How'd he win in the first place?

[WildCat]

You can only say this because you didn't read the study. More ignorance.

I know a secret ballot is the best tool there is to prevent voter intimidation. Iraqis under Saddam had their names attached to the ballot... he got 100% of the vote. Under card check standards, 100% of Iraqis supported Saddam, case closed.

Just because a solution doesn't solve ALL problems does not mean it doesn't solve some.

It doesn't solve any problems, and opens the door for more problems.

No, it isn't. If 30% on a petition is all that's needed to get a vote, that AS A MATTER OF FACT tells you that no claims are made about the other 70%. You just need that number to start a vote.

Describe a scenario where 30% could organize without the knowledge of the union thugs who are intimidating them.

Jesus, this is so stupid. WHy have a second election if >50% said they want a union?

So we know they weren't intimidated into signing the card.

If the union is intimidating people, they can go to their employer who can call a meeting, have 30% sign a petition, and get a secret ballot. Simple.

Doesn't sound like an anonymous procedure to me. Why not just have a secret ballot to confirm?

For god's sake. CARD CHECK DOES NOT "GET RID" OF SECRET BALLOTS.

You realize how many times you've repeated this same retarded lie?

Claiming it is a lie doesn't make it so. If the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign a card there is no election, no secret ballot. Thus, a way is made for a union to pressure workers into joining.

You have yet to voice a single rational reason why a secret ballot shouldn't be used in all cases, no exceptions.

 

[Ziggurat]

Jesus, you really have no clue what you're talking about. I mean, granted, I knew you were just talking out of your ass, but the bravado with which you say completely incorrect things is impressive.

Didn't even a small part of you think, "Maybe I should read the Nationa Labor Relations Act before I post this?"

Funny, but you don't link to the act.

And as far as I can see (feel free to cite the actual law, including section number, if you think I'm wrong) the threats your link refers to are threats specifically against the employee for voting or joining a union. Your description was different. I took it to mean that the employer would revoke health care for employees across the board in the event of unionization, not specifically for employees who voted for or joined a union. But if the latter is all you're talking about, then it's already illegal, and there are already mechanisms to address it. If those mechanisms are insufficient now, well, Card Check doesn't actually remedy that either. Nothing about this unionization procedure provides any new enforcement mechanism to keep employers from doing exactly the same thing.

 

[WildCat]

hmmm, one side making claims w/o evidence and calling the side providing evidence shills...where I have I heard that before?

Would you like your name attached to ballots for political offices, available to any public official when you apply for a building permit or a license or a government job or even disputing a parking ticket?

Why or why not?

 

[WildCat]

@WildCat: It's not eliminated, you are pointedly not reading. Not worth arguing with you, either.

It is eliminated. All the union has to do is pressure 50% of the workers to sign and there will ne no secret ballot. This is what the proposed law says, yes?

Why not have a secret ballot in every case, to confirm that workers are voting their conscience and didn't just sign a card because Joe, Bob, and the other pro-union guys are pressuring them 24/7.

I can see why you don't want to discuss this, it's hard to do when you have an indefensible position.

 

[WildCat]

Does anyone have a rational reason why a secret vote shouldn't be held 100% of the time?

 

[TraneWreck]

Funny, but you don't link to the act.

And as far as I can see (feel free to cite the actual law, including section number, if you think I'm wrong) the threats your link refers to are threats specifically against the employee for voting or joining a union. Your description was different. I took it to mean that the employer would revoke health care for employees across the board in the event of unionization, not specifically for employees who voted for or joined a union. But if the latter is all you're talking about, then it's already illegal, and there are already mechanisms to address it. If those mechanisms are insufficient now, well, Card Check doesn't actually remedy that either. Nothing about this unionization procedure provides any new enforcement mechanism to keep employers from doing exactly the same thing.

Hilarious. This is just awesome. So your argument is now that the National Labor Relations Board, the agency in charge of enforcing labor law, is incorrect about what the National Labor Relations Act says on its own website?

Wow.

I used their summary of the act that created that very agency because it's much more direct than the typical word salad federal statute. I would recommend reading at the part titled "Unfair Labor Practices."

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

[...]

(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided(exceptions)

Now, all of those terms have been explained in detail by subsequent case law. The NLRB has summarized the current state of the law ON THEIR WEBPAGE that I quoted for you. You are just amazingly, totally, incredibly wrong, and you're still trying to defend that statement.

If you can't even see that you've made this obvious of an error, there is literally no possibility of actual communication with you.

 

[TraneWreck]

Does anyone have a rational reason why a secret vote shouldn't be held 100% of the time?

Yes, when it isn't necessary. If more than 50% of a workforce is willing to publicly state that they want a union, why have a vote at all? It's just a waste of time and money.

If others want a secret vote, they can have one.

 

[Unabogie]

It is eliminated. All the unuon has to do is pressure 50% of the workers to sign and there will ne no secret ballot. This is what the proposed law says, yes?

No, it does not. I posted the exact text. It says all the union has to do is get > 50% to automatically form a union. But all those opposed need to do to force a secret ballot is get a petition to the NLRB with 30%. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

 

[WildCat]

Yes, when it isn't necessary. If more than 50% of a workforce is willing to publicly state that they want a union, why have a vote at all? It's just a waste of time and money.

We do it so we know the cards weren't signed under duress, and that 50% of the workers really do want to join a union.

And you know damn well time and money isn't the reason. Pressuring voters to sign a card when they wouldn't vote for a union in secret is why card check is so sacrosanct.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I know a secret ballot is the best tool there is to prevent voter intimidation. Iraqis under Saddam had their names attached to the ballot... he got 100% of the vote. Under card check standards, 100% of Iraqis supported Saddam, case closed.


It doesn't solve any problems, and opens the door for more problems.



Describe a scenario where 30% could organize without the knowledge of the union thugs who are intimidating them.


So we know they weren't intimidated into signing the card.


Doesn't sound like an anonymous procedure to me. Why not just have a secret ballot to confirm?


Claiming it is a lie doesn't make it so. If the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign a card there is no election, no secret ballot. Thus, a way is made for a union to pressure workers into joining.

You have yet to voice a single rational reason why a secret ballot shouldn't be used in all cases, no exceptions.

Union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union sounds like fantasy to me.

I could be wrong. Is there objective evidence anywhere concerning such practices?

 

[WildCat]

No, it does not. I posted the exact text. It says all the union has to do is get > 50% to automatically form a union.

You just debunked yourself.

But all those opposed need to do to force a secret ballot is get a petition to the NLRB with 30%. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

I'm not ignoring it, in fact I pointed out several times now that that's a very high bar to meet, especially for an unorganized group facing intense p[ressure from an organized group.

Maybe you have a rational answer why there shouldn't be a secret vote 100% of the time? TraneWreck says it's all about saving money. Some of these votes can cost tens of dollars!

 

[Unabogie]

You just debunked yourself.


I'm not ignoring it, in fact I pointed out several times now that that's a very high bar to meet, especially for an unorganized group facing intense p[ressure from an organized group.

Maybe you have a rational answer why there shouldn't be a secret vote 100% of the time? TraneWreck says it's all about saving money. Some of these votes can cost tens of dollars!

You wrote " All the unuon[sic] has to do is pressure 50% of the workers to sign and there will ne[sic] no secret ballot."

This is false. There is no way to spin you making a false assertion, and you should just admit you were wrong about this. It's. In. The. Law.

 

[WildCat]

Union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union sounds like fantasy to me.

I could be wrong. Is there objective evidence anywhere concerning such practices?

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!

 

[TraneWreck]

I know a secret ballot is the best tool there is to prevent voter intimidation. Iraqis under Saddam had their names attached to the ballot... he got 100% of the vote. Under card check standards, 100% of Iraqis supported Saddam, case closed.

If Iraqis have a secret ballot vote under Saddam, 100% of Iraqis vote for Saddam. This is just idiotic.

It doesn't solve any problems, and opens the door for more problems.

You say this over and over and give no evidence. You don't know how it works, you don't understand anything about labor law, why on Earth should I listen to anything you say especially since you won't reference any quality sources?

Describe a scenario where 30% could organize without the knowledge of the union thugs who are intimidating them.

I already have: worker goes to management, says, "The Union bastards are intimidating me, I want to vote to get rid of the union."

Management questions the rest of the workforce, guaging opinions. The workers don't have to answer, they can claim support for the union, or they can be critical of it.

Management communicates only with the disatisfied workers that they aren't alone, asks if the employees mind having their names released to the other disatisfied workers, and tells them to submit a petition to the NLRB.

Petition is signed, petition is sent, NLRB verifies the signatures, secret ballot is held.

So we know they weren't intimidated into signing the card.

And it's just your worldly knowledge that lets you know this will happen, even though checks on that behavior are built into the procedure.

Doesn't sound like an anonymous procedure to me. Why not just have a secret ballot to confirm?

Because it's a waste of time and money and gives the employer an opportunity to intimidate the process.

If no employees want a secret ballot, why make them have one? They can just as easily demand one as sign the card check. If they're upset about union intimidation, they can file for a secret ballot as the card check process is going.

Claiming it is a lie doesn't make it so. If the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign a card there is no election, no secret ballot. Thus, a way is made for a union to pressure workers into joining.

No, claiming that it's a lie doesn't make it so, it actually being a lie when compared with reality makes it so.

Why don't you show that unions have intimidated workers from filing grievances to the NLRB AFTER the union has been certified? Do you have any evidence for that?

You have yet to voice a single rational reason why a secret ballot shouldn't be used in all cases, no exceptions.

You just have a bizarre understanding of what "rational" means. There's no way to satisfy the conditions of your perverse definition.

 

[WildCat]

You wrote " All the unuon[sic] has to do is pressure 50% of the workers to sign and there will ne[sic] no secret ballot."

This is false. There is no way to spin you making a false assertion, and you should just admit you were wrong about this. It's. In. The. Law.

Why not have a secret vote 100% of the time Unaboogie? What's the problem with that, aside from discouraging union growth through intimidation and other pressure tactics?

 

[TraneWreck]

We do it so we know the cards weren't signed under duress, and that 50% of the workers really do want to join a union.

And you know damn well time and money isn't the reason. Pressuring voters to sign a card when they wouldn't vote for a union in secret is why card check is so sacrosanct.

You exist in this fantasy world where you think unions can just intimidate workers with no recourse. Management LOVES it when employees turn to them for help against their union. This is, incidentally, why unions don't intimidate their workers. That's a quick way to get the boot.

The problem of union intimidation of their own members is already adequately handled, if it isn't, show us some facts. The ACTUAL problem is one of employers intimidating and retaliating against employees.

 

[WildCat]

If Iraqis have a secret ballot vote under Saddam, 100% of Iraqis vote for Saddam. This is just idiotic.

Really? Did anyone ever get 100% of the vote when there wasn't a name attached to a ballot?

I'm ignoring the rest of your post since I already responded to all your points.

Still waiting for someone to explain why we shouldn't have a secret ballot vote 100% of the time. I'm beginning to think none will be forthcoming.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hilarious. This is just awesome. So your argument is now that the National Labor Relations Board, the agency in charge of enforcing labor law, is incorrect about what the National Labor Relations Act says on its own website?

Wow.

Wow indeed. Since that's not what I said, we see that (once again) you are incapable of arguing without strawmen.

If you can't even see that you've made this obvious of an error, there is literally no possibility of actual communication with you.

If you cannot refrain from constructing strawmen, then that is quite correct: no communication is possible when you continually misrepresent what I say.

 

[Ziggurat]

You exist in this fantasy world where you think unions can just intimidate workers with no recourse. Management LOVES it when employees turn to them for help against their union. This is, incidentally, why unions don't intimidate their workers. That's a quick way to get the boot.

That, plus the whole secret ballot thing. Which you want to allow unions to bypass.

The problem of union intimidation of their own members is already adequately handled

Yeah, the secret ballot is great, isn't it?

 

[WildCat]

You exist in this fantasy world where you think unions can just intimidate workers with no recourse. Management LOVES it when employees turn to them for help against their union. This is, incidentally, why unions don't intimidate their workers. That's a quick way to get the boot.

Tell me what management is going to do about slashed tires and anonymous phone threats and social shunning.

The problem of union intimidation of their own members is already adequately handled, if it isn't, show us some facts. The ACTUAL problem is one of employers intimidating and retaliating against employees.

So address the problem rather than opening the door for more worker harassment by unions.

The die-hard defense of card check leads me to believe that this has nothing to do with stopping employer harassment and everything to do with enabling union harassment.