Comments on: ‘Employee Free Choice Act’ Designed to Fill Democratic Coffers

By: Cybergeezer

Cybergeezer — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:20:47 +0000

This article points out the blatant efforts of the Democrats to indemnify itself and ensnare the laborers with pay to work (or “Pay to Play”) employment. Any union member knows unions take their money and use it for PAC’s which promote union growth and dominance. Unions have caused the downfall of many large companies and organizations; Eastern Airlines; National Airlines; U.S. Air Traffic Controllers for just a few. A bailout for Detroit auto makers would give the unions greater power throughout the U.S. The Detroit automakers can’t be competitive unless they can get loose from the unions stranglehold. If Detroit has a good business model, it can survive and come back into the market a more lean, mean, manufacturing machine, that can be competitive the world over.

By: Thinking Person

Thinking Person — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:20:01 +0000

Just have to comment today on the automaker bailout being nipped in the bud. As I write this I’m awaiting the UAW news conference on the matter. Wonder if they’ll want to start stepping up to the plate and helping out the ships they’ve been barnacles on for so many years? Nice how they waiting until after the bailout failed to offer something up. So telling.

By: Thinking Person

Thinking Person — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:15:42 +0000

Confused in Virginia….I agree with you wholeheartedly and wonder how people like Stan come to the conclusions they do. I am truly baffled unless Stan himself is a union steward (boss, thug, etc, etc). There is no other reason to think the free choice act is beneficial to American workers. Pelosi and Obama are only pushing it through because they owe HUGE favors to the union bosses for all of that PAC money being funneled into their campaigns.

By: Confused in Virginia

Confused in Virginia — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:48:04 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree that unions are the reason that jobs are going overseas, and that most union employees could not tell you what their union does with the dues they collect.

I also agree that if the majority of workers in a company want to unionize, they could do it quite easily, so the purpose of denying a secret vote is to intimidate employees into going along.

At one time I had a job in an “union shop” and had to pay dues in order to keep my job. That is when I learned that unions not only use most of the dues for political purposes, but that they glorify mediocracy. I was told that I should only do the minimum required for my job, so they could justify hiring more people. All unions do is discourage people from being as productive as they can be, to get more people hired, so they can collect more dues.

Then people wonder why this country is in such bad shape.

By: Thinking Person

Thinking Person — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:10:27 +0000

Stan….I don’t think you understand what the “free choice act” really is. If you did, how could a PUBLIC vote whether to unionize or not be in an employees favor in any way? If an employee’s vote is PUBLIC knowledge they will either feel pressure from the union thugs to vote in their favor or if they do have some dignity they will vote no and again suffer the union thugs knowing they were voted against. It’s a no-win situation and for you to paint it differently makes me question your motives. I’m going to play along with your logic for a bit now though…If it’s okay to force American workers to vote publicly for their future, why is it not okay to vote for a President publicly? Imagine the strongarmed tactics that would ensue if our one vote for President had to be done in public. Now translate that into being dependent on having a job and having a union boss looking over your shoulder at your vote. Makes no sense. Have you been paying attention to what the unions have done to the auto industry, the steel industry and to public education? Is that what you’re actually wanting MORE of throughout America? The EFCA does the opposite of what you claimed…it will INCREASE fear and intimidation from the union unless that’s what you’re in favor of????

By: Stan

Stan — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:44:15 +0000

Current labor law is very pro-business as the current NLRB decision-makers are Bush appointees. EFCA allows employees to determine for themselves whether or not they want a union at their workplace, without all the threats and warnings from management of dire consequences. When faced with a petition for a “secret ballot” election, companies don’t just say, “okay,” and agree to a date. They begin a campaign to fire the employees who signed union cards, threaten to close the plant, and hold mandatory anti-union meetings at the plant. The EFCA just gives the employees a chance to decide for themselves without fear and intimidation.

By: Wire Dog

Wire Dog — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:34:01 +0000

Thank goodness we have the Beck Ruling, (CWA vs. Beck 1994?). I have used this ruling every year since 1999, (my first union job). I get back about 20% of my union dues that would go to political contributions. I have to declare myself as a “non-agency fee payer” every year, but it keeps about $175 a year away from the dems. Quite a few of my co-workers have also started doing this.

By: bill

bill — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:16:11 +0000

If someone asked me if I would prefer a secret ballot or out-in-the-open voting for a union contract, or for anything else for matter, I would prefer a secret ballot.

What is the rationale for card check? I understand the point of the article, which is that it is a political ploy to increase union membership, but really — how do they explain it to the end user? Why would anyone give up a secret ballot, and how is that “Free Choice”?

I mean, if you wanted to vote for the union, you could still do it on your secret ballot, no one is stopping you. I just don’t see how anyone could suggest this with a straight face.

By: Thinking Person

Thinking Person — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:54:31 +0000

billj….Your point is WRONG I’m afraid. Unions are a major REASON why jobs were moved overseas! Why would an American firm want to put up with the strong-armed tactics and coercion of a union when they can just move their operations overseas? You act as if a union could prevent that from happening! Again, in case you are a union man who hasn’t found out the truth yet, let me be the first to let you in on a little secret your union doesn’t want you to know…..the union has power to do only 2 things…collect YOUR dues and strike. That’s it. Done. They cannot force an employer to stay in the US and do business with union thugs. They cannot force a business to do anything except by walking out and guess what….the business will either close, relocate overseas or go under. Nice to know the unions care so much about those good ole American businesses isn’t it? Democrats tell their constituents that unions are for “worker’s right” for one reason only….political payouts from the unions. Ever wonder where the majority of your union dues go? Political payouts known as PACs (Political Action Committees). Go look in your own union contract and see what percentage of your dues goes towards a PAC. Your union boss is living off of your hard work and hoping that you don’t realize that the uninformed workers are paying him for basically nothing and for the power to enforce other businesses to pay for more of the same.

By: billj

billj — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:40:42 +0000

If unions were stronger in the past 20 years, then there would be less jobs moved overseas, less pension plans eliminated or raided by corporations and less real income decreases – all of which have happened. It is amazing how anytime labor wants to increase it’s membership or power or raise the minimum wage, conservatives scream murder and are against anything benefits the American worker. But they have no problem with CEO’s making millions of dollars while driving their companies to the ground. So much for “individual responsibility”!
It appears that the major tenet of Conservatism is whatever benefits the most selected and smalled group is good while anything that benefits the larger society or groups as a whole is bad.