The End of Secret Ballots?

To clarify, I thought that's what he meant. And I'd bet he did.

Catholics Stand with Working Familes

While CEOs receive massive salaries and bonuses, working families struggle. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will reform our labor law and build a more fair economy; an economy that promotes families, values human life and serves everyone, not just the super rich. We need a labor law that honors all of our brothers and sisters, especially the most vulnerable. By supporting EFCA, we stand beside the workers who sweep our floors, who harvest our food and who build our homes. Join with us. Stand with working families. Support the Employee Free Choice Act.

http://www.catholicsforworkingfamilies.org/

The more I hear about this it sounds more like the employee NO-Choice Act. The irony here is that the same elected leaders favoring this new law are the same gang who decided AIG executives needed their $3 mil a piece bonuses to be covered at taxpayer expense as an apparent reward for setting an all time record for a 4th quarter loss. Only in Amerika, I guess.

To be fair, I guess they are claiming they didn't know these bonuses were contracted in and now that the bailout deal is signed we are stuck with it. But many of us were saying "Not so Fast!" when there was this big rush for passage. But didn't anybody in Congress or the White House not think this outcome was possible?

So now there's an equally quick rush to make it harder to resist unionization. But my fear is that in too many cases becoming unionized will mainly serve as yet another payroll deduction to further degrade net pay, for those who's jobs don't get sent off shore that it. .

BTW, about "who harvest our food and who build our homes" sounds a lot to me like they wish to extend unionization to illegal aliens. Given the stance of the Catholic church on illegals it's not a stretch to think that's intentionally intended within their statement.

Mirage wrote:

Catholics Stand with Working Familes

While CEOs receive massive salaries and bonuses, working families struggle. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will reform our labor law and build a more fair economy; an economy that promotes families, values human life and serves everyone, not just the super rich. We need a labor law that honors all of our brothers and sisters, especially the most vulnerable. By supporting EFCA, we stand beside the workers who sweep our floors, who harvest our food and who build our homes. Join with us. Stand with working families. Support the Employee Free Choice Act.

http://www.catholicsforworkingfamilies.org/

The more I hear about this it sounds more like the employee NO-Choice Act. The irony here is that the same elected leaders favoring this new law are the same gang who decided AIG executives needed their $3 mil a piece bonuses to be covered at taxpayer expense as an apparent reward for setting an all time record for a 4th quarter loss. Only in Amerika, I guess.

To be fair, I guess they are claiming they didn't know these bonuses were contracted in and now that the bailout deal is signed we are stuck with it. But many of us were saying "Not so Fast!" when there was this big rush for passage. But didn't anybody in Congress or the White House not think this outcome was possible?

So now there's an equally quick rush to make it harder to resist unionization. But my fear is that in too many cases becoming unionized will mainly serve as yet another payroll deduction to further degrade net pay, for those who's jobs don't get sent off shore that it. .

BTW, about "who harvest our food and who build our homes" sounds a lot to me like they wish to extend unionization to illegal aliens. Given the stance of the Catholic church on illegals it's not a stretch to think that's intentionally intended within their statement.

Sticking to the topic at hand, I'd like you to post a link to a single instance of where a workplace in the US was unionized and the worker's did not receive higher wages or better benefits. I have am a proud union member and follow stories of union organizing across the United States and have never read of the situation you are talking about. If you cannot post any links to back up your claim, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making that claim anymore in this thread or future threads about unions.It's kind of pointless to debate someone who is unwilling to concede a point that has no basis in fact. Here is a very good ed/op piece that discusses the inherent unfair advantage corporations have today in political fundraising.http://www.wslc.org/columns/06oct.htm

wrote:

It’s never been clearer than it is today, that important workers’ rights can be lost with the stroke of a pen in Washington , D.C. and Olympia . From the 40-hour work week, to minimum wage, to the very right to join a union, no labor standard is immune from attack by this Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress.

Unions have a responsibility to their members, and their founders, to protect these standards. Many Americans take basic worker rights for granted, but we remember it was previous generations of trade unionists who fought for and won these rights -- and some paid with their lives.
Under existing law, individual members who just can’t stomach the outcome of their union’s endorsements have the right to prevent their dues money from going to candidates they oppose. They can withdraw from the union, pay a representation fee that covers only the costs of bargaining and enforcing their contract, and specify that none of their dues should be spent on political activity. But corporations don’t seek the input or permission of shareholders or employees in deciding who to support. Unlike union members, individual shareholders cannot prevent their money from being spent on candidates they oppose.

How come EFF & Co. doesn’t demand “protections” for shareholders like they demand for union members? Because you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Organized labor will not be deterred by partisan efforts to silence the voices of working people. We will continue to advocate for our members and for working people in general.

Admin wrote:

I realize it wasn't clear whether the quote which precipitated your responses was written by sparks or by a third party. To avoid situations like this, many members enclose such content in an uncited quote.

-Admin

Your point is well taken.

Sticking to the topic at hand, I'd like you to post a link to a single instance of where a workplace in the US was unionized and the worker's did not receive higher wages or better benefits. I have am a proud union member and follow stories of union organizing across the United States and have never read of the situation you are talking about. If you cannot post any links to back up your claim, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making that claim anymore in this thread or future threads about unions.It's kind of pointless to debate someone who is unwilling to concede a point that has no basis in fact.

The more important question is whether all those jobs will remain in the US post unionization. And now comes the question of unionizing illegals. I can tell you that Florida state government union workers get the same pay as their non-union coworkers, but no I don't have a link to prove it.

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Catholics Stand with Working Familes

While CEOs receive massive salaries and bonuses, working families struggle. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will reform our labor law and build a more fair economy; an economy that promotes families, values human life and serves everyone, not just the super rich. We need a labor law that honors all of our brothers and sisters, especially the most vulnerable. By supporting EFCA, we stand beside the workers who sweep our floors, who harvest our food and who build our homes. Join with us. Stand with working families. Support the Employee Free Choice Act.

http://www.catholicsforworkingfamilies.org/

The more I hear about this it sounds more like the employee NO-Choice Act. The irony here is that the same elected leaders favoring this new law are the same gang who decided AIG executives needed their $3 mil a piece bonuses to be covered at taxpayer expense as an apparent reward for setting an all time record for a 4th quarter loss. Only in Amerika, I guess.

To be fair, I guess they are claiming they didn't know these bonuses were contracted in and now that the bailout deal is signed we are stuck with it. But many of us were saying "Not so Fast!" when there was this big rush for passage. But didn't anybody in Congress or the White House not think this outcome was possible?

So now there's an equally quick rush to make it harder to resist unionization. But my fear is that in too many cases becoming unionized will mainly serve as yet another payroll deduction to further degrade net pay, for those who's jobs don't get sent off shore that it. .

BTW, about "who harvest our food and who build our homes" sounds a lot to me like they wish to extend unionization to illegal aliens. Given the stance of the Catholic church on illegals it's not a stretch to think that's intentionally intended within their statement.

Sticking to the topic at hand, I'd like you to post a link to a single instance of where a workplace in the US was unionized and the worker's did not receive higher wages or better benefits. I have am a proud union member and follow stories of union organizing across the United States and have never read of the situation you are talking about. If you cannot post any links to back up your claim, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making that claim anymore in this thread or future threads about unions.It's kind of pointless to debate someone who is unwilling to concede a point that has no basis in fact. Here is a very good ed/op piece that discusses the inherent unfair advantage corporations have today in political fundraising.http://www.wslc.org/columns/06oct.htm

wrote:

It’s never been clearer than it is today, that important workers’ rights can be lost with the stroke of a pen in Washington , D.C. and Olympia . From the 40-hour work week, to minimum wage, to the very right to join a union, no labor standard is immune from attack by this Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress.

Unions have a responsibility to their members, and their founders, to protect these standards. Many Americans take basic worker rights for granted, but we remember it was previous generations of trade unionists who fought for and won these rights -- and some paid with their lives.
Under existing law, individual members who just can’t stomach the outcome of their union’s endorsements have the right to prevent their dues money from going to candidates they oppose. They can withdraw from the union, pay a representation fee that covers only the costs of bargaining and enforcing their contract, and specify that none of their dues should be spent on political activity. But corporations don’t seek the input or permission of shareholders or employees in deciding who to support. Unlike union members, individual shareholders cannot prevent their money from being spent on candidates they oppose.

How come EFF & Co. doesn’t demand “protections” for shareholders like they demand for union members? Because you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Organized labor will not be deterred by partisan efforts to silence the voices of working people. We will continue to advocate for our members and for working people in general.

I'm trying to understand why you are posting "your thoughts" in bold. I think if you have something to emphasize, great- use the bold button, but it's kinda like you're screaming at us. Plus it helps in lessing the confusion you are creating when you post multiple bold colors (your thoughts vs. someone elses). thanks.

Ohhmama wrote:

I'm trying to understand why you are posting "your thoughts" in bold. I think if you have something to emphasize, great- use the bold button, but it's kinda like you're screaming at us. Plus it helps in lessing the confusion you are creating when you post multiple bold colors (your thoughts vs. someone elses). thanks.

As long as we are asking questions about posting styles, why are you taking content from this forum and posting it on the NWI forum without attributing it to this forum or providing a link? I have always felt posting content without crediting the source is dishonest.

Ohhmama wrote:

I'm trying to understand why you are posting "your thoughts" in bold. I think if you have something to emphasize, great- use the bold button, but it's kinda like you're screaming at us. Plus it helps in lessing the confusion you are creating when you post multiple bold colors (your thoughts vs. someone elses). thanks.

I agree. I didn't much care for it when Happy Jack did it either. It's a free country, so I guess posters have a right to post their thoughts in bold, if that's what floats their boat. But IMHO, the bold type is really annoying.

sparks wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

I'm trying to understand why you are posting "your thoughts" in bold. I think if you have something to emphasize, great- use the bold button, but it's kinda like you're screaming at us. Plus it helps in lessing the confusion you are creating when you post multiple bold colors (your thoughts vs. someone elses). thanks.

As long as we are asking questions about posting styles, why are you taking content from this forum and posting it on the NWI forum without attributing it to this forum or providing a link? I have always felt posting content without crediting the source is dishonest.

Once again, if you have an issue with something written OTOB, deal with it there. thanks.

Ohhmama wrote:

sparks wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

I'm trying to understand why you are posting "your thoughts" in bold. I think if you have something to emphasize, great- use the bold button, but it's kinda like you're screaming at us. Plus it helps in lessing the confusion you are creating when you post multiple bold colors (your thoughts vs. someone elses). thanks.

As long as we are asking questions about posting styles, why are you taking content from this forum and posting it on the NWI forum without attributing it to this forum or providing a link? I have always felt posting content without crediting the source is dishonest.

Once again, if you have an issue with something written OTOB, deal with it there. thanks.

I don't have an issue with it,but the administrator here might. You are taking content from this board and posting it over there without crediting the source.

back and already stirring the pot...

tsk tsk.

Mirage wrote:

Sticking to the topic at hand, I'd like you to post a link to a single instance of where a workplace in the US was unionized and the worker's did not receive higher wages or better benefits. I have am a proud union member and follow stories of union organizing across the United States and have never read of the situation you are talking about. If you cannot post any links to back up your claim, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making that claim anymore in this thread or future threads about unions.It's kind of pointless to debate someone who is unwilling to concede a point that has no basis in fact.

The more important question is whether all those jobs will remain in the US post unionization. And now comes the question of unionizing illegals. I can tell you that Florida state government union workers get the same pay as their non-union coworkers, but no I don't have a link to prove it.

Allowing workers who refuse to pay dues to receive the benefits of collective bargaining is a tactic that has been used for years in right to work for less states. However, after reading your statement about state workers, I did some digging. I found this link which confirmed what I have heard about Florida, that it is a lousy place to work. The state has an abundance of low paying jobs with lousy benefits, which tends to be the case where the rate of unionization is very low.
[url]http://www.fiu.edu/~clrs/publications/Nissen.STATE_OF_WORKING_FLORIDA_2005[1].pdf[/url]

state of Florida's economy,2005 wrote:

The Florida Economy Doing Well But Workers Not So Well
• The Florida unemployment rate is well below the national rate, and the state has been creating jobs rapidly.
• But in general this is not translating into increased well-being for Florida's working men and women, as the remainder of this report demonstrates.

Healthcare Coverage in Florida
• Almost 20% of Florida’s residents had no healthcare coverage in 2004, tying the state at 47th -48th of the 50 states in health care coverage.
• The state’s standing compared to the national average has been deteriorating in the past three years.
Pension Coverage in the State of Florida
• Florida has the second lowest rate of private sector pension coverage in the nation.
• The problem is longstanding. It probably results from the state's reliance on low wage service sector jobs and its low unionization rate.
Other Statutory Protections of Workers
• Florida has few statutory protections of workers' rights (anti-discrimination, right-to-know, equal pay, whistle blower protection, etc.) in comparison to other states.
Unionization in Florida
• The unionization rate in Florida in 2004 was less than half that of the nation as a whole (6.0% vs. 12.5%).

Florida's state government policies are not friendly to unions. It has a constitutional "right-to-work" provision that allows union-represented workers to not pay their union dues.

LoisLane wrote:

Admin wrote:

I realize it wasn't clear whether the quote which precipitated your responses was written by sparks or by a third party. To avoid situations like this, many members enclose such content in an uncited quote.

-Admin

Your point is well taken.
However, the "poster" you mention has quoted the passage, and defended it's content, on this and other threads, including other boards. That is where I drew the opinion that this "poster" is actually envious of anyone who has made something of their lives, thereby attacking the big CEO's in this country. This "poster" has also pointed out that I, as a "homebound secretary/bookkeeper", could not make between $75,000-$85,000 per year. (on another thread, on another board) This is basic Psychology 101 and only an idiot could not see that this "poster" is wishing his life turned out differently. And once again, I'd like to point out to him and you, that I am an educated person, and if I weren't, I would not be ashamed to be a "homebound secretary/bookkeeper", as they also make a contribution to the welfare of this country.

I wonder if a certain poster also has issues with actors/singers making so much money or if it is only an issue with CEO's making a large amount of money?

I wonder if a certain poster also has issues with actors/singers making so much money or if it is only an issue with CEO's making a large amount of money?

Maybe Congress will approve a 90% retroactive tax on entertainers because people pay too much for movie tickets, especially when the films are bad.