How'd he win in the first place?

[WildCat]

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

The part you quoted says nothing about an investigation into every signature. It says that someone must come forward "early on" in the process, and then present evidence to the NLRB. IOW, the person who feels he was intimidated has to do all the investigating himself.

Not to mention it requires someone who was intimidated enough into signing the card but brave enough to come forward with allegations, you don't see any issues here?'

This is why a secret ballot vote should be taken in every case. It's by far the best tool available wrt combating voter intimidation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then prove your point. Show the data.

Sorry, I still can't time travel.

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

Aside from the absurdity of your alternate possibility, you have no data for it, and the data you do have doesn't support your contention. So yes, that's a continuing logic fail.

More pathetic nonsense from you.

 

[TraneWreck]

The part you quoted says nothing about an investigation into every signature. It says that someone must come forward "early on" in the process, and then present evidence to the NLRB. IOW, the person who feels he was intimidated has to do all the investigating himself.

Wrong. I'm not going to quote every word of a 100 page manual. At some point, if you actually about sounding ignorant, you're going to have to do some learning on your own.

Not to mention it requires someone who was intimidated enough into signing the card but brave enough to come forward with allegations, you don't see any issues here?'

They have to sign the card in front of these mythical union thugs, they can talk to management and the NLRB in confidence. They will investigate intimidation if management or other workers bring it up.

This is why a secret ballot vote should be taken in every case. It's by far the best tool available wrt combating voter intimidation.

Unless the intimidation comes from management. It doesn't seem to stop that at all, as is evidenced by the 29,000 confirmed cases of management harassment of workers in 2007 alone.

Another factless, witless post from you.

 

[TraneWreck]

Sorry, I still can't time travel.

This is low brow, even for you.

Do the study. Economists isolate variables all the time. I gave you a study that examined every NLRB secret ballot election over a 5 year period, why are you unable to provide similar support for your side?

Because it doesn't exist. You're just pulling nonsense out of your ass.

Aside from the absurdity of your alternate possibility, you have no data for it, and the data you do have doesn't support your contention. So yes, that's a continuing logic fail.

I do have data, that's not what we're arguing about. We're discussing the explanation of the data. Since you need baby steps, let's go over it again:

In 2007 alone, there were 29,000 confirmed incidents of management harassing and intimidating workers over union elections and membership.

In 2007 secret ballot elections were held in all such cases. Thus, even with secret ballots, management still violates the law constantly. There are at least three causal explanations:

1) Secret Ballots don't inhibit management from intimidating and harassing workers at all.
2) Secret Ballots do inhibit that harassment on some level. Thus, in a world without secret ballot elections, there would be at least 29,001 incidents of management harassing workers, and there could be many more.
3) Secret Ballots actually cause more intimidation. In a world without secret ballots, management would retaliate against the workers who supported the union, but because they can't isolate those people, they retaliate against all workers causing incidents numbers to inflate.

Now, just using the horeshit lazy-ass reasoning style that you employ, arguments for all of those can be made. In a world of pure reason, there's no way to distinguish between them. We need to look at actual data to make a determination of what's going on.

Now, whatever argument you want to make, make it and provide the data to support. Stop whining like a child.

Another post from you, still nothing resembling substantiation. It's almost like all of the data shows your opinion to be wrong.

 

[The Darkest One]

Do you know anything at all about the history of labor unions? Some of them can't even manage a scandal-free vote for their own leadership. Some are full-blown partners with organized crime.

In the OP butthurt union guys went to a state Senator's house to "talk to him".

I can't imagine why anyone would think unions would engage in such behavior!

Where did it say "Union" in the OP? I read "protesters', or are they one and the same now? Not everyone who is disgusted by Walker's tactics are union members.
I will say this though, the "divide and conquer" maneuver is working very well. Middle class vs. middle class, fighting over peanuts while the millionaires laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is low brow, even for you.

Do the study. Economists isolate variables all the time.

Indeed they do. But this isn't a variable: we don't have non-secret ballots for unionization. You can't isolate a variable if it isn't variable. Granted, doing that wouldn't be as spectacular a feat as time travel, but it's still impossible.

 

[TraneWreck]

Indeed they do. But this isn't a variable: we don't have non-secret ballots for unionization. You can't isolate a variable if it isn't variable. Granted, doing that wouldn't be as spectacular a feat as time travel, but it's still impossible.

So, your argument is essentially that 1) you have no idea how secret ballots effect union voting and 2) There's no possible way to find out what effect secret ballots have on union voting, and from these two facts you're able to conclude that secret ballots limit management's ability to intimidate and harass workers, and you don't need to provide any evidence to support this.

Hilarous.

I can't wait for you to whine about strawmen. If that's not your argument, explain what the hell you're saying.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, your argument is essentially that 1) you have no idea how secret ballots effect union voting and 2) There's no possible way to find out what effect secret ballots have on union voting

Nope. I think I have a decent idea. But your argument reminds me of this journal article.

 

[TraneWreck]

Nope. I think I have a decent idea. But your argument reminds me of this journal article.

If you actual have a decent idea, it's about time you shared it. So far it hasn't been pretty.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you actual have a decent idea, it's about time you shared it. So far it hasn't been pretty.

I already did. You proved incapable of understanding or addressing that clear and concise statement then, and I see no reason to expect any change from you now.

 

[TraneWreck]

I already did. You proved incapable of understanding or addressing that clear and concise statement then, and I see no reason to expect any change from you now.

That link just took to one of the pages on this thread.

So far you've offered nothing but your own ignorant opinion. Did I miss the one post where you actually substantiated your claims?

 

[Ziggurat]

That link just took to one of the pages on this thread.

Well, yes. You expressed confusion about what my position is. Since I already stated my position, a link to that statement is sufficient to clarify it.

 

[TraneWreck]

Well, yes. You expressed confusion about what my position is. Since I already stated my position, a link to that statement is sufficient to clarify it.

Ah, the link worked now. Here's your claim:

I never claimed secret ballots stopped any employer misbehavior. I claimed it reduces employer misbehavior compared to what it would be without a secret ballot. That this is so should be obvious...Your statistics do nothing to invalidate my claim.

That you think this suffices as an argument explains how miserably you've failed throughout this post.

I don't even really disagree with the claim, it seems reasonable, but that wasn't the point. You haven't proven your claim. There are other options that are consistent with the data, and you are too lazy and/or inept to make the actual argument. And then, stunningly, you've claimed there is no possible way to ever empirically study this issue, to isolate the variable, so how in the hell do you know? We stopped relying on pure reason in the 19th century. It's not a respectable way to argue.

This is all tangential to the issue of card check, because even with secret ballot management harasses and intimidates workers at a stunning rate. Even if that secret ballot stops some abuse (though you haven't proven that it does nor shown how much--and yes, not retarded people analyzing this issue can isolate causation), they don't stop nearly enough.

You've now spent pages ducking and weaving the duty of substantiating this claim of yours. As pathetic as it is, you chose this as an example of a well-articulated version of your position. Hilarious.