Union=Mafia

Unions have done wonders for the Auto industry. ........Is there still an auto industry?

What is democratic about a process that does not provide a secrete ballot? Make the penalties more meaningful, however, the proposed card check rule is bad policy and anti-democratic.

The unions have done wonders for Michigan and Ohio. They're living like third world welfare countries.

didnt the union fight for secret ballots. now that they are losing they want to know who to intimidate. how much do the heads of these unions make dont to add in their perks shame on them

Free Choice Act? It's a good thing education is as poor as it is in this country, allowing people to think the name has something to do with the content of the bill. And education, how is that working out for you?

You people who bash the unions don't know what the unions have done for all of us. Yes the auto workers got carried away, and they need a kick in the butt. If it wasn't for the unions fighting for workers 50 - 60 years ago. We wouldn't have safe work practices, equal pay, a descent wage. We would have sweat shops, work without benefits, vacations, healthy environment. So even though some took advantage, they helped every working man and woman

Do a Google News search on "union leaders". You will be surprised (maybe) at how many stories about union corruption, charges and convictions come up. This should be a reminder that unions started as thugs, have a history of being thugs, and many carry on that tradition today. Employees have free choice today, through the privacy of a secret ballot. Unions want to do away with the secret ballot so they can intimidate workers. That's the bottom line. I'm ashamed of liberals who are willing to throw away the fundamental rights of privacy and free speech in order to advance this sordid agenda. Not to mention dealing yet another body blow to the business still remaining in Maine.

Just drive through Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and you can see firsthand what the steelworkers union did to that town.

From the article:

“EFCA will strip employees of their right to a secret ballot vote when deciding whether to join a union,” said Rick Berman, executive director of the Employee Freedom Action Committee.

---

Richard Berman is a well known anti-labor lobbyist; more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Berman

I'll also note that his claim is an outright lie, as he well knows. The EFCA does not change the current law regarding workers' access to a secret ballot vote.

The opponents are using this argument to obscure the real reason why they oppose the bill. Currently, when a new bargaining unit is formed, management and ownership drags on negotiations over an initial contract in an effort to wear down their employees. Sec. 3 of the EFCA would force management to bargain in good faith, stipulating a time limit (unless both sides agree on an extension) after which arbitration would be used.

Sec. 4 of the EFCA also substantially increases penalties against those found guilty of illegal anti-union activities to up to $20,000 for each incident. Real money.

Kate your crazy.I used to work at eastern fine paper for years. The union was a rip off.

Free choice???

They call doing away with the secret ballot free choice?

We keep digging the hole deeper folks.......

I know that unions are a front for the mafia, but can anyone explain to me how the Catholic Church fits in?

There was a time in our history when unions were a good thing, but not anymore. Unions are greedy...period. Unions are killing businesses and then argue it was poor management.

Many people seem to believe that unions unilaterally decide what goes into labor contracts. They're called "collective bargaining agreements" (CBA's) because that's what they are - agreements. As often as not, the parties (management and labor) can't reach agreement on their own and have to go to a third party such as the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) for mediation. Third-party negoitiations are tough and require serious compromise by both parties. Usually neither party is entirely happy with the results, but they eventually sign the "agreement". When times are good, the unions demand more and .management is a little more generous, but neither party controls the process.

The EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) does not do away the secret ballot. And does anyone really believe that the Chamber of Commerce and the business community really care about employees' right to a secret election? They object to the EFCA because it makes it easier for employees to conduct union elections, it increases penalties for employers who retaliate against employees who try to unionize, and it requires employers to actually particpate in "good faith" negotiations.

To follow up on jhf1295's excellent comment, if opponents to the EFCA were really concerned about secrecy, how come they never mention that currently card check can be used to disband an EXISTING union? That's right - sort of card check in reverse. Where is the demand for a secret-ballot vote for that?

Uh..don't workers need jobs first....just what we need in the middle of one of the worst recessions in history. Exactly Steve H. Wake up people!

The entire purpose of the EFCA is to do away with the secret ballot. That's the only goal of the act. Period.

Do away with secret ballots and then intimidation rules the day.

Fact of the matter is, it's nobody's damn business (the company's or a union boss') how any individual votes.

Why is organized labor so intent on making public individual votes?

Free Choice Act?

This has to be the most poorly titled bill of all time.

Gerald and jhf1295 have the big labor talking points memorized. They know full well that the practical implications of the changes brought about by EFCA is to eliminate a secrate ballot. They use a careful play on words to suggest otherwise.

What would you guess the average I.Q. of these folks is?

ronfromdowneast, just drive through Lincoln, Millinocket, Old Town, Brewer and a few other towns in Maine and see what the Unions have done to the paper mills.

GeraldWeinand, What constitutes 'illegal anti-union activities'? Could it be voting in secret? Could it be opposing ruthless tactics to encourage membership? Could it be trying to negotiate reasonable wages and benefits in order to keep the company operational and workers EMPLOYED?

How much evidence do we need to see what unions have done to unemployment! Unions are too expensive. To prevent bancruptcy, companies have no choice but to outsource domestic jobs to foreign countries! SUPPORTING UNIONS WILL UNDENIABLY RESULT IN THE LOSS OF MORE DOMESTIC JOBS! Wake the hell up people!

SteveH:

I don't know if I have memorized anything, but I have read the actual legislation, and understand how it amends the NLRA.

Have you?

The ignorance about what unions do and have done displayed in many posts here is astonishing. Google "GM sit-down strike" and take a look at the year. Just a little economic stress then too! Times *are* different now, but one of the key issues in just about all of our lives (then and now) is still the very basic concept that management does not want to pay us a full day's wages for a full day's work. When we're unorganized, they can get away with that time and time again. If WE had more money in our pockets from our jobs, the ECONOMY would get better fast. Unless there are workers ORGANIZED in a way that can make demands stick, the money in our society simply will continue to flow to capitalists for use as bad market bets, toilet paper, bonfires, or whatever the hell they're doing with it. WAKE UP PEOPLE and stop taking it in the ass.

The idea that the EFC, or any act making it easier for workers to form unions, would lead to increased unemployment is erroneous. This notion is based on the false premise that unions, which typically increase workers' pay and benefits, would thereby decrease the profit of their employers and businesses, leading to more employee layoffs and business closures. Alternatively, the increased costs of operating unionized businesses would force businesses to increase the prices of their goods and services. However, recent studies have found that by increasing the wages of low-income employees, the opposite happens: those employees have more disposable income which they tend to spend rather than save, thereby stimulating the economy and ultimately leading to higher profits for businesses. These businesses often are then able to hire more employees as a consequence, reducing unemployment rates. Any realized increase in prices of goods and services due to unionization is offset by increased average earnings (i.e., buying power) of consumers, so that the real price of commodities is unaffected.

A strong, well-substantiated, body of economic theory states that the wealthier a person is, the more likely they are to save rather than spend any additional income (i.e., the rich have a low marginal propensity to spend). In contrast, the poor (e.g., workers represented by unions), are more likely to spend rather than save any additional income (i.e., the poor have a high marginal propensity to spend). This pattern occurs because the poor typically have a greater need to spend any additional money they earn to just make ends meet, buy basic necessities, and pay off debts. As a consequence, if one desires to increase consumer spending in order to stimulate economic growth, the most effective way to achieve this is to increase the income of the lowest-earning groups since these are the people most likely to spend that money. This can be acheived via tax relief for the poor and middle class, or through mechanisms that increase wages and benefits for low-income employees (e.g. unions). The idea that tax cuts for the wealthy can stimulate the economy ignores the fundamental fact that the wealthy tend to save a much greater percentage of the money they make than do the poor, causing this money to be lost into pools of inheritance rather than to be reinvested into economic growth and consumer activity.

Profits are the results of the work done by the employees - not management. I haven't seen anything done or any decision made by the corporate leaders of the banks, the three auto manufacturers that anywhere justifies the multi-million dollar salaries they have reaped while driving their companies/businesses into near bancruptcy. But who speaks up for the workers? Not management. Unions may not be the greatest and union leaders may not always be upstanding - but where does one find corporate management looking out for the workers? How many American corporations have sent worker jobs overseas where they spend pennies for the labor and even less on healthcare or any kind of retirement benefit while at the same time hording billions for corporate leaders and thousands annually for members of their own board members who do little to protect the entegrity of the business.

Unions are the other side of the see-saw in the American capitalistic structure. They wouldn't be needed if ethics and professional integrity existed in American business but that has gone with the growth of American corporate greed. Unfortunately, union bosses aren't much better - which is WHY there is a need for the secret ballot within the union structure. Otherwise, the union bosses will be just as thug-like as the corporate crooks. Without the secret ballot we'll be looking at hanging chards, forged cards, or thugs with bats at the gates. Anyone can be bought or intimidated. The story of Norma Rae was real. Don't know it? Go rent the video staring Sally Fields.

Card check has been around since 1935. It's not new. So these huge companies like Wal-mart who will not pay a living wage and who will not give decent benefits are good for the working class???? So a divorced or single mom with a couple of kids, working 36 hours a week , with now health benefits, whose struggling to pay for daycare, how does she make it???? through your tax dollars subsidizing wal-marts benefit plan with food stamps free lunch for her kids, free oil from places like penquis cap, and probly subsidized housing of some sort through the state. If you hate paying higher taxes, why wouldn't you want the employ free choice to get these people higher wages so they can get off welfare and out of your pocket. Wal-mart is one of the only company's turning a profit in this economy. and they do it on the back of tax payers who are subsidizing there employees with the things that wal-mart will not pay for. But they'll give you a nice smiley face sticker when they are screwing ya though.