How'd he win in the first place?

[TraneWreck]

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.

Wow, you're confused on the process.

Here's how it works now:

If 30% of workers want a secret ballot election, then one is held. But the election is long and drawn out. What actually happens during this interval is that "employers routinely fire union supporters, intimidate workers, put the union supporters on awful shifts as a warning, hire unionbusting consultants, and so on, and so forth."

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezra...ar=2008&base_name=that_the_crypt_would_simply

All card check does is eliminate that election if more than 50% of workers want to unionize. After the unionization process occurs, NOT BEFORE, the votes are made public.

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.

This is just completely false. If a card-check union is established and 30% of the workers object, they can petition for a secret ballot election. Card Check through the Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate secret ballot elections. It simply allows workers to bypass that process if >50% want to unionize.

I'm shocked to learn that anti-union hysteria is based on completely false understanding of the process.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right, because usually they live in secret. No one in America knows where their state senators live.

When you say, "we know where you live", the point is (obviously) not to inform the person of your factual knowledge of publicly available information. So... duh. If you think that in any way refutes what I'm saying, then you haven't been paying attention.

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.

If that happened, I'd condemn it. I would indeed consider it an implicit threat of violence to protest outside a democrat's house, and it would be even worse if the person openly carried a firearm. Has that happened? Not that I've heard of. The only protests I've been hearing about at people's homes has been from leftists, particularly union folks. Now, you're free to come up with examples of republicans, conservatives, tea party folks, or whomever protesting at homes, and I WILL condemn that. But your implication that I'm engaging in a double standard is simply false. If there's any projection going on here, it's yours, not mine.

 

[TraneWreck]

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

First, there is no ballot when the names are revealed. You still don't understand the process.

If 30-50% want to unionize, it goes to a secret ballot vote. If more than 50% want to unionize, then they're unionized, no vote needed.

If, after unionization occurs, at least 30% of the workers are unsatisfied, they can petition for a secret ballot vote.

So there is nothing to compare and contrast. That's a figment of your imagination.

Second, it takes a long time because the elections go through the National Labor Relation Board process, which takes time. Card Check just eliminates this process which is used by employers to harrass and intimidate workers BEFORE they have union protection.

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.

You'd have to actually undestand the process before you make such claims. If people are intimidating their employees into signing those cards, 30% of them can petition secret ballot elections. That's an adequate restraint on that kind of intimidation.

 

[TraneWreck]

When you say, "we know where you live", the point is (obviously) not to inform the person of your factual knowledge of publicly available information. So... duh. If you think that in any way refutes what I'm saying, then you haven't been paying attention.

Again, this is pure fantasy. Do you not know where your state senator lives? They aren't hiding in secret.

If that happened, I'd condemn it. I would indeed consider it an implicit threat of violence to protest outside a democrat's house, and it would be even worse if the person openly carried a firearm. Has that happened? Not that I've heard of. The only protests I've been hearing about at people's homes has been from leftists, particularly union folks. Now, you're free to come up with examples of republicans, conservatives, tea party folks, or whomever protesting at homes, and I WILL condemn that. But your implication that I'm engaging in a double standard is simply false. If there's any projection going on here, it's yours, not mine.

Did you not get the "cutting gas lines" allusion earlier in the thread?

Law enforcement authorities are investigating the discovery of a cut propane gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Thomas Perriello’s (D-Va.) brother, whose address was targeted by tea party activists angry at the congressman’s vote for the health care bill.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34934.html

And the weapon carrying occured at the town hall events in the summer of insanity a year ago. Notice I presented my point as a hypothetical and did not claim that the Baggers were surrounding people's houses.

They've protested outside of congressional offices quite often, which, if intimidation is your reason, isn't that different from protesting outside a home:

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/87888032.html
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/staten_islander_planning_prote.html

Now, if you're peacefully protesting, an office is a good place to do it while someone's home is obnoxious. If you're threatening violence, either will do.

 

[WildCat]

You'd have to actually undestand the process before you make such claims. If people are intimidating their employees into signing those cards, 30% of them can petition secret ballot elections. That's an adequate restraint on that kind of intimidation.

I understand the process quite well, thank you. You want a public vote (and you lie when you claim the voters aren't known, because they are) in lieu of a secret ballot. There's a reason we don't make laws by petition, and those same reasons are just as true, if not more so, in voting to unionize.

Ballots should be secret.

 

[TraneWreck]

I understand the process quite well, thank you. You want a public vote (and you lie when you claim the voters aren't known, because they are) in lieu of a secret ballot. There's a reason we don't make laws by petition, and those same reasons are just as true, if not more so, in voting to unionize.

Ballots should be secret.

Oy. You say you understand it, then you evince total ignorance of the process.

Even if card check is allowed, employees can still have a secret ballot. It simply allows them to avoid one if they've already decided to unionize.

AND, if they decide to unionize and 3/10 workers are unhappy about it, they can still have a secret ballot vote.

You just want to preserve employers' ability to intimidate workers from unionizing.

 

[stokes234]

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.

You claimed violence was implied. When pressed for evidence, you stated that the knowledge of where someone lives implies violence. When given another example of knowledge of where someone lives not implying violence, you said the two scenarios are different.

At no point have you backed up your statement. Show evidence that violence was implied.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you not get the "cutting gas lines" allusion earlier in the thread?

No, I didn't. I hadn't heard about that. That's criminal behavior, and it's completely unacceptable.

They've protested outside of congressional offices quite often, which, if intimidation is your reason, isn't that different from protesting outside a home:

It's very different. That's where protests about your job should happen: at your job. I have not, do not, and will not object to people protesting at any politician's office. But their home is different. That's where family live. That's where their children live. That's where they sleep at night. You are vulnerable in your home in a way that you simply aren't at your office. You cannot reasonably claim that the two are equivalent in terms of threats. They simply are not. I accept protests at the offices of politicians of any party. I condemn protests at the homes of politicians (or ceo's, or anyone) of any party as well. Such protests are not simply obnoxious, they are threatening.

 

[Unabogie]

I understand the process quite well, thank you. You want a public vote (and you lie when you claim the voters aren't known, because they are) in lieu of a secret ballot. There's a reason we don't make laws by petition, and those same reasons are just as true, if not more so, in voting to unionize.

Ballots should be secret.

But here you are, after claiming that the only possible explanation for the EFCA was to "intimidate" people into signing, arguing other possible explanations for the law, which include the ability of a majority of the workers to organize by signing a card and not requiring an election. Could there be any other POSSIBLE explanation for union organizers to want an easier way to establish a union other than the desire to intimidate and coerce, or do you stick to your delusional claim of mind reading, now that Tranewreck has given you additional information?

 

[Ziggurat]

You claimed violence was implied. When pressed for evidence, you stated that the knowledge of where someone lives implies violence.

No, I did not. The statement "we know where you live" is a message. It conveys information. And the information it conveys indicates more than simple possession of a particular fact. Can this rather basic concept really have eluded your grasp?

 

[Unabogie]

Ziggurat clutches his pearls over people confronting their own representatives, but hand waves chaining people to the ceiling under "enhanced interrogation". Worrying about "those people" and their silly pain and suffering is for sissies, but Dog forbid a Teabagger feels put upon.

 

[TraneWreck]

It's very different. That's where protests about your job should happen: at your job. I have not, do not, and will not object to people protesting at any politician's office. But their home is different. That's where family live. That's where their children live. That's where they sleep at night. You are vulnerable in your home in a way that you simply aren't at your office. You cannot reasonably claim that the two are equivalent in terms of threats. They simply are not. I accept protests at the offices of politicians of any party. I condemn protests at the homes of politicians (or ceo's, or anyone) of any party as well. Such protests are not simply obnoxious, they are threatening.

If your goal is to intimidate someone, show them that you can reach them, how is an office different than a house? In fact, I'd be more worried about people lurking outside my office just because it's on a busy street and it would be difficult to separate someone who means me harm from someone just going about their day.

I agree with you that protesting at someone's home isn't appropriate, but again, violence isn't inherent. Cindy Sheehan protested outside Bush's ranch in Crawford for a couple of years. No one thought that had anything to do with intimidation or violence.

It depends on the specifics. If you have a holstered gun and are talking about second amendment remedies or the group is being physically aggressive, then there's a threat of violence. Call the cops.

Groups of people outside their state senator's house, which once more, is not a secret location, isn't an act of intimidation by itself. Hell, growing up one of my good friend's mother was our state senator. Everyone knew where they lived, so?

It is, however, very, very obnoxious.

 

[Ziggurat]

Could there be any other POSSIBLE explanation for union organizers to want an easier way to establish a union other than the desire to intimidate and coerce, or do you stick to your delusional claim of mind reading, now that Tranewreck has given you additional information?

I really don't care why they want it. Card Check will still enable intimidation whether or not that's its intent. And when intimidation is allowed, it will happen. And so Card Check should be opposed. No amount of good intention can rescue bad legislation from being bad.

 

[DavidJames]

If that happened, I'd condemn it. I would indeed consider it an implicit threat of violence to protest outside a democrat's house, and it would be even worse if the person openly carried a firearm. Has that happened? Not that I've heard of. The only protests I've been hearing about at people's homes has been from leftists, particularly union folks. Now, you're free to come up with examples of republicans, conservatives, tea party folks, or whomever protesting at homes, and I WILL condemn that. But your implication that I'm engaging in a double standard is simply false. If there's any projection going on here, it's yours, not mine.

Should I assume then that you feel protesting at abortion providers homes is also an implicit threat of violence?

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Was anybody serving lutefisk?

That would be those rude Minesotans. Those Wisconsin protesters are much too polite.

 

[Ziggurat]

If your goal is to intimidate someone, show them that you can reach them, how is an office different than a house?

Again, you are vulnerable in your home in ways that you are not in your office. Your children live there. You sleep there. If you don't understand how that makes you inherently more vulnerable at home, I really don't know what else to say.

I agree with you that protesting at someone's home isn't appropriate, but again, violence isn't inherent. Cindy Sheehan protested outside Bush's ranch in Crawford for a couple of years. No one thought that had anything to do with intimidation or violence.

Bush has the Secret Service. Most people don't have any sort of security. That makes the comparison irrelevant.

 

[WildCat]

Oy. You say you understand it, then you evince total ignorance of the process.

Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand the process. Or perhaps you think I'm a fool who can't understand the difference between a signed petition and a secret ballot.

Even if card check is allowed, employees can still have a secret ballot. It simply allows them to avoid one if they've already decided to unionize.

Nope, there is no such thing. You want a public vote to see if a secret ballot is allowed?

AND, if they decide to unionize and 3/10 workers are unhappy about it, they can still have a secret ballot vote.

And union thugs will know the names of every single one of them. And as we have seen in the OP, might even show up at their house to "talk to" them.

You just want to preserve employers' ability to intimidate workers from unionizing.

No one can intimidate with a secret ballot, not even employers. The sole purpose of card check is to introduce intimidation into a process to accomplish what democracy couldn't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Should I assume then that you feel protesting at abortion providers homes is also an implicit threat of violence?

Hell yes. That's exactly what it is. And it, too, is reprehensible.

 

[TraneWreck]

I really don't care why they want it. Card Check will still enable intimidation whether or not that's its intent. And when intimidation is allowed, it will happen. And so Card Check should be opposed. No amount of good intention can rescue bad legislation from being bad.

First of all, BS.

Second, employee intimidation is more of a concern than intimidation from employers? What a strange world you inhabit.

And finally, CARD CHECK DOES NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOTS.

Before card check, 30% of a workplace could request a secret ballot. After card check, 30% of a workplace will be able to request a secret ballot.

This intimidation nonsense is the fevered fantasy of union busters.

 

[DavidJames]

Hell yes. That's exactly what it is. And it, too, is reprehensible.

Thanks, while I disagree that such protests are not an implicit threat of violence, I agree they are not appropriate.