How'd he win in the first place?

[TraneWreck]

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.

You aren't following the discussion. Just saying the same wrong thing over and over.

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

That's not how it works. The 30% of workers signing on for a secret ballot vote are not made public. The Card Check vote is only made public AFTER 50% are gained to make sure there wasn't any fraud.

Even AFTER that, 30% of unnamed workers can petition for a secret ballot.

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 thier house to "talk to" them.

Nonsense. Pure, *********. 30% of unnamed workers can petition for a secret ballot. If the union loses that election, they're gone. Intimidation is meaningless.

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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. EVEN WITH CARD CHECK THERE CAN STILL BE A SECRET BALLOT.

What don't you understand about that? Why are you having so much trouble.

The sole purpose of card check is to streamline union certification to eliminate employers' ability to harass and intimidate workers out of unionizing.

 

[WildCat]

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.

This is the intimidation I'm talking about. Card check is now the vote, and it is a very public one, with your name attached.

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 can't think of a single good reason to eliminate the secret ballot, can you?

 

[Ziggurat]

First of all, BS.

First of all, that's not an argument. Secondly, everything else you said in that post was a strawman. I made NONE of the claims you argued against.

 

[Ziggurat]

EVEN WITH CARD CHECK THERE CAN STILL BE A SECRET BALLOT.

There's the rub. Yes, secret ballots can still happen. But if unions intimidate workers enough, there won't be. Card check gives them both a motive and a means to do exactly that. So "can" isn't good enough.

 

[TraneWreck]

There's the rub. Yes, secret ballots can still happen. But if unions intimidate workers enough, there won't be. Card check gives them both a motive and a means to do exactly that. So "can" isn't good enough.

They can't. If the Unions intimidate workers, 100% sign the card check to get them off their back. Then 30% ask for a secret ballot, those 30% aren't revealed, it goes to an election, end of story.

 

[WildCat]

You aren't following the discussion. Just saying the same wrong thing over and over.

I'm following it quite well.

That's not how it works. The 30% of workers signing on for a secret ballot vote are not made public. The Card Check vote is only made public AFTER 50% are gained to make sure there wasn't any fraud.

Even AFTER that, 30% of unnamed workers can petition for a secret ballot.

TW, the union knows every single name on the petitions. That's the issue, not that Alice who waitresses down the street from the plant will know the identities after the fact.

Nonsense. Pure, *********. 30% of unnamed workers can petition for a secret ballot. If the union loses that election, they're gone. Intimidation is meaningless.

Tell me how a worker signs a petition anonymously again?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. EVEN WITH CARD CHECK THERE CAN STILL BE A SECRET BALLOT.

Only after a public vote for such...

What don't you understand about that? Why are you having so much trouble.

The sole purpose of card check is to streamline union certification to eliminate employers' ability to harass and intimidate workers out of unionizing.

No, the sole purpose of card check is to get through intimidation what couldn't be had via a secret ballot.

Are you still claiming employers can somehow intimidate people to vote a certain way on a secret ballot?

 

[TraneWreck]

First of all, that's not an argument. Secondly, everything else you said in that post was a strawman. I made NONE of the claims you argued against.

It's BS. It will not enable intimidation, it will eliminate the main source of employers' ability to intimidate.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's BS. It will not enable intimidation, it will eliminate the main source of employers' ability to intimidate.

The decision to unionize becomes an open petition! That's a huge advantage to those who will intimidate.

 

[WildCat]

They can't. If the Unions intimidate workers, 100% sign the card check to get them off their back. Then 30% ask for a secret ballot, those 30% aren't revealed, it goes to an election, end of story.

Why not just have a secret vote every single time?

 

[Unabogie]

This is the intimidation I'm talking about. Card check is now the vote, and it is a very public one, with your name attached.


I can't think of a single good reason to eliminate the secret ballot, can you?

As has been pointed out to you many times, it doesn't eliminate them. At all.

From the law:

(e) [Secret ballot; limitation of elections] (1) Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and labor organization made pursuant to section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title], of a petition alleging they desire that such authorization be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer.

(2) No election shall be conducted pursuant to this subsection in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve- month period, a valid election shall have been held.

Ok? You're wrong. It doesn't "eliminate secret ballots". That's just false, so why cling to it?

 

[WildCat]

It's BS. It will not enable intimidation, it will eliminate the main source of employers' ability to intimidate.

I'm dying to hear how employers can intimidate via a secret ballot.

You do realize that the sole purpose of secret ballots of all kinds are to prevent any untoward influences? Yet somehow employers found a way? Tell me another load of bovine excrement.

 

[WildCat]

As has been pointed out to you many times, it doesn't eliminate them. At all.

From the law:



Ok? You're wrong. It doesn't "eliminate secret ballots". That's just false, so why cling to it?

Try to keep up, I've already addressed this. Such a system is wide open to intimidation.

You, OTOH, still can't think of a single good reason not to have a secret ballot in every single case, can you?

 

[Newtons Bit]

As has been pointed out to you many times, it doesn't eliminate them. At all.

From the law:



Ok? You're wrong. It doesn't "eliminate secret ballots". That's just false, so why cling to it?

Yes, with the new bill it will take, once-again, open petition with 30% of all employees to get a secret ballot. If the union intimidated the employees into signing the original petition to unionize, don't you think they will intimidate people to not sign the secret ballot petition? Unions are also organized to get people to sign petitions. They have leaders, employees and members who volunteer. How much organization does the side that doesn't want to unionize have? None!

You say it's still in the law, but it will never, EVER, be invoked.

 

[Unabogie]

Try to keep up, I've already addressed this. Such a system is wide open to intimidation.

You, OTOH, still can't think of a single good reason not to have a secret ballot in every single case, can you?

You should not talk about keeping up. You said it "eliminated" secret ballots? Is this true or false? Take a deep breath and admit you got that wrong so we can have a rational discussion.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, with the new bill it will take, once-again, open petition with 30% of all employees to get a secret ballot. If the union intimidated the employees into signing the original petition to unionize, don't you think they will intimidate people to not sign the secret ballot petition? Unions are also organized to get people to sign petitions. They have leaders, employees and members who volunteer. How much organization does the side that doesn't want to unionize have? None!

You say it's still in the law, but it will never, EVER, be invoked.

I don't "say" it's in the law. It's in the law. Wildcat claimed secret ballots had been abolished. Was he right? Were they abolished?

 

[WildCat]

You should not talk about keeping up. You said it "eliminated" secret ballots? Is this true or false? Take a deep breath and admit you got that wrong so we can have a rational discussion.

It's absolutely true in cases where the union can intimidate 50% of the employees to sign the petition.

You're happy with that possibility? I'm not.

And we know the union gets people to sign the card who really don't want to unionize, because they often lose the secret ballot vote when it happens despite having had more than 50% of the workers sign the card. This is exactly why they're pushing this bill - because they want to force employees to unionize who would never vote to unionize in a secret ballot. Because as it turns out, many employees sign the card just to get the pro-union guys off their back, not because they want to be part of a union.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I don't "say" it's in the law. It's in the law. Wildcat claimed secret ballots had been abolished. Was he right? Were they abolished?

We could have a new tax-rate for people making more than $10^99/year or more. AND NO ONE WILL EVER PAY IT.

Do you understand this concept?

 

[Unabogie]

We could have a new tax-rate for people making more than $10^99/year or more. AND NO ONE WILL EVER PAY IT.

Do you understand this concept?

I understand your claim. But he never said "in reality, I don't believe this will ever happen, and here's why". He claimed it had been "eliminated" by the law. Was he right?

Yes or no?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I understand your claim. But he never said "in reality, I don't believe this will ever happen, and here's why". He claimed it had been "eliminated" by the law. Was he right?

Yes or no?

Yes. The conditions can never, ever, be fulfilled for a major corporation. Or even a mid to small corporation for that matter.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm following it quite well.


TW, the union knows every single name on the petitions. That's the issue, not that Alice who waitresses down the street from the plant will know the identities after the fact.

This is just silliness. If the union has the name of the 30% who sign the petition after the union has formed, how are they going to intimidate a secret ballot vote? The person just says, "Hey, I didn't vote against you."

I've given you studies that show employer intimidation, I'm sure you can document all the examples on your side.

Tell me how a worker signs a petition anonymously again?

The National Labor Relations Board certifies the signatures on the petition, not the union, not the employer. If 30% get together and send in the petition, the union doesn't have access to that.

Even if they did have access to that information, they still can't determine how people vote on a secret ballot. Intimidating employees who can then vote in secret is not a good way to stay certified.

Only after a public vote for such...

False.

No, the sole purpose of card check is to get through intimidation what couldn't be had via a secret ballot.

Are you still claiming employers can somehow intimidate people to vote a certain way on a secret ballot?

Isn't that the purpose of the secret ballot?

"Hey, I'm going to kick your ass for the way you voted on the secret ballot."
"I voted for you."
...

And for the 50th time, the reason for card check is to avoid the elaborate election process where it isn't needed making it easier to form unions and inhibiting employers' ability to intimidate and harass.

I've documented that, but, shockingly, it's more information you've willfully avoided reading.