Employee Free Choice Act

[dead0man]

EFCA wiki article
Is this inevatable now?  Can anybody explain why non-secret ballots are a good things?  It just sounds so wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MODU]

If the Dems don't gain a 60 seat advantage in the Senate (it will be close), then this thing might not become law.  However, if they do, then say hello to the new era of "the union."

As far as this being a good thing, no.  The bill is horrendous since it trumps the States right to be right-to-work states while making it next to impossible for a business to not accept a union if a group of the employees demand one.  And that doesn't even go into the part about non-secret ballots.

[muon2]

In 2003 State Sen. Obama was one of the yes votes that made this law in IL. It was a close vote, and I believe it failed on the first attempt in the Senate that year.

[MODU]

In 2003 State Sen. Obama was one of the yes votes that made this law in IL. It was a close vote, and I believe it failed on the first attempt in the Senate that year.

I floors me that people would actually support this.

[NDN]

If the Democrats pass this I'll leave the party.

[TheresNoMoney]

If the Democrats pass this I'll leave the party.

Don't let the door hit you.

[TheresNoMoney]

In 2003 State Sen. Obama was one of the yes votes that made this law in IL. It was a close vote, and I believe it failed on the first attempt in the Senate that year.

I floors me that people would actually support this.

It floors me that anybody would actually be against this. It doesn't eliminateb] secret ballots, it merely gives the majority anothe option of open voting if they choose.

[TheresNoMoney]

As far as this being a good thing, no.  The bill is horrendous since it trumps the States right to be right-to-work states

The "Employee Free Choice Act" will not repeal "Right to Work" regulations, as established under the Taft-Hartley Act. "Right to Work" states establish that membership in an organized labor union can not be compulsory for employment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

[NDN]

In 2003 State Sen. Obama was one of the yes votes that made this law in IL. It was a close vote, and I believe it failed on the first attempt in the Senate that year.

I floors me that people would actually support this.

It floors me that anybody would actually be against this. It doesn't eliminateb] secret ballots, it merely gives the majority anothe option of open voting if they choose.

Why should the majority have the power to force others to reveal their vote? That sounds like it would amount to the exact same thing.

[TheresNoMoney]

I don't know about you but when McGovern criticizes something on privacy grounds something tells me it's no good.

That's a bad standard to go by. Especially considering his facts are wrong: "We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election."

This legislation doesn't strip people the right to a secret-ballot election.

[Sam Spade]

Would absolutely kill small businesses in this country - that's the primary reason why I'm against it.

The effect on larger corporations could be somewhat counter-intuitive, since they generally have the money to affect their own coercion tactics on workers who wish to unionize.

[dead0man]

This legislation doesn't strip people the right to a secret-ballot election.

And if it did you'd be against it?

[TheresNoMoney]

This legislation doesn't strip people the right to a secret-ballot election.

And if it did you'd be against it?

No, I'd still support it. But that's the only argument against it I ever hear, and it's a false argument.

[A18]

"Employee free choice" would presumably mean that each employee decides for himself whether to join a union. Of course, that is not what this legislation provides for; its plain and obvious intention is to enhance the coercive privileges of unions.

[MODU]

This legislation doesn't strip people the right to a secret-ballot election.

And if it did you'd be against it?

No, I'd still support it.

Why?  What is gained by making someone publically state their vote?

[Lief 🗽]

If the Democrats pass this I'll leave the party.

Alright, bye. Millions of new union members will more than make up for your (rather fickle considering you were supporting Barr a bit ago) vote.

[NDN]

I don't see how this will gain us new votes.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't see how this will gain us new votes.

Union members vote for Democrats.

[dead0man]

I don't see how this will gain us new votes.

Union members vote for Democrats.

Except when they don't.


...especially people forced into it by open ballots and threats.  That would make many much less likely to vote for them.

[dead0man]

By the way, may I once again suggest you guys go after guns next?  That'll be sure to win you the hearts and minds!

[Nym90]

Would absolutely kill small businesses in this country - that's the primary reason why I'm against it.

The effect on larger corporations could be somewhat counter-intuitive, since they generally have the money to affect their own coercion tactics on workers who wish to unionize.

Depends on the small business. If they treat their employees like cogs in a machine, they will attempt to unionize. If they treat them with respect and decency, they won't. Giving them extra incentive to do the latter is a good thing in my opinion.

Agreed that large businesses have their own propaganda machines and knee cap breaking tactics; all the more reason unions are necessary to help balance out that power.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Would absolutely kill small businesses in this country - that's the primary reason why I'm against it.

The effect on larger corporations could be somewhat counter-intuitive, since they generally have the money to affect their own coercion tactics on workers who wish to unionize.

Depends on the small business. If they treat their employees like cogs in a machine, they will attempt to unionize. If they treat them with respect and decency, they won't. Giving them extra incentive to do the latter is a good thing in my opinion.

     They won't do the latter though, but just fall further behind foreign industries (not that that is in any way a negative).

[Nym90]

"Employee free choice" would presumably mean that each employee decides for himself whether to join a union. Of course, that is not what this legislation provides for; its plain and obvious intention is to enhance the coercive privileges of unions.

The current system enhances the coercive privileges of businesses. Obviously true freedom on the part of everyone would be optimal, but that can only be achieved when both sides have equal power.

[Nym90]

Would absolutely kill small businesses in this country - that's the primary reason why I'm against it.

The effect on larger corporations could be somewhat counter-intuitive, since they generally have the money to affect their own coercion tactics on workers who wish to unionize.

Depends on the small business. If they treat their employees like cogs in a machine, they will attempt to unionize. If they treat them with respect and decency, they won't. Giving them extra incentive to do the latter is a good thing in my opinion.

     They won't do the latter though, but just fall further behind foreign industries (not that that is in any way a negative).

True, which is a big part of the reason why unions and 20th century (we need at least those everywhere first, then hopefully eventually get 21st century) labor and environmental standards need to globalize as well as the ultimate solution to the problem.

[Torie]

It is totally horrible, but in the end won't make much difference. Unions can't affect wages much without an industrial oligopoly or monopoly, and workers sense that. That is why unions are largely limited to utilities and government now. Unions in the private sector will still largely remain comatose or wane further, as Detroit collapses. Unions are NOT our future. They are the past.

However, government can replace unions. The Dems, some of them, will be pushing anew comparative worth pay scales, among gender based occupations, and the like, rather than letting the market set wage rates. That is doomed to failure too, but may be just one of those experiments that will be tried.