tend to agree that going to someone's home isn't a good way to protest, but that's because it's obnoxious, not because there's any threat of violence.

The threat is the recall.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Sounds to me like a game of sheepshead might break out.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe he wasn't at his office.

Maybe he wasn't at his home. Oh, wait, he know he wasn't. But that didn't stop the protesters. So clearly, him not being somewhere wasn't the issue.

That's about the weakest excuse I've ever heard.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please provide one iota of evidence that any threat of violence existed.

It's "we know where you live" writ large.

Oh, but wait, that's JUST a statement of fact, no possible implied threat at all in saying that then.

You've really bought into the "plausible" part of plausible deniability.

 

[stokes234]

Maybe he wasn't at his home. Oh, wait, he know he wasn't. But that didn't stop the protesters. So clearly, him not being somewhere wasn't the issue.

That's about the weakest excuse I've ever heard.

Maybe they tried his office, he wasn't there, and decided to try what they thought was his home? And actually, him not being there probably did stop them - I can't imagine they're still there now, but we don't know. But what we do know is that you have claimed an implication of violence and managed to come up with a sum total of zero evidence to support your claim.

 

[stokes234]

It's "we know where you live" writ large.

Oh, but wait, that's JUST a statement of fact, no possible implied threat at all in saying that then.

You've really bought into the "plausible" part of plausible deniability.

My electricity company knows where I live, and occasionally send round a man to "check up" on my electricity usage. Is this an implied threat of violence?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Oh the irony.

Card check bypasses the usual process if over 50% of employees vote to unionize. The votes are made public AFTER the union has come into being.

The reason for this is that under current procedure, the time it takes for a secret ballot vote gives employers, yes EMPLOYERS, time to spend company funds running anti union campaigns, intimidate their employees by threatening to close down the business, and firing union organizers. The last is technically illegal, but a recent study revealed that about 25% of emloyers fire workers that try to unionize.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=reports

The union has no impact on the card check vote. The WORKERS take the vote. If it's more than 50%, automatic union. If it's between 30 and 50%, then it goes to a secret ballot.

At no point are votes made public when the union has a chance to sway them.

I've never seen liberal counter-points to card check, but if this is it then I'm not surprised it's been kept quiet.

Your basic argument is that the reason why card check is necessary is that secret ballots take too long and that gives employers a chance to fight unionization. But then you state that there is this immediate card check thang and the union has no chance to sway people. Either that is a done with a secret ballot (which takes as long as how its done now) or its not. And it, of course, it is not.

The union organizers know who has signed and who has not because they are the people that possess the "cards". They can continue to harass people until they sign it. There's no remedy once they bully enough people into signing it. A secret ballot keeps intimidation from having the final say. And that's a good thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

My electricity company knows where I live, and occasionally send round a man to "check up" on my electricity usage. Is this an implied threat of violence?

You can't honestly be so stupid as to think those are comparable scenarios. So I can only presume you think I might be that stupid.

 

[TraneWreck]

It's "we know where you live" writ large.

Oh, but wait, that's JUST a statement of fact, no possible implied threat at all in saying that then.

You've really bought into the "plausible" part of plausible deniability.

Right, because usually they live in secret. No one in America knows where their state senators live. Once elected, they move into Cheney's undisclosed location.

This is just pure projection on your part. You know if the roles were reversed, and some Baggers were going after a Democrat, protesting outside a house, said Baggers would show up with guns, wave signs that made allusions to "second amendment remedies" and otherwise use the very implication of violence that you're projecting here to intimidate their opponents.

Not everyone thinks like that. The police have thanked the protesters in Wisconsin for their peaceful and cooperative behavior, and there's no reason to think this incident was any different.

Once again, you're speaking out of pure ignorance. How big was this group? If it was half a dozen people with a petition, is that an implicit threat of violence?

 

[WildCat]

The reason for this is that under current procedure, the time it takes for a secret ballot vote gives employers, yes EMPLOYERS, time to spend company funds running anti union campaigns

Can you explain exactly how a secret ballot takes longer than a ballot in which names will be revealed?

Card check bypasses the usual process if over 50% of employees vote to unionize.

Right, the non-secret vote. So when 3 of your pro-union coworkers get close and say "sign this card Bob" there's no potential at all for intimidation. Nope, none at all...

Sorry, I trust that how people vote in secret is much more true than how they vote in public. Card check has no business in a democratic society.