Hmmm. Maybe if Joe Lieberman paid the salaries of all the other Democratic senators, and maybe if they had to do whatever he told them to do, or be fired, I'd be OK with card check. But that's a bit of a counter-factual.
My question about card check is: shouldn't it work both ways? In addition to be able to check a card in favor of unionization, shouldn't they be able to check a card against unionization or in favor of decertifying the union?
Card check would really not work in the 20 or so stats that are right-to-work, would it? So won't that make those states even better off? Those states are largely red states.
What people don't understand about card check is that as it stands now, a majority of workers have to sign cards to call for a secret ballot election. Since 99.9% of those signing cards are saying that they want a union the secret ballot election is superflous, it just gives the company time to intimidate the workers and peel off support.
Smarter unions have workers sign cards that call for the election AND establish membership in the union and authorize payroll dues deduction at the same time. So to get the election, a majority has publicly joined the union and said that they are ready to start paying dues - what's the point of a secret ballot at that point?
Just because someone signs a card in the presence of a union "organizer" (especially after he suggests that it would be a "tragedy" if something happened to his family) it does not mean he would vote to authorize the union in a secret ballot.
Joe Lieberman: more terrifying than any goon hired by the parties to a labor dispute.
Yes, and let's prevent those anti-gay-marriage Republicans from getting divorced. One man, one woman.
Hmmm. Maybe if Joe Lieberman paid the salaries of all the other Democratic senators, and maybe if they had to do whatever he told them to do, or be fired, I'd be OK with card check. But that's a bit of a counter-factual.
I thought the benefits of secret elections were determined a long time ago...
Dan Riehl is a loathsome person, and you should be ashamed of yourself for linking to him.
My question about card check is: shouldn't it work both ways? In addition to be able to check a card in favor of unionization, shouldn't they be able to check a card against unionization or in favor of decertifying the union?
Card check would really not work in the 20 or so stats that are right-to-work, would it? So won't that make those states even better off? Those states are largely red states.
What people don't understand about card check is that as it stands now, a majority of workers have to sign cards to call for a secret ballot election. Since 99.9% of those signing cards are saying that they want a union the secret ballot election is superflous, it just gives the company time to intimidate the workers and peel off support.
Smarter unions have workers sign cards that call for the election AND establish membership in the union and authorize payroll dues deduction at the same time. So to get the election, a majority has publicly joined the union and said that they are ready to start paying dues - what's the point of a secret ballot at that point?
I think the numbeer is 30%.
Just because someone signs a card in the presence of a union "organizer" (especially after he suggests that it would be a "tragedy" if something happened to his family) it does not mean he would vote to authorize the union in a secret ballot.
Dan Riehl is a loathsome person, and you should be ashamed of yourself for linking to him.
Ah, the standard liberal approach to dealing with dissenting opinion.
Dan Riehl is a loathsome person, and you should be ashamed of yourself for linking to him.
Ah, the standard liberal approach to dealing with dissenting opinion.
Posted by The Deuce | November 18, 2008 6:34 PM
No, you ridiculous sock-puppet, Riehl is a slimy thing in a pond of venom. He's extra-skanky. I reject not only his 'view,' but his being.