Are you familiar with The Employee Free Choice Act?

I guess with the $400 MILLION that Obama got from the unions he is willing to sell out the privacy of every American, and give into the Mob like goons in the Union.

if they do not wish to intimidate, then why do they need to know who is voting for what?

Now I'am - and I seriously dislike anything that has to do with labor unions - even though I belong to the California Nurses Association.

If that is true, then why are a majority of union workers in the public sector.

The unions are more goons now, that beat up on business and the tax payers and price themselves out of jobs.

And isn't a private vote the safest vote of all.

freedom4 union goons more like business goons who take tax payers money by the truck load and scream about poor folks ...the public sector are there for convenience of the government for wages and benefits it easy for them agree to anything it's not their money agreeing to spend

FindaBrain announces her purpose on this site.

hypno, Your getting sleepy,,, sleepy,,, sleepy,,,,,,,,,look at the pretty gold watch swinging back and forth "hypno" isn't it bright and shiney go to sleep "hypno" deeeeeeeeeeeep,,, sleep hpno SSSSSSssssshhhhhhhhh I think he's out,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,To Lunch
SHhhhhhhhh, be back later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,poppy

"Ricky don't lose that number" "you might use it if you feel better" to call the King of Flip-Flopping H-ILL-BILL(ext)Y

Poppy

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.....

Freedom4 would not know the truth if it bit him.

The Employee Free Choice Act does not prevent secret ballot union elections. It does add a provision that says that if over 50% of employees sign union cards, that company must respect the union. But, if they want a secret ballot, they can have one.

This bill prevents companies from intimidating and corrupting the balloting process. It allows employees to meet and join the union outside the workplace and to make their decision independently.

But F4 is actually opposed to freedom.

By GEORGE MCGOVERN (Former Democratic Presidential Candidate and Senator)

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.

Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.

While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends, there are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and lonely opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress will re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as Americans, we should strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of expression and freedom from fear that is our ideal and our right.

Bob lies.

The act does nothing of the sort. It does not force employees to publicly declare anything.

But, if they choose to do so, if a majority of the employees of a company decides to sign a union card, then the company has to respect the union.

This is a bipartisan bill, sponsored in part by conservative Peter King (R-NY).

The opposition to it is simple union busting.

Would yoou support this at the ballot box for presidential elections.

Maybe make the employees vote in the presence of their boss so that he can fire anyone that does not vote the way he wants. It is basically the same thing.

if the Unions get to see who voted for what, what about the employers getting to see it as well.

Do you understand the difference between a petition and an election?

In a workplace it is possible to get over 50% of employees to join a union. If the union can show that over 50% of the employees have joined, then what is the problem?

If the company can get over 50% to show that they are not union members, than that is a different story.

Freedom4 is just opposed to working people having greater control over their lives. He would go back to slavery if he could. He is a fascist.

Did I ever say that I have a problem with that?

NOPE!

The problem that I have is with the public voting. It will change to votes of many voters because they know that the Uions are a bunch of goons.

What is wrong with privacy in voting?

We all would not give that up with our political elections.

The other problem that I have with the bill is:

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

So all they ahve to do is strike and they can get whatever they want no matter how outlandish their demands and the viability of their demands in even staying in business.

This is not good for the country. Without these companies, NONE of those people would have a job. Do you ssee that.

If they drive up the price of the product to high, it will simply be made overseas and they will have no job.

In now way shape or form is this good for anyone but the Unions.

They bought Obama and the Democcrat party, and are now strongarming the American people.

Come on with the fascims crap and the slavery, I have never advocated fascism. i just want free markets and to maximize opportunity for all. Businesses can not afford to pay people more than they are worth.

If they made the companies more money, then they would be more valuable and would get paid more. Why aren't you advocating the workers getting more education and bringing more to the table for the companies. Then they would be more valuable and get paid more. That is how the system works.

dirtydog----your against majority rules ,,that sounds undemocratic and there is always a choice they can leave and find another job just like voting for government if you don't like the government you can leave freely ,,so you see there are choices but majority rules

"The misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act would end The fundamental right to vote in privacy."

This is not true. It is a lie.

If employees choose to have a closed election, they may do so. But if over 1/2 of them openly sign cards supporting a union, the company has to respect that.

That is a lie.

The bill does not strip workers of the right to have a private election. It simply allows them to have a union if 50% or more sign union cards. If 50% do not sign cards, they can still have a company run secret election - but in most cases the company sets the rules and is free to intimidate employees during these privately held elections.

Here we go. Tampa is going to give us her insight on how businesses run. Please, tampa step out of the room on this one. Your going to get in over your head again.

So, if over 50% of the employees at a company decide to join a union, you think that the company should be able to ignore them. Is that it?

This is why you know absoltely nothing about business tampa. Let's say that a Union worker shows up at a business, let's say that he says to your worker, "would you like more money in your pay check?", "would you like a better health care plan?", "would you like more vaction time?". Whith this of course the employee says, "why yes I do". So then the union worker says "ok sign here then, I'll take care of that for you."
Meanwhile the people signing have absolutely no idea what this may do to the company that they work for, they just think hell ya I want all of that. So, what this bill really does is this:
The bill would permit a government-appointed third party - who has no stake in an employer's business or any understanding of the company's inner workings - to impose a binding two-year collective bargaining agreement upon a company. This is what happened when Canada tried it.

In Canada, all 10 provinces once operated under a law similar to the Employee Free Choice Act. Today, that law has been abolished in all but four provinces. Recently, an arbitrator in one of the Canadian provinces still operating under the free-choice-act-like law increased wages by 33 percent. The company eliminated jobs. Basic labor economics show that when jobs are eliminated, unemployment (supply) increases and wages elsewhere (demand) decrease.

Under the Employee Free Choice Act, an arbitrator may increase wages. Labor claims that an increase in wages would be good for the economy. This is true only if the employer can afford to pay them. Let us not repeat the Canadian experiment.

The Employee Free Choice Act would compel mandatory arbitration in all cases, regardless of the good faith of the parties to come to an agreement. The act provides unions little incentive to reach an agreement before placing a first contract in an arbitrator's hands. Arbitrators would not be subject to any limitations, and employers could not appeal their decisions. Companies would be placed in a vacuum of uncertainty that could paralyze corporate investments.

So, tell me tampa what are you sooo into these unions for? This is an extremely BAD time to start this union bullshit! The only reason it's happening is pay back from Obama for there support during the campaign YOU know it, and I know it! This will do nothing right now buy cripple our economy even more!

kk8 --------------i read your very bias report and you know very well that if it wasn't for unions that skill sets would be bottom drawer ,,safety issues would be destructive,,our very American lives would be less than they are now ,,to say that employees have no stake in the business is insulting to the the dedicated and valuable employee their whole lives depend on employers doing well and can't afford to lose their jobs ..you should refrain from saying that..As a business person you are well aware of negotiations and that what unions do also a contract is written both parties agreeing to the terms much like any agreement with + and - to them all after all with out employees where would business be ..it came out on Fox network today that 4% of the work force is illegal and sending money to their home countries ,,you should dwell on this for a moment and you will see the repercussions to our economy ..no income tax paid ,,taking from medical and schooling resources lack of consumerism taking jobs from Americans ,,this may help some employers temp. but in the big picture it will hurt us big time in my estimation

Magill...KK's husband here. 100years ago when there was no federal influence or even awareness of conditions in the workplace employers absolutely had little concern for the well being of their employees. Today the federal government has set in place thousands of laws to protect employee rights,safety and fair treatment.

Our company like all privately and publicly held companies is closely scrutinized on the behalf of the employee with stiff penalties for non-compliance to laws protecting workers. We provide health insurance, vacations and bonus programs based on performance and profit each quarter. Our company is run like a small family business with employees that have been with for 23 of our 23 year existance.

The union has nothing to offer that will benefit the employee long term. They can force us to raise pay scales beyond what we currently pay and force us to contribute greater amounts of money to healthcare which we share the cost of with our employees and change the vacation schedules that currently exist. The union control will force us to run our business so that it suits their goals and restricts our ability to be flexible and cost affective. The cost of labor is a huge part of the overall cost to produce our products.

Should the balance between the cost of manufacturing and the sell prices our industry will bear be turned upside down, the ability of our company to be competitive will be limited making the possibility of total collapse very real. If the company ceases to exist where do these people go to support their families?
I agree with your statement about the fact that unions at one time were critical to the improvement of conditions in the workplace and giving the employee the power to demand fair treatment and wages...however that time has come and gone!

The federal gov. has picked up the banner of fair treatment for workers leaving nothing for the unions to do but force higher wages and benefits while limiting the ability of the company to design and utilize it's workforce the way it needs to without having to battle the employee and the union at every turn.

Artificially high wages for employees who's skills and or desire to contribute fall short will only hurt this economy further and send more business overseas. To my way of thinking as long as all labor laws are being complied with and an employee is given the chance to grow with the company comensorate with skills and willingness to work hard...the union is a dinosaur and hurts both employees and employers. If you don't like the job or you fell you can do better somewhere else...go!

listen my friend's husband do not take any of this personal and i do believe that many probably the majority of American employers are good people such as yourselves and the way you two are you wouldn't have to worry about being unionized..that being said how do we prevent abuses from your competitors all the labour laws aren't going to stop abuses,,, and they the workers should be able to say we want a better deal without having to leave their employment ,,I have never known a good company to be forced into a union ,not that iam a expert either ... I agree with you that some not all union people are over paid and there should be some type of regulation of unions to prevent that abuse also but how iam lost on that ..you may have heard that 4% of the work force are illegals that concerns me greatly when i see the times are getting harder for the working class to put food on the table ,,this must be address as it will hurt the economy in the long run ,,as Fox news said without those 4% our unemployment would be 4.1% that sounds like boom times for us doesn't it ,,to many taxes and services taken from the country ,,less spent by the American consumer hurts businesses

My wife's friend, I do not take this kind of sharing of opinion personally, this is the USA. But when sharing of opinion becomes the enforcement of the wishes of others by the US government it's personal. My parents taught me that if you want something you have to earn it by working harder or being smarter than the competition. If the unions and the Fed. are going to fight for people in the workplace my fear is that the worker will feel entitled to more simply because my big brother (union) will fight the battle for me.
We attended a tele-conference the other day (given by a lawyer who has represented both the labor department and the unions for many years) to help our Director of Human Resources and ourselves better understand what could happen if our employees were approached by a union organizer. It was clear that any business could be a "TARGET" for these union representatives because the effort required to get the attention of workers is so simple and unregulated that they could hit several companies per day. They are not concerned about improving the worker's situation, just signing people up. And because it's so simple under this new proposed legislation, thousands of businesses could be affected.

I'm with you regarding the illegal alien worker situation. Illegal is illegal. The biggest problem is the fact that they are under the radar, not paying taxes, and costing us a fortune. Those who come here legally and are willing to work their asses off for lower wages, and pay taxes are welcome even if they want to send their wages back to their families. They are either doing jobs that americans aren't willing to do or doing them for less $.
In some cases based on my personal experiences people who come to the US from other countries and realize the oppurtunity presented to them if they are willing to work hard are some of the most honorable and dedicated workers I've met. Many of them stick together and pool their resources and prosper legally while many americans are complaining about the fact that they can't find a good job so they can't work.
Secure the borders, send the illegals home whatever it costs but be ready to deal with the people who come here legally, work hard and appreciate the fact that they actually have a job! They don't need a union because the union would only slow them down and take their money for things they don't need.

Nice to meet you KK8's husband, are you as handsome as she is gorgeous?.....don't panic I am a female hence the reason I would want to know if YOU are gorgeous....:oP

I have to say so far I agree with most of what you are saying my experience with the big unions as I was first joining the work force in the late 70's was that many people sat on their dairy airs while a few ethical people worked hard for their money. When asked WHY they felt the need to sit and not work, they said and I quote "I get paid as much as you, and they can't fire me why should I?" MAN that used to burn me up!!! It also did put strain on the company cuz they had to hire more employee's to get the same job done in order to make up for the lazy ones.....

I have to say though I am a little shocked to see Rep. speaking out against the unions, here, they are definitely union people, in the deep south....you guys keep talking cuz I is learning a lot....and tell your wife I said :oP

Hey blessed! My hubby is not here at the moment. And, I know if he was he wouldn't tell you he was handsome, so I WILL! YES, total babe...hehehe.

Anyway, he will be very interested to hear your story, as this is what he fears most. Exactly the way you described it to a T I might add. Are you still working now? And, if so is there a union where you work? I'm wondering if they cause as much choas as they used to in the deep south? I guess some of the problems facing the deep south in the 70's, could have used a union in some cases. I'm sure there were some companies who did not treat there employees very well. Although, the feds did put in place laws & restrictions to benefit employees, employers I'm sure didn't always comply. I guess I'm mostly talking about minority workers. The 70's was still a little unstable in the deep south I would imagine. So, there might had been an opportunity here or there for the unions to do some good. Unfortunetly the way it was set up was exactly the reason things like you desribed happened. The unions came in like a band of bullies, laid do the law to the employer then left. Much like what could still happen today if this bill passes (which it will). I'm surprised about what you said about the republican support of the unions...hummm. Don't know what to say about that. I believe that most business owners would almost always be against unions. There is no benifit for business to have a union step in an take control. None. And, as my husband pointed out there really is very little benifit for the employee as well.


Oh yeah, and :oP to you as well!

Hey KK yes I would guess he truly is a babe, since I saw you pic a while back.....how do you like mine....can I compete? NO my little Marley here is not a mascot for any party....me no party.....she is my sweetie and always gives us a laugh....;o)

I am a fireman now, and yes, I am a member of the union which has no power here. The last time they had a strike, decades ago, they promised to never do that and jeopardize the citizens again so.....they are really just a symbol of unity amongst us these days and in all actuallity that is why I said the Rep I know are union people cuz most of the guys I work with are Rep, well, the "white" ones anyway....

Yes, the unions were needed and still can be here, many people are still unfair in their businesses though there isn't much strength with the unions I see today...most of the founderies here have shut down and go over sea's, not cuz of taxes but cheap labor......

As for being confused about the Rep/business owners here remember most of the people I am associated with are not Rep cuz they are well off but because they are in the deep south and still very racists...saying that always gets me in trouble....so I won't go too deep into it ;o)

It is the truth though, you know all the Jeff Foxworthy jokes, they apply here in Alabama with the majority.....If your family tree don't fork....you might be a redneck.....If your dog and billfold are on a chain....you might be a redneck...and my favorite...Redneck foreplay.....GET IN THE TRUCK BITCH!!!! BWAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!

I love your pic, bleesed! One of you many animals on the farm? Awww that's cute!

A fireman, wow! Cool girl! My brother is a Police Detective, and also union. But, he says the same thing about his union, mostly just a symbol of unity. Which is great! They are there if you need them, and that's good! But when you get into the private sector with unions, that's when it gets hairy.

That totally sucks that you have to be around racists. I really don't run into that much where I am. although I'm afraid it is always there in some sense. I really do think it has gotten sooo much better, but still work to be done...always a work in progress I guess.

I'm glad you can laugh at the red neck jokes though, your alright in my book girl, even if you are an Obama supporter :oP...well, so is my best friend from 7th grade, but I still love her! I'm not sure if I like Jeff Foxworthy or not? Sometimes he's funny as hell, and sometimes he gets under my skin, ya know? I love the last one though, thanks for the laugh!

Hey your reaction to Jeff Foxwrothy is just like mine to "dear" flounder......BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA!!!! I don't care who you are thats funny.....:oD

Your ok in my book too, it takes a while to get to know people on the net and when the election was going on it was impossible, too much venom and not enough ratinal conversations.....not that I didn't intentionally fuel those fires when I found 'em.....:oP

Being a fireman is great, the best job in the world, Kudo's to your brother, wouldn't want to be a cop this day and time for sure. Truly I thought racism here in Alabama was getting much better than it was.....seems those closet racists reared their ugly head during this election....not cuz they were against Obama's policies, but cuz they were becoming like an angry mob back in the 60's.

Can't tell you how many times it was mentioned about taking the firehoses out to him and others...many other horrible reminders of our past that others still seem to think should be going on...ya know...it is horrible at times, they are now beginning to seep back into the closet not sure that is a good thing though.

There is a county here that is the brunt of a lot of jokes, cuz of the horrible racism still there. My Capt took one of my coworkers, African American, fishing with him, now of all the lakes to take him to Capt took him to the lake in this county, Cullman.

Capt is an avid fisherman, and hunter too, he does all the tournaments and brings us in fish for our meals all the time. Anyway, they weren't out on the water very long when the patrol came and checked my coworkers fishing license. He had bought and all in one license and thought fishing was included, as it was, it was not and so now he has to pay a pretty big fine.

Now, don't get me wrong we all love Capt, but we also know he is a racists, but doesn't recognize the things he says well, maybe he does he pretends he doesn't.

When I got there last shift, and they were talking about it I laughed and said Geeze you should have known Capt was going to set you up.....we joke like that all the time...guess you gotta laugh at things to deal.....

Later that day Capt said HEY, do you believe my buddy here should go to court and fight this ticket in Cullman???? OH NO, I said, best he go ahead and pay, no way he would win in that court.....course Capt had to take it further....he said yeah you would be lynched more than likely.

My co worker laughted, I didn't, that was going too far, so when we stopped I told him I was sorry for instigating and he said don't worry about it I know how it is there, one of our other coworders who drives an ambulance on the side had told us bout being in Cullman delivering a patient home, it was dusk, the husband of the patient told them" You get on out of here now quickly it isn't safe for you after dark."

All of this is so sad totally crazy, should have never been this way, and should be stopped by now.....however.....it is the reality still of the south.... I love my home, but not so much the mentality here. Don't hang out much with anyone, just me and my kids, cuz it is full of nutcases in my opinion.

Have a great day I am heading out to work if I get the chance I shall check in. I am guessing that seeing the union from the business mans point of view is definitely different than from us the working man's point of view.

What does everyone think about the story I heard last night about hospitals importing nurses for cheaper wages.....I would think that is definitely one reason why nurses would want to have a union....so much is still going on in America but unless you live in some area's one might not know it.

KK8 yes and yes i agree that the big unions can be and usually are bullies and try and intimidate the contractor or employer,,this i have seen personally even when the representative is told to back off..I find this offencive to both employer and employee..the size of union maybe should be regulated and also kept regionally and not internationally,,so the concerns are kept in check for ones involved and not for a bigger agenda..The USA has and always will be a place for people looking for opportunity and to improve the lot in life..this is who we are and what makes us great and people from other lands should be encouraged ,it makes us a stronger nation ,,only if their intentions are to become Americans...After their dues are paid i have no problem of the legal immigrants sending money home ,,but the illegals have to be sent home for reasons you have outlined and many more