How'd he win in the first place?

[TraneWreck]

I have no evidence that the president imprisons opposition members of Congress.

And yet, I would oppose the removal of the following clause from the constitution:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Clearly I'm just paranoid, since the president doesn't arrest members of the opposition party.

Union intimidation is already illegal. Your notion that Card Check will somehow unleash a new era of unrestrained harassment is the dubious, unsubstantiated claim.

Currently, in businesses where unions have been formed, employees can (and have) voted to have them changed or eliminated. Do you have any evidence of unions harassing workers in these scenarios? That would give us an indication of how it would go with card check.

 

[TraneWreck]

Well, let's see. In the post I responded to, you said,


You said I should read the act. You didn't say I should read about the act. But you didn't link to the act, you linked to a page about the act. Even though you suggested that I should read the act, and not simply about the act. So my statement was pointing out an obvious incongruity in your post. That may not be particularly significant point, and I really wouldn't care if you simply ignored it, but what it sure as hell does NOT constitute is a claim that the NLRB link was wrong. That's a complete misrepresentation. I never said that, and I never implied it. And if you think I did, well, you need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

Holy crap. You better stop, now. This is humiliating for you. You really want me to believe that you're incapable of understanding what I linked to? This is another situation where you could have avoided looking silly by just taking to read.

This is what happens when you make ignorant assertions, get called on them, and have to save face. You're just digging this hole deeper.

I actually linked you to a better source of information about the Act than the act itself (it considers case law), but the point was that you expended no effort in learning the state of the law before making bold, incorrect statements.

Now you're just resorting to trivialities in a vain attempt to make yourself look better. Weak.

I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking you to acknowledge that you have repeatedly misrepresented my position. Whether or not you want to apologize for that misrepresentation is a different matter. If you feel that those were honest, good-faith mistakes, then a simple acknowledgment will suffice.

Your explanation is more bizarre and less cogent than your initial goofy statements.

 

[fuelair]

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.



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.

Shouldn't be - false understanding is the reason for any time republickers win an election - the scared conservative voters actually believe the thugs and slime they are voting for care about and will push their wants and needs. Nothing could be greater false understanding than that. What's worse is even after the same thing happening groups of years after groups of years, they still think their "heroes" give a flying crap about them. They deserve the rain of crap they get for that - the rest of us don't though. That's why I feel like I do about republickers. Stupid and sucker-punched is not my choice of how to go.

 

[Ziggurat]

Union intimidation is already illegal.

So is the employer intimidation you complain about. And yet...

Your notion that Card Check will somehow unleash a new era of unrestrained harassment is the dubious, unsubstantiated claim.

Once again, you just can't resist with the straw, can you? I said nothing about "unrestrained" harassment.

But it's a completely logical conclusion that if you give a group a strong motive for acting badly, it will sometimes do so. And Card Check gives unions a strong incentive to intimidate workers. Will they always do so? I'm sure they won't. Will they do so sometimes, and more often than without Card Check? That's really the only sensible prediction.

 

[Ziggurat]

Holy crap. You better stop, now. This is humiliating for you. You really want me to believe that you're incapable of understanding what I linked to?

No, TW. I want you to believe that I'm ocassionally a smartass. I'd also like you to stop acting like a dumbass.

I never claimed the NLRB web page was wrong. I never suggested the NLRB was wrong. I pointed out a minor inconsistency in your post, because I'm a smartass. You, for reasons which escape me, misinterpreted that to mean something it doesn't. And now you can't even admit that your interpretation was wrong. You have to blame me because you can't accept that you actually misinterpreted anything I said. And yet, you lecture me about acting like an adult? Sure, TW. Sure.

 

[TraneWreck]

So is the employer intimidation you complain about. And yet...

Here we go again. If you'd read the study I provided, you would see that laws against employer intimidation are very poorly enforced.

Provide similar evidence for laws against union intimidation being poorly enforced. That would mark the first time you've introduced any factual substantiation to your arguments.

Once again, you just can't resist with the straw, can you? I said nothing about "unrestrained" harassment.

Haha, ok, baby steps. You think there will be more union intimidation with card check? On what are you basing this? Surely not your obviously insufficient knowledge base.

But it's a completely logical conclusion that if you give a group a strong motive for acting badly, it will sometimes do so. And Card Check gives unions a strong incentive to intimidate workers. Will they always do so? I'm sure they won't. Will they do so sometimes, and more often than without Card Check? That's really the only sensible prediction.

Except that you aren't giving them any motivation to act badly. This is pure fabrication on your part.

Right now there's a strong incentive for existing unions to stop workers from holding votes that change their union afiliation or eliminate the union altoghether, can you provide evidence unions are intimidating workers in such ways now?

 

[TraneWreck]

No, TW. I want you to believe that I'm ocassionally a smartass. I'd also like you to stop acting like a dumbass.

I never claimed the NLRB web page was wrong. I never suggested the NLRB was wrong. I pointed out a minor inconsistency in your post, because I'm a smartass. You, for reasons which escape me, misinterpreted that to mean something it doesn't. And now you can't even admit that your interpretation was wrong. You have to blame me because you can't accept that you actually misinterpreted anything I said. And yet, you lecture me about acting like an adult? Sure, TW. Sure.

Ok. I'll let it end there. The history is there in black and white, anyone who cares to look over it can draw their own conclusions.

My bad for misinterpreting.

 

[Ziggurat]

Shouldn't be - false understanding is the reason for any time republickers win an election

When you believe stuff like that, then this:

Stupid and sucker-punched is not my choice of how to go.

is in fact exactly how you're going to go. But you'll cling comforably to your myth, and be continually surprised at how often "false understanding" wins, never actually learning the real causes of victory and defeat.

 

[johnny karate]

But you'll cling comforably to your myth...

If we could somehow harness the power released from the explosion of irony meters this chastisement caused, all our energy problems would be solved.

 

[Unabogie]

This thread has been really fun. I don't usually get to see so much willful denial of evidence outside the Birther threads.

 

[Ziggurat]

If we could somehow harness the power released from the explosion of irony meters this chastisement caused, all our energy problems would be solved.

Sure, johnny. Sure.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure, johnny. Sure.

How is it smug to point out that a fantasy of rampant union intimidation and violence has been manufactured in this thread without the least bit of substantiation?

 

[WildCat]

Hey TraneWreck, why not have a secret ballot vote in every case, so we know there was no intimidation involved?

 

[WildCat]

You are not answering the question.

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

I'm not claiming that this is happening now, I'm claiming it will happen once there is incentive to do so. And this proposed law provides such incentive.

Can you think of a reason a vote by secret ballot shouldn't be used in every case, just so we know the cards accurately reflect the will of the workers?

 

[TraneWreck]

Hey TraneWreck, why not have a secret ballot vote in every case, so we know there was no intimidation involved?

And so it came to this.

Because no one ever admits to losing on the internet, we can only infer when a debate has been won. Posts like WildCat's are clear indicators that he's given up the ghost and is now just trolling to try and save his fragile ego.

I accept your surrender.

 

[WildCat]

How is it smug to point out that a fantasy of rampant union intimidation and violence has been manufactured in this thread without the least bit of substantiation?

Hey johnny, maybe you'll be the first person in ths thread to explain why there shouldn't be a secret ballot vote in every case. You know, just to make sure the signed cards actually reflect the will of the workers just in case some signed under duress.

 

[WildCat]

And so it came to this.

Because no one ever admits to losing on the internet, we can only infer when a debate has been won. Posts like WildCat's are clear indicators that he's given up the ghost and is now just trolling to try and save his fragile ego.

I accept your surrender.

I'm tired of going in circles with you. I answered every single one of your points, you're just repeating them.

My problem with the card check proposal is that it bypasses a secret ballot in many cases. I'm not at all comfortable with that, because it greatly increases the incentive to pressure workers to sign the card.

What harm is there in conducting a secret ballot vote?

 

[Ziggurat]

How is it smug to point out that a fantasy of rampant union intimidation and violence has been manufactured in this thread without the least bit of substantiation?

Well, we could start with the fact that that isn't something I ever claimed. So you can always burn that strawman for fuel if your irony meters don't explode.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm tired of going in circles with you. I answered every single one of your points, you're just repeating them.

You answered with an assortment of demonstrably false assertions and uninformed opinions that you refuse to substantiate with anything resembling facts.

In the perverse world of argument you inhabit, that may count as an "answer," but most thinking people rightly recognize it as nonsense.

My problem with the card check proposal is that it bypasses a secret ballot in many cases. I'm not at all comfortable with that, because it greatly increases the incentive to pressure workers to sign the card.

Yes, we know that's your problem. If >50% of a workforce wants a union, why make them go through a vote? All it does is allow management to run anti-union campaigns, which, the data shows, are highly destructive. You have not shown a single example of union intimidation of elections.

If people want secret ballots, they can have them. Union decisions continue to be determined by secret ballot after it forms.

What harm is there in conducting a secret ballot vote?

This has been explained to you multiple times.

 

[WildCat]

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?

I'm sure this is the only time it ever happened...

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have successfully negotiated a settlement with the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 1103 union for Patricia Pelletier, a worker who was targeted by CWA operatives for a vicious campaign of retaliation after she attempted to remove the union from her workplace.

http://www.identitytheftblog.info/identity-theft/retaliatory-identity-theft/1402/