Unamerican union shenannigans supported by Obama

lakeman · 16th October 2008 03:04 PM

"When citizens go to the polls on Nov. 4, they will be free to vote their conscience — regardless of pressure from relatives, friends or co-workers — after having had a chance to weigh the alternatives. Campaigns and secret ballots are sacrosanct elements of American democracy.
So it's surprising and disturbing that organized labor wants to do away with both these elements when workers decide whether to form a union.
Under the current system, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.
Under a major rewrite of U.S. labor law being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.
This misguided measure passed the House shortly after Democrats took the majority in 2007. But it needs several more votes in the Senate and a president who will sign it. Barack Obama supports it; John McCain does not. It's no surprise, then, that the AFL-CIO plans to spend an eye-popping $200 million this election cycle to support Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress. A win for Obama and big gains for Senate Democrats could remove the remaining obstacles to the euphemistically named "Employee Free Choice Act."
Cajoled choice is more like it. The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome.
Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney in the space below, argue that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.
The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.
Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. But undermining democratic principles is not the answer."

Our view on labor laws: No way to form a union - Opinion - USATODAY.com

Dichtonomy of Hope · 16th October 2008 03:41 PM

Jesus Lakeman, you make it seem like we're becoming the USSA on November 4th.

Defensor · 16th October 2008 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dichtonomy of Hope

Jesus Lakeman, you make it seem like we're becoming the USSA on November 4th.

We already are the USSA. We're just replacing Lenin with Stalin.

lakeman · 17th October 2008 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dichtonomy of Hope

Jesus Lakeman, you make it seem like we're becoming the USSA on November 4th.

Whics is why I started the thread about Obama being a member of the New party which was a socialist organization before the supreme court made their existence moot.

When people call libs socialists they mean that they copy much of what the socialists do. Butwhen Obama's history and voting record are more liberal than any other senator in the senate including the one senator who actually claims to be a socialist, when he wants to move the US further along toward the great Marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." than anyone since FDR, when his spending programs constitute the largest increase in the size of government in history and at the same time he says with a straight face that he would give 95% of Americans a tax cut (even though 41% of them don't pay any taxes that could be cut), (uless he means that the Americans he would give the tax cut to are Mexicans because they live on the American continent), then yes, Obama is not just a socialist, with a small s, like the libs, he is a Socialist with a capital S.

If more of us in the states knew just how socialistic he is he would stand no chance of winning this election. But he is smooth.

primerib · 17th October 2008 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by lakeman

If more of us in the states knew just how socialistic he is he would stand no chance of winning this election. But he is smooth.

I agree but too many Socialists are going to be voting for Nobama. Too many have drunk the cult cool aid and are in a trance. Sometimes I snap my finger in front of their face but get no reaction. It's bizarre. Out of all the presidential campaigns, I don't get this one.

Look at the sh*t in the news last couple days with nobama smearing Joe the plummer. It's not surrogates or supporters, it's presidential candidate doing it. What the f*ck is wrong with his brain? Nobama doesn't have the same values as me, you and many other people. The polls are tightening, I don't think they're accurate and it should be a squeaker for McCain.

Anti Obama.net
Socialism, Marxism, Communism & Obama

lakeman · 21st October 2008 01:40 PM