+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Proposed Employee Rights Act

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Proposed Employee Rights Act

    "The bill focuses on seven areas: 1) secret ballot elections; 2) union recertification elections; 3) paycheck protection; 4) standardized election time; 5) decertification coercion prevention; 6) secret ballot strike vote; and 7) criminalization of union threats and violence."
    http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/09/08/s...form-labor-law

    So, any thoughts on this pending legislation? Some of it, such as the secret ballot elections is a clear response to the card check laws, secret ballot strike votes is a clear response to coercion. Should union sanctioned violence and threats of violence be punishable under law?

  2. Default

    Part of it looks really interesting. I really like the idea of union recertification elections. Unions get to hold multiple votes to become established, they should be subjected to multiple votes to remain.

    They are supposed to be there to represent the workers. If the workers no longer want them, they should be disbanded.
    TANSTAAFL

  3. Default

    I find the rights fascination with destroying unions, which have objectively led to a massive increase in the average wage, working conditions, and lifestyle of the mass majority of Americans, continually odd. This might be the biggest step yet. The republicans, constantly railing, as they do, against government "interference" in private entities, now want exactly that, massive government interference in private entities. Furthermore it is hard to take any anti-worker argument seriously when currently laws are simply ignored by major corporations.

    To attack several specifics in this proposed bill:

    1) Secret Ballot Elections are already the law..

    2) What an idiotic idea considering, as stated, unions are private organizations of workers. I doubt Mr. Hatch would be so wild about forcing corporate boards to even be certified by stockholders. This is an opaque attempt at redirecting union funds and efforts. Corporations simply have to focus on destroying unions. Unions, on the other hand, have to focus on elections and then the gradual improvement of working conditions. By forcing constant elections they can indirectly prevent unions from working for the betterment of their workers. Furthermore this obviously will lead to explicitly illegal politic-based hiring processes.

    3) Another radical contradiction in Republican logic. Apparently you cannot force corporations not to spend unlimited money on politics and you cannot force someone to buy health care, but then you can force unions to not spend their money on political campaigns, which even the simplest of children can see have a direct bearing on workers rights and therefore wages and benefits.

    4) Even your source states that the purpose of this section is not to make the process more logical but to make unionization more difficult.

    5) Any section such as this which doesn't explicitly ban or punish corporations such as Walmart for firing and physically assaulting organizers is just hot air.

    6) This is inherently counter-intuitive since the strike is a collective process the decision should be made in a collective manner. US unions already have less strikes then any others in the civilized world outside China where they're illegal..

    7) Obviously violence is already illegal... Any additional attempts at classifying it additionally is an attempt to damage unions. Furthermore 150 allegations of violence in 5 years out of millions and millions of people means it essentially does not exist.
    Rocky Anderson 2012: http://www.voterocky.org

    "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” -Eugene Debs

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Julian View Post

    2) What an idiotic idea considering, as stated, unions are private organizations of workers. I doubt Mr. Hatch would be so wild about forcing corporate boards to even be certified by stockholders. This is an opaque attempt at redirecting union funds and efforts. Corporations simply have to focus on destroying unions. Unions, on the other hand, have to focus on elections and then the gradual improvement of working conditions. By forcing constant elections they can indirectly prevent unions from working for the betterment of their workers. Furthermore this obviously will lead to explicitly illegal politic-based hiring processes.
    Actually, stockholders recertify board members every year. Why shouldn't unions be the same way?

    Why should a union remain in power when the majority of workers don't want it?
    TANSTAAFL

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hiimjered View Post
    Actually, stockholders recertify board members every year. Why shouldn't unions be the same way?

    Why should a union remain in power when the majority of workers don't want it?
    The two points remain. The purpose of this bill is not to bring democracy to unions, it's to force constant elections which disables a union and prevents it from doing what is meant to do, which will inevitably lead to its dissolution.
    Rocky Anderson 2012: http://www.voterocky.org

    "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” -Eugene Debs

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Julian View Post
    The two points remain. The purpose of this bill is not to bring democracy to unions, it's to force constant elections which disables a union and prevents it from doing what is meant to do, which will inevitably lead to its dissolution.
    No. The point is to not have a union that stays on the backs of the workers when they don't want it. The union's goal is card check so they can take power through intimidation and assault which is what they're all about.

    The shrinking union membership in the private sector in spite of having accomplices in the government speaks to the need for unions.
    Last edited by PatrickT; Feb 09 2012 at 07:30 PM.

  7. #7
    usa
    Location: Places where its ok to have guns and religion and think for myself.
    Posts: 179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Julian View Post
    The two points remain. The purpose of this bill is not to bring democracy to unions, it's to force constant elections which disables a union and prevents it from doing what is meant to do, which will inevitably lead to its dissolution.
    When unions served as the employees representative to the employer they served a purpose. Unions don't do that anymore, unions spend all their time and their members money pushing a far left political agenda.

    Instead of standing on their own merits, unions get state govts to force people to join the union or to pay dues (which is all unions care about anyway). There should be a decertification vote every year for private sector unions.

    Public sector unions are one of the most corrupt schemes created, public sector unions should be banned.

  8. Default

    Why are unions so afraid of recertification votes?
    Or of voluntary membership and dues?
    Or of secret ballots?

    Aren't they there to represent the workers? If the union really is serving the workers, they will have no problem with any of these things. Workers will always vote the union in and would be happy to join if the union truly is serving the workers.
    TANSTAAFL

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveInFL View Post
    Public sector unions are one of the most corrupt schemes created, public sector unions should be banned.
    You fellows do come across as very anti-rights! The problem you have is that neoclassical theory into unions, where we can refer to market power and therefore mere redistribution between workers such that the 'marginal worker' suffers through job loss, is incapable of explaining union effects. We have to, for example, refer to 'voice effects'. This informs us how productivity can increase. It also refers to how unions leads to increased reward to the preferences of the median worker, rather than the marginal worker. Thus, union bans essentially are a form of coercion that reduce overall economic welfare. Nasty ole authoritarianism!

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Julian View Post
    I find the rights fascination with destroying unions, which have objectively led to a massive increase in the average wage, working conditions, and lifestyle of the mass majority of Americans, continually odd. This might be the biggest step yet. The republicans, constantly railing, as they do, against government "interference" in private entities, now want exactly that, massive government interference in private entities. Furthermore it is hard to take any anti-worker argument seriously when currently laws are simply ignored by major corporations.

    To attack several specifics in this proposed bill:

    1) Secret Ballot Elections are already the law..

    2) What an idiotic idea considering, as stated, unions are private organizations of workers. I doubt Mr. Hatch would be so wild about forcing corporate boards to even be certified by stockholders. This is an opaque attempt at redirecting union funds and efforts. Corporations simply have to focus on destroying unions. Unions, on the other hand, have to focus on elections and then the gradual improvement of working conditions. By forcing constant elections they can indirectly prevent unions from working for the betterment of their workers. Furthermore this obviously will lead to explicitly illegal politic-based hiring processes.

    3) Another radical contradiction in Republican logic. Apparently you cannot force corporations not to spend unlimited money on politics and you cannot force someone to buy health care, but then you can force unions to not spend their money on political campaigns, which even the simplest of children can see have a direct bearing on workers rights and therefore wages and benefits.

    4) Even your source states that the purpose of this section is not to make the process more logical but to make unionization more difficult.

    5) Any section such as this which doesn't explicitly ban or punish corporations such as Walmart for firing and physically assaulting organizers is just hot air.

    6) This is inherently counter-intuitive since the strike is a collective process the decision should be made in a collective manner. US unions already have less strikes then any others in the civilized world outside China where they're illegal..

    7) Obviously violence is already illegal... Any additional attempts at classifying it additionally is an attempt to damage unions. Furthermore 150 allegations of violence in 5 years out of millions and millions of people means it essentially does not exist.

    {{""3)......but then you can force unions to not spend their money on political campaigns""}}

    But there are over 40% of us that are conservative and belong to unions and 96%f the money goes to Liberals. What's wrong with this picture. We have no say and in this state we can't stop them from taking money from us to spend on politics.


    {{""6) This is inherently counter-intuitive since the strike is a collective process the decision should be made in a collective manner. US unions already have less strikes then any others in the civilized world outside China where they're illegal..
    ""}}

    Funny, we always have a show of hands on a strike vote. What's wrong with a secret ballot strike vote??? Then the union couldn't lean on you if you voted in a way they don't like.


    {{{"""7) Obviously violence is already illegal... Any additional attempts at classifying it additionally is an attempt to damage unions. Furthermore 150 allegations of violence in 5 years out of millions and millions of people means it essentially does not exist""}}

    And encouraged by the unions when strike breakers are brought in. I would slap the Union with the Rico law when they encourage violence if I had anything to say about it. Hey Jul, don't say it doesn't happen, violence was encouraged by the Union at a plant I worked for when we went on strike and the plant brought in strike breakers. "Well, we wouldn't say to use violence but it's your job your fighting for". That's nothing more than saying to do what you have to to stop the strike breakers before they break you. The rhetoric went ferther but I'll leave it at that

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Nov 15 2011, 03:47 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks