How'd he win in the first place?

[WildCat]

Look, I have nothing against secret ballots, but the answer is that there is no harm to card check. The data proves it.

You have data on a law which doesn't even exist?

 

[TraneWreck]

You have data on a law which doesn't even exist?

Are you just trolling at this point? Did you even read the study I provided?

Illinois has card check. It hasn't been implimented at the federal level, thus applying it to all states, but some of the states do use and have used it for years.

I just find it amazing that I provide a study that literally says, "We studied 20,000 employees that unionized by card check and there wasn't a single incident of intimidation from a union," and you're having difficulty following.

And again, if there is no union intimidation going on in Illinois, with all the mobbed-up unions in Chicago, that says something significant about the process.

 

[WildCat]

Is this correct?

No, it's not correct. Nothing of the sort is in the bill:

SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

• (a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

• `(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

 

[WildCat]

Illinois has card check.

No, it doesn't. The law you cite applies only to the union-friendly public sector.

 

[TraneWreck]

No, it's not correct. Nothing of the sort is in the bill:

[/LIST]

Notice the part about the NLRB investigating? They can interview employees confidentially and ask them if they were intimidated into signing. It is, in essence, a secret ballot.

The union intimidates them into signing the card, the NLRB shows up and asks them in a confidential setting, a bunch of workers say they were threatened, no automatic certification.

That process is more than adequate, as is evidenced by the lack of union intimidation in these elections and card checks.

 

[TraneWreck]

No, it doesn't. The law you cite applies only to the union-friendly public sector.

So? Card check hasn't led to union intimidation, what evidence do you have that it would be any different in the private sector?

The only relevant difference is the degree to which management would put pressure on the process, which is an argument in favor of card check.

 

[WildCat]

Notice the part about the NLRB investigating? They can interview employees confidentially and ask them if they were intimidated into signing.

No, it doesn't. The sole responsibility of the NLRB is to verify that the cards represent more than 50% of the workers. There is nothing in the bill authorizing or requiring the NLRB to investigate if anyone signed under duress.

And even if there was (and there certainly isn't in HR 1409) that works against your claim that card check saves money because a secret ballot vote wouldn't be required.

 

[WildCat]

So? Card check hasn't led to union intimidation, what evidence do you have that it would be any different in the private sector?

The only relevant difference is the degree to which management would put pressure on the process, which is an argument in favor of card check.

Because worker-bee government workers in Illinois don't need to be intimidated into joining a union any more than flies need to be intimidated into landing on feces.

Again, why not just have a secret vote in every case? What's the harm?

 

[TraneWreck]

No, it doesn't. The sole responsibility of the NLRB is to verify that the cards represent more than 50% of the workers. There is nothing in the bill authorizing or requiring the NLRB to investigate if anyone signed under duress.

This is just pure fantasy on your part. If you read the NLRB procedures, employers have the ability to challenge petitions based on intimidation. Because it's very easy for an employee to go to his boss and say, "the union pressured me into signing," that process is more than adequate:

Any party alleging fraud (other than forgery), misconduct or supervisory taint in connection with the showing of interest must take early action on raising such allegations, in a timely manner relative to gaining knowledge of the alleged conduct. General Dynamics Corp., 213 NLRB 851 (1974). When a party raises such allegations, it should be directed, in writing, to present its supporting evidence to the Regional Director within 7 days after raising them. Globe Iron Foundry, 112 NLRB 1200 (1955). If the Regional Director is presented with supporting evidence that gives reasonable cause to believe that the showing of interest may have been invalidated, the Regional Director should conduct a further administrative investigation.

http://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/documents/44/chm2.pdf

That manual is produces by the NLRB to guide its investigators. There is ample opportunity to ensure that the signatures were legitimately obtained, and a rather large number of the petitions are turned down:

Every year, thousands of petitions are filed in NLRB regional offices by employees, unions and employers for secret ballot elections to determine whether a majority of employees want to form or join a union, or to decertify an existing union. In the case of a representation election, Board agents first determine whether the unit of employees is appropriate and ensure that at least 30 percent of employees in that unit have signed the petition. About one-third of petitions are withdrawn or dismissed during this process.

http://www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do/conduct-elections

And even if there was (and there certainly isn't in HR 1409) that works against your claim that card check saves money because a secret ballot vote wouldn't be required.

More trivial failure. They investigate the ballot whether or not a majority sign. If a majority sign, a union is automatically certified, if not, it goes to a secret ballot. The money and time is saved by not going through a second election after the first proved a majority want a union.

 

[TraneWreck]

Because worker-bee government workers in Illinois don't need to be intimidated into joining a union any more than flies need to be intimidated into landing on feces.

Yes, I know your thoughtless bias. Are you allergic to factual argument?

Again, why not just have a secret vote in every case? What's the harm?

The harm is that the elections give employers time to intimidate workers out of forming a union. In 2007 alone, there were 29,000 confirmed incidents of management intimidating and retaliating against their employees.

This has been explained to you over and over, yet you repeat it with no evidence.

Find me the evidence that card check leads to union intimidation. A number of states have implimented card check.

 

[Ziggurat]

But, of course, this is yet another point you have completely failed to prove. It's entirely possible, for example, that secret ballot elections actually INCREASE the incidents of intimidation and harassment from management. If the ballots were public, they could just retaliate against those that supported the union. Because it's secret, they retaliate against everyone.

Bwahahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh, TW.

Now, if I were the sort of person who thought that making **** up in front of a computer was the proper way to argue

You are exactly that sort of person. You're constantly inventing positions for me which I don't express. The kicker, of course, is that you can't even recognize when you do it without me holding your hand and walking through it in detail. It's just reflexive for you.

 

[TraneWreck]

Bwahahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh, TW.

I take it you can't provide any data. Incredible.

All you have to do is offer facts to rule out the possibility I offered. If it's so absurd, this shouldn't be difficult. Yet I predict you will never do this.

You are exactly that sort of person. You're constantly inventing positions for me which I don't express. The kicker, of course, is that you can't even recognize when you do it without me holding your hand and walking through it in detail. It's just reflexive for you.

Nice try. I've given you the actual studies, I've explained everything for as though you're a toddler, and it still escapes you. All you have are these pathetic attempts to say you're misunderstood.

Once again: state your position clearly and provide factual support.

Why do you go to such lengths to avoid such a simple request? Why are you on a skeptics forum if you're so averse to arguing like an adult?

If you just want to be patted on the back for ignorant, unsubstantiated opinions, head over to Fox News' page or start expressing this retarded crap on Michelle Malkin's site.

 

[Ziggurat]

I take it you can't provide any data.

Indeed, I cannot time-travel to a possible future to collect data on the effects of an event which has not happened yet.

Incredible.

What a funny definition for that word you must have.

Once again: state your position clearly and provide factual support.

Why do you go to such lengths to avoid such a simple request? Why are you on a skeptics forum if you're so averse to arguing like an adult?

The fact that you appeal to me to act like an adult after all the strawmen you've produced here is rich with irony. At this point, I'm sort of past any desire to be cooperative with you. If you can't figure out what I mean, well, I no longer care, to be honest.

 

[TraneWreck]

Indeed, I cannot time-travel to a possible future to collect data on the effects of an event which has not happened yet.

That's not the data requested. All you have to show is that secret ballots, which actually exist, are efficacious in eliminating management based harassment.

I provided you evidence to the contrary, surely you're not this inept.

What a funny definition for that word you must have.

More puffery.

The fact that you appeal to me to act like an adult after all the strawmen you've produced here is rich with irony. At this point, I'm sort of past any desire to be cooperative with you. If you can't figure out what I mean, well, I no longer care, to be honest.

This is all you have left?

For the third time, if you think I'm making strawmen (which I'm obviously not, but whatever), state you position clearly and provide factual support.

Why is that so hard for you?

 

[WildCat]

This is just pure fantasy on your part. If you read the NLRB procedures, employers have the ability to challenge petitions based on intimidation.

Right... if 30% of them organize while being intimidated by the union.

But unless that happens the role of the NLRB is simply to verify that the signed signatures represent >50% of the workers.

So why not just have a secret ballot vote in every case?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not the data requested. All you have to show is that secret ballots, which actually exist, are efficacious in eliminating management based harassment.

I provided you evidence to the contrary, surely you're not this inept.

No, you did not. You provided me with evidence that management harassment exists under current conditions. That evidence logically does not indicate what management harassment would be under different conditions which do not exist. It is the change in management harassment due to those conditions, and not simply the current level, which is at issue, and your evidence does not in fact provide evidence for that at all. So you have merely repeated your previous basic logic failure.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, I know your thoughtless bias. Are you allergic to factual argument?

If you ever get around to presenting factual argument...

The harm is that the elections give employers time to intimidate workers out of forming a union. In 2007 alone, there were 29,000 confirmed incidents of management intimidating and retaliating against their employees.

Are you still calling presenting their arguments "intimidating", and will you ever explain how a company can retaliate against an employee when they have no way of knowing how they voted because the ballot is secret?

I predict you'll once again link to a pro-union site which counts saying the plant will close/move if unionized as "employer intimidation".

This has been explained to you over and over, yet you repeat it with no evidence.

Find me the evidence that card check leads to union intimidation. A number of states have implimented card check.

Have any states implemented card check for the private sector? I'm guessing "no" since this is a federal issue.

The harm is that the elections give employers time to intimidate workers out of forming a union. In 2007 alone, there were 29,000 confirmed incidents of management intimidating and retaliating against their employees.

So implement reforms in that area, strengthen the laws on employers and increase the penalties for violating them. Shorten the time for a secret vote to 1 day if you wish. My one and only issue here is the elimination of a secret ballot vote if >50% of the workers sign the union petition. And it is an issue with me because it gives great incentive to unions to get that 50% by any means necessary, where none exists now.

Make any damned reform you want within reason, but keep the secret ballot vote in every case.

 

[TraneWreck]

Right... if 30% of them organize while being intimidated by the union.

But unless that happens the role of the NLRB is simply to verify that the signed signatures represent >50% of the workers.

So why not just have a secret ballot vote in every case?

No, that's just false. Read the manual.

 

[TraneWreck]

No, you did not. You provided me with evidence that management harassment exists under current conditions. That evidence logically does not indicate what management harassment would be under different conditions which do not exist. It is the change in management harassment due to those conditions, and not simply the current level, which is at issue, and your evidence does not in fact provide evidence for that at all. So you have merely repeated your previous basic logic failure.

Then prove your point. Show the data.

There was no logic failure, as I indicated the alternative possibility in my first post.

More pathetic nonsense from you.

 

[TraneWreck]

If you ever get around to presenting factual argument...

Childish.

Are you still calling presenting their arguments "intimidating", and will you ever explain how a company can retaliate against an employee when they have no way of knowing how they voted because the ballot is secret?

This has been explained to you multiple times and supported with data.

I predict you'll once again link to a pro-union site which counts saying the plant will close/move if unionized as "employer intimidation".

That would, you know, be intimidation, but you have been given resources, you choose to remain ignorant and talk out of your ass.

Have any states implemented card check for the private sector? I'm guessing "no" since this is a federal issue.

At this point 5 states have implimented card check like systems, all for the public sector. THey've worked very well and there are few, if any, incidents of union intimidation.

So? That allows us to study the way card check works, but obviously the plan hasn't been implimented universally. What's you point?

You're just making an argument from ignorance. Provide some factual support that the private sector would experience intimidation while the public sector has experienced none.

Just more of your ignorant bias. That's literally all you have.