Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditA Democratic politician once said of Arlen Specter that he's "always there when you don't need him." Well, the Employee Free Choice Act, was one place where we did need him. He was the lone Republican co-sponsor and the lone Republican who voted or cloture last time it came up. Today he recanted.
"The problems of a recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employee's choice legislation," he said. "Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the [National Labor Relations Act] then I would be willing to reconsider Employees choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy. I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind."
The rationale is bullshit, of course. (The NLRA was passed in the depths of the Great Depression, let's recall) What really happened is that he got metaphorically waterboarded by the US Chamber of Commerce. So that's that.
I feel like every day the scales fall further from my eyes in terms of just how much the currently entrenched powers will fight to maintain their advantages. Also: can we please get rid of the filibuster?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Mr. Hayes, with all due respect, you sound naive if scales are falling off your eyes in terms of how much entrenched powers will fight to maintain their advantage. No one gives up power easily, it has to be forcibly taken. There is tremendous opposition to the EFCA. This opposition is exactly what supporters of the legislation have been warning about all along and what they knew they would have to face. There are many billions of dollars riding on this, and the resistance will be fierce.
Posted by jsens at 03/24/2009 @ 2:18pm
It's his payback to the GOP base in PA for voting for the stimulus bill.
You should have known he'd do SOMETHING to give him some CYA for 2010, Mr Hayes.
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 2:18pm
I think John Edwards said it best, God bless his horny little soul, "This will be an epic battle". I hope some of the media climbs above itself and produces some real honest information. I would hope that C-SPAN or PT would rise to the occasion. I saw Lanny Davis do a Judas thing on one of the cables. A really seductive little creep. I suppose he has to make a living, but pimping for Starbucks"? Really, that is low.
Posted by julien38 at 03/24/2009 @ 2:28pm
'I would be willing to reconsider Employees choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.'
Oh....this is rich. So who is going to decide when the economy returns to "normalcy."
Posted by OneVote at 03/24/2009 @ 2:39pm
Glad to see Spector can still make a rational decision at least once in a while.
Thankfully, with a few Dems in the Senate that also oppose this bill, it is hopefully dead for the foreseeable future.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 2:51pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 2:51pm
See? (Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 2:18pm)
Provides just enough cover with his Right flank in PA to make them forget (or atleast forgive) him "turning traitor" on the stimulus bill. That plus fear of a "filibuster proof Senate"....
and Specter has reassured his re-election.
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 3:01pm
I think John Edwards said it best, God bless his horny little soul, "This will be an epic battle".
~Posted by "Julien38"
Good point, dude.
Whatever the drawbacks of the nifty coifed little ambulance chaser, he had some fine qualities as well, not least of which was his willingness to fight like a mofo when the situation demanded it.
It's precisely the apparent lack of that spirit that I find so disturbing in Obama. He's increasingly looking like he's going to go down with a whimper as he blithely holds hands with the corporate/finance whores who bankrolled his campaign.
Good call, Barack.
If there isn't enough fire from the left to force a new tack from "Team Obama" we'll see a potential inferno soon enough from the television saturated ill-informed masses whipped into a stupified frenzy by the likes of the drug addicted Dimbulb and a vast array of additional muddle-minded minions.
Good luck, America.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/24/2009 @ 3:03pm
Provides just enough cover with his Right flank in PA to make them forget (or atleast forgive) him "turning traitor" on the stimulus bill. That plus fear of a "filibuster proof Senate"....
and Specter has reassured his re-election.
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 3:01pm
I don't think this reassures his re-election. Hopefully we can still get a conservative to replace him.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:03pm
The repuke "moderates" always have a convenient out for any progressive legislation. Looming global competition, inflation, recession, etc. are displayed like regressive ikons, hoping for public gullibility. Good timing, Specter.
Theres no legitimate put-off for what's necessary & needed NOW & that's EFCA.
Posted by Sorelish at 03/24/2009 @ 3:12pm
Well, there is some good news this week. Mark Levin's new book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto is number one on the Amazon Best Seller list after just one day.
http://tinyurl.com/d6ja8u
A great read for anyone who wants to understand the difference between liberty and the tyranny of the left.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:19pm
Be careful what you wish for about filibusters. Some future Republican Senate would love to run willy-nilly without them. As for Specter's re-election, he can forget winning as an independent now, if he doesn't have the unions behind him. And if there's a serious challenge in the Republican primary, the moderate voters who used to be Republicans won't be there to save him this time. He's history.
Posted by scottbp at 03/24/2009 @ 3:59pm
A great read for anyone who wants to understand the difference between liberty and the tyranny of the left.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:19pm
Come on live, get off your liberty b.s. wagon already! You want to go back to the days of feudalism. No government to stop rich people from doing exactly as they please. No laws protectng workers. No laws protecting consumers.
Talk about anarchy. You propose a system of nothing but anarchy.
Evidently you know nothing of controls or anything about feedback in systems. Any system, without feedback control that gets hit with a big enough disturbance can go out of control....take our financial situation for instance.
Evidently, pulling out what controls there were in the system (that would be regulations) allowed the system to go into positive feedback which in turn let it spin out of control. Now, they have to figure 1) how to get it back under control and 2) what types of feedback (regulations) will be needed to dampen this f666ed up system left over by the neocons.
It would be nice to know if these morons in charge of our financial systems actually have working models of the system so that they aren't just grabbing at straws.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/24/2009 @ 4:05pm
Come on live, get off your liberty b.s. wagon already! You want to go back to the days of feudalism. No government to stop rich people from doing exactly as they please. No laws protectng workers. No laws protecting consumers.
Talk about anarchy. You propose a system of nothing but anarchy.
Evidently you know nothing of controls or anything about feedback in systems. Any system, without feedback control that gets hit with a big enough disturbance can go out of control....take our financial situation for instance.
Evidently, pulling out what controls there were in the system (that would be regulations) allowed the system to go into positive feedback which in turn let it spin out of control. Now, they have to figure 1) how to get it back under control and 2) what types of feedback (regulations) will be needed to dampen this f666ed up system left over by the neocons.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/24/2009 @ 4:05pm
Hyperbole and distortion appear to be consistent hallmarks of your reactions.
I have no desire to see anarchy in this country. I would like to see it run according to the constitution.
I am on record here on these blogs as stating that the constitution clearly provides for Congressional regulation of the banking system in Article 1, Section 8.
As to issues like minimum wage or unions, there is no authority for Congress or the president. If states want to address these issues, they are fully empowered to do so.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 4:18pm
If unionization is the panacea for "evil" business owners, why are people so afraid of a secret ballot. If a secret ballot isn't good enough for that decision, why don't we move to making all elections by caucus? The only fair solution is to give both sides equal access to the employees to present their argument and each person given the right to express their view with a secret ballot
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/24/2009 @ 4:20pm
This bill is a union thug approach to politics and deserves to be thrashed. Democrats are in deeep trouble. They have their chance, and all we get is desparate attempts to seek revenge on free people. Screw the unions! They are part of the past, not the future . . .
Posted by lmatoosaferrera at 03/24/2009 @ 4:42pm
Arlen Specter: "The problems of a recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employee's choice legislation,....I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind."
Hayes: "The rationale is bullshit, of course. (The NLRA was passed in the depths of the Great Depression, let's recall)..."
As far as I'm concerned, after the recession ends and positive job numbers start, we will only be at the beginning of years of stagnation AT THE VERY BEST as our economy adjusts to a permanently lower level of consumption.....the bright side is actual domestic savings to fund some of them Obama Bonds.
Now, if the EFCA passes, the entire Magic presidency will be mired in a recession without a single year of positive GDP growth.......don't forget the hugemongous tax increases already built in to the end of the Bush tax cuts' expiration in 2010. On top of the EFCA, IF Obama slaps the economy with cap-n-trade taxes, UHC and assorted other political payoffs, God help the middle class and below.
BTW, Christopher, when unemployment is over 20%, you have my permission to pass the EFCA at will....same with cap-n-trade and whatever other taxing scheme your young heart desires.....because frankly by then, I won't give a damn.
Posted by Happy at 03/24/2009 @ 6:00pm
Good riddance to the Union Thug Empowerment Act, aka, EFCA. It's a shame that union thugs don't think workers should have a right to a secret ballot. A more un-American piece of legislation has not come down the pike in a long, long time. The scary thing, really, is just how many Democrats would be willing to vote for this un-American piece of intimidation encouragement.
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 7:18pm
When even George McGovern says a piece of legislation is too far left....well, it's probably too far left.
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 7:20pm
I didn't believe this Senator had enough backbone to support the basic American right to a SECRET BALLOT. Apparently he has the "right stuff" to stand up and be counted in support of individual rights of American workers.
Isn't that, or shouldn't that, be a core belief of THE NATION ?
We certainly expect so.
Posted by tucanofulano at 03/24/2009 @ 7:37pm
Nothing shows the true aims of leftist magazines like The Nation quite like its support for thuggery like the EFCA. Apparently, The Nation would like to see the US more like Saddam's Iraq and North Korea, with open ballots. Kinda telling, I would say.
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 7:50pm
Hopefully we can still get a conservative to replace him.-----Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:03pm
Wanna bet?
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 8:04pm
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 7:20pm
What exactly did McGovern say and where?
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 8:05pm
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 8:05pm
"What exactly did McGovern say and where?"
Here's the link: www.google.com
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 8:22pm
I'm not exactly one to be quoting George McGovern about anything, but here's what he has to say about the Union Thug Empowerment Act (aka EFCA):
"As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.
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.
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."
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 8:30pm
See, PONTI, I thought you might do a little "editing"....of the part where McGovern said-
"There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care."
He's opposed to the secret ballot part...but he supports unions, which means your "newfound respect" is quite limited, isn't it?
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 8:42pm
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 8:42pm
"He's opposed to the secret ballot part...but he supports unions, which means your "newfound respect" is quite limited, isn't it?"
Yes, it is. So what?
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 8:53pm
The funny part about your thinking as I see it, MASK is this. You rationalize away criticism of EFCA from the right, because, after all, they're the right and they're wrong about everything. Then you rationalize away criticism from the left, because, after all, it agrees with those on the right. Hilarious.
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 9:01pm
Posted by pontificus at 03/24/2009 @ 9:01pm
No, just like to point out your selectiveness.
It's like how you gung-ho Iraq war guys used to like to point to Christopher Hitchens and say "See? See? Even a die-hard socialist knows how important it is to stop Saddam before he gives Al Qaeda his tons and tons of bio-chemical weapons and that nuke he'll have up and running by 2003! Listen to one of your own!!!!"
Ignore everything he says about your Religious Right buddies and his take on capitalism...just focus on the ONE thing you do like.
Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 9:25pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 9:25pm </i>
OK...but this still isn't responsive. The fact that someone like McGovern is still saying that a secret ballet is crucial should probably tell you something.
Nothing you're saying responds to that crucial point: getting rid of secret ballots is really problematic.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/24/2009 @ 10:52pm
Hey, little Christopher (psst, stay young and naive, it's the secret of a long, long life), would you say the same thing of a Demo Governor in an even bluer state?
Ahhhhh, Gubber unions.......lips glued to the tax teats!
======================
N.Y. governor fires 8,900 state workers
Union refusal of cost-cutting concessions forced governor's hand, David Paterson's office says.
By Julianne Pepitone, CNNMoney.com contributing writer
Last Updated: March 24, 2009: 6:31 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- New York Governor David Paterson ordered 8,900 state layoffs after employee unions refused concessions.
In a time of "unprecedented fiscal emergency," New York state was "left with no other option" than a state workforce reduction of about 8,900 employees to achieve the savings it needed, according to a memo from the governor's office.
In October, Paterson reached out to state employee unions to reach cost-cutting concessions together, according to the memo from director of state operations Dennis Whalen.
The state looked into a number of ways to deal with the "record budget deficits" and called upon the unions to partner with the state to reduce costs in order to avoid large-scale layoffs, Whalen's memo said.
But the labor organizations representing the state employees rejected all of Paterson's options, the memo said....
Posted by Happy at 03/24/2009 @ 10:54pm
Arlen Specter is finally going to vote in the interest of the public.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/24/2009 @ 11:06pm
I'm not so sure that this card check is so unamerican. It kind of seems more like something we are quite familiar with. You see these in your local gas station or supermarket from time to time and they are quite useful for removeing no good politicians. They should have called card check what it is,.... a PETITION DRIVE!
Posted by scoobiejim at 03/24/2009 @ 11:12pm
I think that this issue is being painted, as usual, in broad generalities, and C. Hayes is not helping any. As a supporter of organized labor- I will be the first to admit that "organized labor" includes a lot of unions, both good and bad. It's the bad ones that worry me with this legislation.
I support much of this legislation, but I believe that the "check card" provision violates the spirit (and arguably the letter) of International Labor Organization regulations and undermines the fundamental human right to organize without coercion.
If "card check" were being introduced in any other country by a right-leaning union, we would oppose it wholeheartedly. Just because it's politically convenient now, doesn't mean it's good to set in motion. Any anti-democratic tool will eventually be used to undermine the interests of the poor and the disenfranchised.
The card check provision is also very short-sighted. Just wait until the first hard working American who just doesn't happen to like the union that comes by gets intimidated. There's going to be a Rush/Fox-fest with that one and a huge public backlash.
Posted by kster at 03/24/2009 @ 11:47pm
The only real coercion involved is that done by employers in union certification elections (which, incidentally, are not eliminated by the EFCA--it simply transfers the choice to the union).
There's the threats to discharge union backers (easy enough as laws protecting against that aren't well-enforced), threats to close down a facility (same) plus the tactics which, although legal, make any comparison of a unionization vote with the secret ballot as we understand it ludicrous. There are the one-on-one meetings to pressure employees as well as mandatory indoctrination sessions (or course, the union doesn't have the same right to campaign on company property).
Posted by brunowe at 03/25/2009 @ 04:49am
"If "card check" were being introduced in any other country by a right-leaning union, we would oppose it wholeheartedly. "
Card-check already exists, the EFCA would simply give the decision as to use it to unions instead of employers.
Posted by brunowe at 03/25/2009 @ 04:51am
Posted by brunowe at 03/25/2009 @ 04:49am
I see that all of our neocons are here ranting against unions. These jackasses are afraid of workers standing up for themselves. Liverlips hides behind saying he's all for the constitution as long as businessmen can have their way.
He cares nothing about antitrust laws which the businesses he's so worried about are in gross violation of.
The fact that workers should have a right to organize themselves and use their free speech rights without the fear of being fired doesn't seem to count with these assholes.
Not one of them can put forth any reason why unions shouldn't exist other than the right wing machine tells them it's a bad thing. Once again, companies can monopolize, violate antitrust regulations, manipulate the markets with lies, run the economy into the ground with speculation, and organinze themselves to the nth degree via the chamber of commerce and backroom deals, but workers should just be happy to have a job. Complete horseshit.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/25/2009 @ 06:20am
One way or another the will of the people is going to prevail. It always has and always will. The longer it is contained by external forces the more dramatic and lasting the backlash becomes. See The New Deal for details. Elitists enjoy saying that the public has a short memory, the opposite is true. The small group of people who abuse privilege to corrupt the system find this out the hard way, the last time it was in the form of being stripped of their 'rights' to ownership of the economy and subjected to 90% taxation to correct the damage they had done. It will inevitably be repeated.
Posted by Milhaus at 03/25/2009 @ 07:13am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/25/2009 @ 06:20am
"I see that all of our neocons are here ranting against unions. "
Actually, we're ranting against open ballots...the same type of ballots that they used in Saddam's Iraq and which they use in other totalitarian society.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 07:56am
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 07:56am
So, we ignore all the "union thug" comments and "if businesses are forced to unionize it will kill jobs" stuff????
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 08:02am
Remember, if there are no employers, there are no employees - unless we all work for the government!
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/25/2009 @ 08:08am
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/25/2009 @ 08:08am
EFCA hasn't passed yet, PL....so, where are all the employers now???
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 08:59am
Actually, we're ranting against open ballots...the same type of ballots that they used in Saddam's Iraq and which they use in other totalitarian society.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 07:56am
I have to correct you. I am against unionism itself. I have elaborated on numerous occasions why unionism is bad for America and bad for Americans.
The world would definitely be a better place if unions were illegal. And don't try twisting this Mask. I've already said that I know they are unfortunately constitutional.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/25/2009 @ 09:14am
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 08:02am
"So, we ignore all the "union thug" comments and "if businesses are forced to unionize it will kill jobs" stuff????"
Get real, MASK. We all know, or should know, is that the whole point of 'card check', open ballots, whatever you want to call it - is to make employees declare openly whether they wish to support the union or not, and that this opens them to coercion from pro-union coworkers. Stop the lying, son.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 09:55am
Posted by brunowe at 03/25/2009 @ 04:49am
I'd like to second brunowe's point. The vast majority of the actual, honest-to-God intimidation that is going on right now is the effort, through an extraordinarilly well-funded industry, to prevent BY WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE the unionization of workers.
As I posted here at the time, McGovern should be ashamed of himself.
I like secret ballots, especially when it comes to voting on contracts, but the present system for gaining union recognition has been completely gamed by the bosses. Card check is a perfectly reasonable way for gaining union recognition and thereby starting the negotiating process.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/25/2009 @ 09:59am
Screw the unions! They are part of the past, not the future . . .
Posted by lmatoosaferrera at 03/24/2009 @ 4:42pm
Yes, fool, just like anti-trust and financial regulations were useless things of the past. Now we have companies that are "too big too fail" and the biggest insurance company in the world can choose its regulatory agency by buying a thrift (savings and loan), said agency having one whole employee to oversee insurance matters.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/25/2009 @ 10:07am
As for Specter, I tend to agree that the EFCA screwjob rules out a run as an independent, so I wonder if he struck a deal that big business would not support a primary challenger in 2010. If the Club for Growth was NOT part of that deal, then I think he's nuts.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/25/2009 @ 10:10am
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 09:55am
And if the shop is unionized that's a "bad thing", right, PONTI?
Ergo, it's not all that much about the secret ballot, but the fact you don't want to see more unionized shops....do you?
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 10:13am
Remember, if there are no employers, there are no employees - unless we all work for the government!
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/25/2009 @ 08:08am Wrong! Without emloyees, there are no products. Employees can actually form their own businesses called cooperatives where they all own the business. Then, where would the present owners be? I guess they'd have to get off their asses and work and make products too, right?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/25/2009 @ 10:21am
The world would definitely be a better place if unions were illegal. And don't try twisting this Mask. I've already said that I know they are unfortunately constitutional.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/25/2009 @ 09:14am
So, would you be for ammending the constitution so that they are unconstitutional?
Do you think it was wrong for monopolies to be broken up for anti-trust violations? Why are you so pro-wealthy folks (though your claim not to be one yourself) and so anti-worker?!
Workers are not commies nor socialists. They are people trying to feed their families, pay their mortgage or rent etc. Why are you so against them unionizing to have a voice to protect themsevles, while on the other hand, you are all for letting businesses trounce the hell out of peoples' rights and right to earn a living?
You might want to do a little reading on the industrialized revolution to see what took place when businesses ran strictly on a profit motivation and didn't have to deal with unions or pesky 40 hour work weeks and the like. You need to get into a time machien and transport yourself to back then.....maybe a few years as a laborer under those conditions would change your mind.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/25/2009 @ 10:30am
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 10:13am
"Ergo, it's not all that much about the secret ballot, but the fact you don't want to see more unionized shops....do you?"
Stop the lying, MASK. You and I both know that since unions generally fail to gain support in fair elections - they are trying now to win support through workplace coercion. Just admit it, you'll feel better.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 10:43am
tyranny of the left.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/24/2009 @ 3:19pm
Yes, we can see it play out in congress with the squashing of EFCA.
you are so bizarre.
----
You need to get into a time machien and transport yourself to back then.....maybe a few years as a laborer under those conditions would change your mind.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/25/2009 @ 10:30am
No need to go back in time, just look around to see the effects of union busting. Unemployment in MI is going to hit 12%. The globalization zealots have gotten what they wanted, a globalized economy, workers fighting each other for scraps and the top able to make out like bandits even when they fuck the rest of us. They closed the union shops, moved to Alabama, now they will close those and move to offshore facilities where they can pay even less than the $12/hr they pay the scabs in the south.
And anti and his crowd will of course blame the left for what anti and his crowd have achieved. What they have not realized is that in order for a global market to do what they want, we will need to meet India and China in the middle, that means we get to cast off our blue collar middle class. Now they will bitch and moan about universal health care after they took it away as a benefit for showing up and doing your job as asked.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 10:48am
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 10:43am
As usual your post is full of unsubstantiated assumptions. Many elections are, in fact, not open and fair. Having an open "enrollment" period is only coercion in the minds of the frightened misinformed Palin following sheep.
Do a little research before you post BS.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 10:52am
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 10:48am
Sigh. CRABBIE, this discussion is about whether or not stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot is a good idea, not whether you or I think unions are a good idea or not. Try to stay focused here.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 10:53am
Oh, sorry, Ponti is right.
Max Fischer and Clay Ford were coerced into becoming multi millionaires by the evil unions.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 10:54am
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 10:52am
"Many elections are, in fact, not open and fair. Having an open "enrollment" period is only coercion in the minds of the frightened misinformed Palin following sheep."
Oh, I see. So since you contend that 'many' elections are not open and fair, the only logical thing to do is to strip workers of the right to a secret ballot. Gotcha.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 10:55am
Hey proud libertarian, The employer has to have someone to sell the items they are offering to. If the consumer(employee) can't afford to barely put a roof over their head and food in their belly, who do you think is going to buy the product they are offering? Trickle down only works for so long before it empties out the tank. Who do you think pays for all those huge bonuses these companies pay out? Who do you think pays for all those huge dividends that are paid out? The consumer! I don't know about you but I am sick of these companies and the people who run them thinking they deserve to be paid these outrageous saleries and bonuses. And then to top it off, they then complain about the one-tenth of one percent their employees make! These laborers are running our companies into the ground they cry as they board the corporate jet and fly away to some remote island on the companies dime.
Posted by scoobiejim at 03/25/2009 @ 10:56am
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 10:53am |
I asked that you not post BS, yet you continue.
Nobody, no law, no bill is "stripping workers of their rights" That is false, misinformed and what I expect from you.
Do a little research before you post BS here.
The employees are still free to hold secret ballots. They can make their new form of elections private too. You are, as usual, misinformed.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 10:57am
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 10:55am
Show me where, in the EFCA it says anybody is being stripped of a secret ballot.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 11:00am
"The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act," -Wall Street Journal
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 11:00am
"Show me where, in the EFCA it says anybody is being stripped of a secret ballot."
I can't teach a blind man to see, CRABBIE. Sorry. And you need to stop lying to people, too.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 11:05am
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 10:57am
"The employees are still free to hold secret ballots. They can make their new form of elections private too. You are, as usual, misinformed."
Yeah, CRABBIE, sure. So when the union thug comes around with the card and says, 'do you support the union', you can either say, 'yes, I support the union!' and sign the card, or 'I want a secret ballot'. Great choice there, CRABBIE. As usual, you are both a liar and an idiot.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 11:16am
"So when the union thug comes around with the card and says, 'do you support the union', you can either say, 'yes, I support the union!' and sign the card, or 'I want a secret ballot'."
And you're assumption that the union organizer is a thug is based on what...outside of your own deluded bile?
Posted by brunowe at 03/25/2009 @ 11:25am
Actually, CRABBIE, you would have been a good candidate for vote drives in Saddam's Iraq, or perhaps Stalin's Soviet Union. I can see you now. Let's see:
CRABBIE to voter: "Greetings, Comrade! It's time to vote in our free and fair election! Do you or do you not vote for our glorious leader, Comrade Stalin! Please sign your ballot! Please remember that refusal to sign the ballot will absolutely not mean that you will automatically go to the Gulag!"
LOL. Easy to see now how totalitarianism flourishes in other countries. Many people like CRABBIE would gladly implement it here.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 11:25am
Posted by brunowe at 03/25/2009 @ 11:25am
"And you're assumption that the union organizer is a thug is based on what...outside of your own deluded bile?"
Oh, ok BRUNOWE. Let's have it your way. Let's not call him a thug, he's an 'organizer'. That makes all the difference! LOL!
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 11:28am
PONTI, seems the best way to destroy CRAB would be to...
answer his question and prove him wrong, instead of just flinging poo from your cage?
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 11:42am
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 11:42am
"answer his question and prove him wrong, instead of just flinging poo from your cage?"
For blind partisans such as yourself and CRABBIE, there is no answer. Anyone who takes the trouble to familiarize themselves with the issue knows what EFCA means. If you or CRABBIE refuse to argue in good faith (e.g., that quote above taken out of context from the WSJ), don't be surprised if I do not take you seriously. You don't deserve it.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 11:51am
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 11:00am
"Show me where, in the EFCA it says anybody is being stripped of a secret ballot."
Posted by crabwalk at 03/25/2009 @ 11:03am
"The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act," -Wall Street Journal" -----------
The above misquote of the WSJ illustrates CRABBIE's bad faith in this argument. In fact, CRABBIE is just lying.
From today's WSJ:
"Mr. Specter's decision means Republicans now have 41 votes against "card check" -- legislation that would do away with secret ballots in union organization elections. The Pennsylvanian was the only Senate Republican to have previously voted in favor of a debate on the bill, and as such had been the target of a furious lobbying fight by unions and the business community. Yet to be seen is whether Mr. Specter's decision will inspire any number of swing state Democrats to follow his lead, and thereby neutralize an issue for which they are getting pilloried by their home-state business communities."
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 12:07pm
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 12:07pm
That shows where the WALL STREET JOURNAL says the EFCA strips people of secret ballots, PONTI....
where does the EFCA show that? I mean, you have actually READ the bill, right?
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 12:45pm
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 12:45pm
"where does the EFCA show that? I mean, you have actually READ the bill, right?"
Is it your position that George McGovern and the Wall Street Journal are both lying, or haven't read the bill?
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 12:53pm
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 12:53pm
Oh, MASK, and before you answer that, is it also your position that Arlen Specter hasn't read the bill yet either?
"Mr. Specter is undoubtedly hoping that by getting on the right side of what has become a grassroots issue for the GOP, he might avoid an ugly primary battle for his Senate seat next year. But he also made clear in his floor speech that he had serious policy concerns, and he went out of his way to criticize both the bill's "elimination of the secret ballot" and an equally pernicious provision that would require "compulsory arbitration" in many contract negotiations. He also pointed out the obvious: The legislation would create new burdens on companies and lead to "further job losses" when the economy can least afford them."
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 12:45pm
I've had my fill of beating you and CRABBIE like rented mules today, MASK. Go find something plausible to argue about, cause you've just made yourself look like an ass wrt this issue.
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 1:00pm
Dear Wolfgang1, a little lesson in business. Products and services don't invent themselves by "collectives". At some point, there was an entrepreneur who conceptualize, designed, and or developed something of value. Take away the incentive to innovate and incur risk(profit) and you take away the need to hire any employees. Everyone loses in that model.
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/25/2009 @ 1:22pm
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 1:00pm
Again, PONTI, are you just a "second hand knowledge" kind of guy?
I ADMIT I haven't read the bill...and therefore am ambivalent about this "taking away the secret ballot" thing.
If true and you can QUOTE the bill, it'd be a slam dunk and you truly would "beat CRABB (and me) like a rented mule."
or are you really not that interested in EFCA, just gabbing for fun?
Posted by Mask at 03/25/2009 @ 1:45pm
I just wonder how many people trashing the unions here have actually performed a job that benefited anyone, or are all you people bankers, insurance agents, "managers", speculators, landlords, lawyers and/or general-purpose capitalist parasites or the relatives thereof? (like Specter) Whoops, I almost left out politicians.... sorry.
Posted by DejaVu at 03/25/2009 @ 1:46pm
Take away the incentive to innovate and incur risk(profit) and you take away the need to hire any employees. Everyone loses in that model.
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/25/2009 @ 1:22pm
I don't need your lesson in business. Most businesses that produce products are started up by workers who came up with an idea of their own and went out and got either loans, or started the business out of their garage. I know, I've worked for a few companies like that. They all had one thing in common. The guys who started them were engineeers, not some jackass with a masters in business or some investment guru.
That's the thing. People who work everyday with technology know what can and can't be done with technology. Business managers only know how to be bean counters and nothing more. If the currency were to switch to straight trade, you'd see a lot of rich folks starving to death.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/25/2009 @ 3:14pm
And besides, I'm sick of working myself to death without getting any say in my own job. I'm double-tired of being denied a raise, and triple-tired of being denied the money I need to survive. But with the flexible schedule we're on, finding a second job is impossible. Besides, I shouldn't have to, anyway. I have the right to demand an option other than resigning to improve my financial future, and my job. My job's profits are still soaring in the billions every day, and yet I can't even earn a grand a month, and I'm expected to live on that without any kind of a raise and working practically on call? No. We have the right to demand that nonsense stop, and if the labor unions are the only way to stop it, then we should welcome them.
Posted by Kristev at 03/25/2009 @ 3:47pm
This is why I love reading posts on this website - so many losers who can't compete in the job market who constantly whine about "its not fair" "I deserve more" yada yada yada. You expect that because you exist that others "owe" you something, but what you really demonstrate is pure envy. Go out, invent something, start your own business, use your "superior" intellect to actually contribute to society rather than exist as a leech
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/25/2009 @ 4:29pm
Yeah proud libertarian, that's exactly what the majority of us U.S. citizens are. Leeches. The leaches that produce the very things that allow companies that hire us to become so succesful. Again, who do you think purchases the products you 'succesful people' invent? How succesful would any company be if it relied solely on its president? Is he/she going to do all the work? If not aren't then the little peons doing the work being productive? It's idiots like you that are ruining this country for everyone. The republicans want corporations to control the public. And so far they are getting their way. Why is it that all "bailouts" have happened under republican leadership ie; savings and loan, airlines,Chrysler, Reagan-Bush 41, financial sector Bush 43. And again this card check is exactly like a petition, the petition gets the required amount of signatures, you then get to vote on it. IN PRIVATE. Which is something companies don't want to give employees.
Posted by scoobiejim at 03/25/2009 @ 11:08pm
Posted by pontificus at 03/25/2009 @ 1:00pm
Still waiting for you to show me where in the EFCA it does away with secret ballots.
Just like I am still waiting for you to show me where it says in CIA employment records Plame was not covert.
Just cuz you say it, or you heard someone say it, does not make it true.
"We found the wmd's"
What it does so is allow workers to DECIDE whether they want a secret ballot, on a one day vote, or a more drawn out time period.
I do see where I made a mistake. The quote I used WAS in the WSJ, but it was not FROM the WSJ. It was from a columnist trying to call out WSJ hypocrisy.
What's really sick is that the anti-union folks are trying to act like they really give a damn about a ballot, or the workers. They don't.
(PS, Ponti, do I belong to a Chamber of Commerce? Wouldn't "my ideology" prevent that?)
coercion:
a 2000 study written by Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University and submitted it to the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission.
* In 51 percent of union organizing drives, management made some sort of threat to close its operation down if the union won the election.
* Ninety-two percent of companies facing union elections made employees attend "captive audience meetings."
* Sixty-seven percent had employees attend weekly "supervisor one-on-one" meetings.
* Seventy percent sent out "anti-union letters."
* More than 50 percent showed "anti-union videos."
----
Posted by scoobiejim at 03/25/2009 @ 11:08pm
Good point about petitions.
We are asked to sign petitions often, sometimes to get a measure onto a ballot. Those names on a petition are public record. Do we hear the cons squaking about "losing your right to vote"?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/26/2009 @ 06:27am
squaking- verb- circa 2009- "to howl and shake over a position that is based on false or incorrect information." derivative of squawk and quake.
"The sheep squaked over Saddams wmds"
Posted by crabwalk at 03/26/2009 @ 06:31am
This is why I love reading posts on this website - so many losers who can't compete in the job market who constantly whine about "its not fair" "I deserve more" yada yada yada. You expect that because you exist that others "owe" you something, but what you really demonstrate is pure envy. Go out, invent something, start your own business, use your "superior" intellect to actually contribute to society rather than exist as a leech
Posted by ProudLibertarian at 03/25/2009 @ 4:29pm
Actually, my name is Franklin Newman, and I am the author of a scifi trilogy. But I also have a real job. It just treats me like dirt and pays about as much.
Posted by Kristev at 03/26/2009 @ 10:31pm
Correction. That's a published scifi trilogy. Drop me an email if you don't believe me.
Posted by Kristev at 03/26/2009 @ 10:36pm
tarotlynx@hotmail.com
It's all right. I don't mind posting it.
Posted by Kristev at 03/26/2009 @ 10:40pm