Card-Check

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yeah, I'm mystified by this bill as well. I don't see how anyone in their right mind could support it -- especially if you're in a union.

Union rank-and-file have some mixed feelings on this. Yes, it provides them a powerful tool for the number one goal of any union -- ORGANIZE. However, if they ever do end up with a union election that's really close and really contentious, it would make it easier for the eventual winner to exact payback.

Union leadership, particularly at the international level, sees no down side. The goal is -- regardless of state law -- a closed shop. The ability to apply pressure makes it more likely that every worker would be a union member and that they'd all singing from the same hymn book. Strikes and threats thereof work much better as a leverage tool when the company KNOWS that 98% of their workforce will not cross a picket line. When that happens, it ripples up the ladder to the international headquarters. Greater centralization of union power under spells politicla leverage. The AFL-CIO very much wants to establish the kind of relationship towards government and employers that is enjoyed by the national labor leadership of -- for example -- Norway.

Ask HoreTore what happens when the Norwegian union leadership makes a "suggestion" to government.

The Democrat party sees little downside since Union Leadership support for the Democrat party has been staunch since FDR. They are rewarding strong political supporters in a means that ties in with their philosophy of regulated/controlled capitalism and the idea of a "living wage."

This is a means to effect a fundamental change in the nature of U.S. society, one that will more it decidedly in the direction of the Scandanavian model. We will see how directly the new administration wishes to support such an effort -- we are already aware that a goodly segment of the Democrat party sees this as the correct line of development.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'd say that adopting Scandinavian models pretty much requires a Scandinavian amount of patronage & economic prosperity. Something which the USA does not have and as for the first thing... that's a loooong way to go until you get there.

[CountArach]

I disagree with the way that it is decided to have a Union vote (It is too restrictive from what you have said, so that the majority of Employees are required just to bring it to a vote. A better system wouldbe if a number of complaints are brought to the Union, the Union can step in.

Secret Ballots are fine with me, with the proviso that they are not held in the presence of the Employers.

[Devastatin Dave]

You get what you vote for. Mob rule's a bitch.

[Don Corleone]

I disagree with the way that it is decided to have a Union vote (It is too restrictive from what you have said, so that the majority of Employees are required just to bring it to a vote. A better system wouldbe if a number of complaints are brought to the Union, the Union can step in.

Secret Ballots are fine with me, with the proviso that they are not held in the presence of the Employers.

I don't think it's actually 50% of cards to the NRLB to get the vote, but I don't know what the threshold is. My guess is that it's probably somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of the employed workforce. I understand your point about that being a high bar to get an election in the first place, but the alternative is that a small minority can hold a company hostage by continually holding elections that they have no hope of winning.

And your point doesn't address the desire by organized labor to have access to people's voting records or their personal information.

And the employers don't hold the election or the results, the NLRB does (it's part of the Department of Labor).

[CountArach]

I don't think it's actually 50% of cards to the NRLB to get the vote, but I don't know what the threshold is. My guess is that it's probably somewhere around 1/4 to 1/3 of the employed workforce. I understand your point about that being a high bar to get an election in the first place, but the alternative is that a small minority can hold a company hostage by continually holding elections that they have no hope of winning.

Well this situation is unlikely and does not occur here. Simply put, once public opinion starts to turn on these people they will stop. That usually doesn't take long.

And your point doesn't address the desire by organized labor to have access to people's voting records or their personal information.

And the employers don't hold the election or the results, the NLRB does (it's part of the Department of Labor).

I don't like the first one, and the second is fine by me.