Town Square

Post a New Topic

Obama signals support for intimidation by Union bosses

Original post made by Perspective, Midtown, on Mar 3, 2009

Web Link

Above, a link to an article about Obama's support for an anti-democratic bill which would allow union bosses to know who is voting AGAINST UNIONIZATION in a company..Gee, I wonder who that will intimidate?

Ok, is this still Bush and the Republican's fault that companies are drying up a quick as they can?

Will non-profits and charities be subject to this unionization of our land?

Add this to the ever growing anti-business, anti-employment, anti-growth, anti-capitalism, anti-charity core beliefs of Obama and the modern day Dems and you see why we are still spinning downward today, closing at below 6900 in the DOW..1996 levels.

They will succeed in turning us into....hmmm, which country do you hope we will be like, and why are you hoping for it?

Question: If you still think Obama and the Dems are good for the country, can you please explain what data you are using to show how good they are for your future and the future of your kids?

Comments (8)

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 3, 2009 at 7:52 pm

More tired old Republican cliches.

Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 3, 2009 at 10:01 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Compelled union membership is on a par with compulsory church attendance or mandatory political rallys.

Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 4, 2009 at 6:49 am

Tired Republican cliches? If being a Republican means believing in a secret ballot, then how many want to sign up?

Why were the Dems against this when it included letting the MANAGEMENT KNOW who was voting for or against unionization? It is only for Union Bosses to learn now...I guess Union Thugs are kinder than Management thugs?

Think, people, think....EVEN GEORGE McGOVERN has ads running against this. For those too young to remember, he got a huge election trouncing at one point in a Presidential bid because he was considered an extreme leftist.

Think of who you are lining up with. Which other countries force union membership? They aren't calling this forced membership, but what do you think the effect is?

What would YOUR votes look like if the only people allowed to see your votes were the ones you were voting against? Those who think this is a WONDERFUL idea, would you think it was great if only REPUBLICANS could know who you voted for in the next election?

Heck, why don't we make ALL votes public, and see what they does to our democracy!

Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 4, 2009 at 7:57 pm

"tired old Republican cliches" is a tired old liberal cliche...

Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 5, 2009 at 9:49 am

Very interesting...Joe Biden, the VP OF THE USA, is giving a speech to UNION MEMBERS about this Union Thug Act ( aka the Orwellian Newspeak Title Employee Free Choice Act) and NO REPORTER IS ALLOWED IN this very South Florida ( probably Miami).

Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2009 at 10:33 pm

The above commentary is very misleading. The cardcheck process does not signify intimidation by union bosses, however, this legislation got as far as it did because there is ample evidence that during too many election processes, workers were intimidated and fired by employers for supporting a union. Employers generally have themselves to blame for the creation of this legislation. In a ballot process, the election is controlled by the employers who certainly have unlimited access to the voters before the election. The employers get to call the shots regarding the timing of the election, making the process skewed in favor of the opposition. The card check process is endorsed by the NLRB and the US Supreme Court and is a process that is tightly regulated by the NLRB. Simply stated, when 51% of an employee group signs in favor of a union, the union is established. There is really not a nexus between someone not signing a card and a potential NO vote in an election.

Like this comment
Posted by Pesrpective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 6, 2009 at 7:00 am

Anon: You are completely and utterly wrong. Please find us even one citation for what your are purporting.

Current law states that once 51% of the Employees sign a Union card, a PRIVATE election must be called, overseen by Feds to assure all is well.

Under the Employee Free Choice Act's (EFCA) proposed rules the union may seek AUTOMATIC UNIONIZATION WITHOUT A PRIVATE VOTE once a majority of targeted employees have signed cards.

So, in the detail, yes, it still retains a private VOTE, but allows the entire voting process to be dumped if 51% of the employees sign cards...WHICH EVERY PERSON IN THE JOB SITE AND EVERY PERSON IN THE UNION ORGANIZING KNOWS ABOUT.

So, this is nothing more than an attempt to muscle unions back into places where a MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES MAY NOT WANT THEM.

Our current law assures a private, federally overseen vote. This one would shortcircuit the process and bring us back to the thuggery of old. Why do Dems want this? Union dues ...union dues go to support policies and candidates like the ones BHO, Reid, Pelosi are shoving on us right now.

I bet they wouldn't be pushing this if union dues weren't allowed to be used for any political purpose, or only for Republican plans!

Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 6, 2009 at 7:05 am

Look at it this way..think of the car industry that is failing in the USA...and is UNIONIZED..yet all the non-American owned companies BUILDING CARS IN THE USA are doing fine.

Go through the Unionized industries you know and ask yourselves which ones have adapted and are surviving in this era, WITHOUT TAX DOLLARS.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 4,260 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 973 views

This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 5 comments | 521 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 453 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 400 views