Important Legislation Please read.copy and send to someone

[Rickenbacker53]

PLEASE READ BELOW i WILL BE GLAD TO FORWARD THE EMAIL. THIS IS IMPORTANT
Also click on the link below and sigh it yourself

http://www.AmericanSolutions.com/FreedomNotFear.



-----Original Message-----
From: Saul Anuzis, American Solutions <[email protected]>
To: [email][email protected]
Sent: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:55 pm
Subject: It's official: Assault on secret ballot begins




www.AmericanSolutions.com
Dear Barry,
Today, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, or “Card Check,” was introduced in the U.S. Congress.
President Obama and Vice President Biden promised big labor bosses last week that they would support this destructive bill, and now Congress has acted.
We now have an urgent fight on our hands. It is a fight over basic freedom, and over one of our most fundamental first principles – the right to vote freely without coercion.
If we can effectively make this case to our fellow Americans, we can defeat this dangerous bill.
The good news is that this message is already resonating. In just a few days, close to 70,000 Americans have already signed our Freedom Not Fear petition.
This is a good start, but we’re going to need to bring more people to our side if we are going to put together a strong grassroots network of citizens across the country.
Please take a moment to recruit 5 others to stand with us for freedom.
Whether you blog, use social networks, or stick primarily to email, you can use our Tell-A-Friend tool to log into your accounts and notify all your contacts (If your email provider is not supported, you can enter contacts individually).
Or, forward this email to 5 of your friends and ask them to sign the petition at http://www.AmericanSolutions.com/FreedomNotFear.
Thanks ahead of time for what you’re doing.
Together, we can stop this destructive, job-killing bill.
Sincerely,

Saul Anuzis
National Chairman, Save American Jobs Project
American Solutions


Update Profile This email was sent by: American Solutions
1425 K Street Washington, D.C., 20005, U.S.A.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[gc70]

The method by which workers choose to accept or reject union representation...

This sounds like a political issue rather than a gun-related legal topic.

[Wildalaska]

And why does the OP think just posting another "O my god" email is what we do here

WildreporthitAlaska ™

[MrSardonicus]

agree with the point of OP, disagree with posting it here

[Playboypenguin]

Disagree with both the pro-corporate America propaganda of the OP and the relevance of the topic.

[vranasaurus]

There was a reason your original thread was locked. That usually means there is no need to start another with the same topic.

[Al Norris]

Agree or disagree... From one of the stickies in this forum:

What has never been addressed, yet has always been acceptable, are threads that encourage activism. Activism is by its very nature, a fully political beast. Reading the rules of this forum, a short-sighted person might think that because political threads are forbidden, then too, threads pertaining to activism come under that prohibition.

Such close-minded thinking couldn't be further from the truth.

This particular area of TFL is the only area where we discuss the laws of our our various States and the Nation as a whole. It is the only area where we can discuss our Liberties, Freedoms and Civil Rights, as Law may or may not affect them.

If all we can do is to enumerate and discuss these things without also discussing how we can motivate each other and become politically active to ensure our Liberties, then we fall far short of the goals of this forum.

[Al Norris]

This is the original thread. Posts were moved from the duplicate to this one.

[Wildalaska]

So what if we dont agree with the position being esposed how do be active

WildorinactiveAlaska ™

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Playboypenguin

Disagree with both the pro-corporate America propaganda of the OP and the relevance of the topic.

Yes, absolutely, to the part about pro-corporate America propaganda, which describes the above email very well.

But, relevance? It's about the First Amendment: freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, anyone? Seems pretty relevant to me.

The bill in question, the Employee Free Choice Act, will make it easier for American workers to form unions, a process which employers are now able to obstruct more or less at will, including by using professional union-busters to run fear-mongering, fact-distorting anti-union campaigns... requiring employees to attend anti-union propaganda sessions... threatening to close plants if they're unionized... and illegally firing workers who attempt to form unions. Far from defending "the right to vote freely without coercion," the goal of the pro-business groups which oppose this legislation is to protect their ability to act coercively. They are labelling that ability "freedom of speech."

Oh, and by the way, it's simply untrue that the Employee Free Choice Act will "do away with the secret ballot," or any such nonsense -- it permits employees to choose to vote via secret ballot -- or not.

So, as to the activism part, we can do the usual: write to our Congressfolk in support of this legislation.

[johnwilliamson062]

A long time ago in a country far far away...

Unions were run by organized crime. Votes were public. If you voted against the union leadership your ass got beat to a pulp.

Unions gave lots of money to the Obama campaign and brought him a lot of sheople votes, including a large number of the gun owners who voted for him. Yes there are stats on this. No, I do not care enough to look them up. Now the union leadership, who control the huge coffers of union money that went to Obama, want a favor in return(good old American way).

How is espousing the benefits of a private vote possibly propaganda? Why in the world should those votes be public? How could that possibly protect the worker?
Having private votes allows the worker to be unfairly pressured. If workers do not want a union then why should the teamsters or UAW be able to come in, see who did not vote on them and then put pressure on them to vote?

I can not wait until every manufacturing job in the US is overseas so these uber massive self serving unions that have no intent to serve their members are gone and we can start to rebuild the manufacturing base of this country.

[Playboypenguin]

Because it is absolute crap. To try and pretend unions are the ones pressuring employees to join unions to an equal or greater extent than employers pressuring employees to not do so is absurd.

Employers like Wal-Mart constantly block official votes and threaten employees with store closing and termination if they vote for union representation. As soon as they hear union buzz they send in union busting teams to make examples of the rabble rousers. That way by the time the union meeting is held, the workers have been significantly frightened and beaten down.

Card check policies are no different than voting. If 51% of employees decide to sign on, despite threats from employers, unions can begin immediately offering protection to the workers. That prevents employers from firing people the moment they hear a majority of employees are interested in voting in a union.

[Hkmp5sd]

Oh, and by the way, it's simply untrue that the Employee Free Choice Act will "do away with the secret ballot," or any such nonsense -- it permits employees to choose to vote via secret ballot -- or not.

And why would any employee choose not to vote by secret ballot?

You see, the really neat thing about the secret ballot is that when the election is over, no one knows how you voted. Hence, there can be no retribution against you.

It took the union about 4 tries over 10 years to finally get in my place of employment. There was absolutely no pressure from the company to vote no. If fact, they frequently made offers of extra benefits attempting to bribe us. But with the secret ballot, no one really knew who voted for or against the union, only that it finally made it.

If there had been a "card check" policy, after the first failed election, the union would have known which employees needed convincing for future elections and the employer would know which employees they should send down the road before the next election.

Keep the ballots secret. There is absolutely no reason to made them public.

[johnwilliamson062]

Employers like Wal-Mart constantly block official votes and threaten employees with store closing and termination if they vote for union representation

How is a public vote going to alleviate that? They can still beat rabble rousers before the vote. They can beat quiet people who voted for it after the vote also. Do you think corporations will not have spies in union meetings? They always have in the past.

Who says that workers can't choose to walk out over unfair employment practices en mass? Why would they need a formal union to do that?
Who says a union can't pony up a few lawyers and toughs while they are organizing?
Nobody.
This is about getting people who know they are making good money in competitive and stable firms into unions when they do not want to be.
There are lots of American workers who have realized UAW jobs are going to be gone in the not to distant future. Look how many have already gone over seas.

When unions were small one factory deals they gave the workers enough leverage to get decent treatment and kept leadership in touch with the workers. Now union leaders never talk to actual union members, the things some union workers get is absolutely ridiculous. Union leaders for all their whining about CEO pay make huge amounts of money and get huge bonuses just like the CEOs they rail on.
The limitations on one worker helping out another are absolutely absurd. Honda and Toyota will tell you the flexibility they have with their workers is where they really save big bucks over US companies. Look at how they kept all their employees working recently by offering maintenance jobs. If they had unions it would have been required they hire a painters union and such.

What about the group of volunteers that tried to paint over graffiti at schools and were blocked by the painters union? Graffiti still there.

Unions are out of control.

Are you really going to tell me the guy who pulls a lever for eight hours should be paid five times or more than the guy who flips a burger? I have pulled levers, and I have flipped burgers over a grill. The latter was harder less comfortable work, took more skill, and generally sucked a whole lot more.

Maybe I am looking at this wrong and we just need $10 McDonalds cheeseburgers.

I sent my Congressmen letters about this when it first came up.

[Evan Thomas]

Thanks, PBP. Good try.

If anyone is interested in some actual data on the subject of the ways employers intimidate workers who try to unionize, they'll find it here. I'd also suggest just thinking, for a moment, about who has the actual power, and most of the resources, in a typical non-union shop. (Hint: it isn't the workers.) Under the current system, secret ballot elections are controlled by management: they determine the schedule and control access to information before the election, so they have all the power.

And for those who didn't read my first post carefully: Under the terms of the EFCA, workers can still have secret ballots if they want them. No one is taking that option away. The difference is that they would also, by law, have the option to just sign up -- if a majority do so, the union is in, and that's the end of the process: no harassment, no intimidation, etc. There's nothing radical about this: many companies already do it this way.

[Hkmp5sd]

No one is taking that option away. The difference is that they would also, by law, have the option to just sign up -- if a majority do so, the union is in, and that's the end of the process: no harassment, no intimidation, etc.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I have personally experienced the unionization process. It starts with getting enough people to sign union cards so the union can hold a vote. People are intimidated into signing those cards. There would be no difference in the "just signing up cards." The only place where neither side can intimidate is the secret ballot. Management doesn't control it and neither does the union. If no one knows how you will or did vote, there is absolutely no intimidation.

Under the current system, secret ballot elections are controlled by management:

Management doesn't control squat. The entire process is done with both sides making the decision of when to vote, where to vote, who gets to vote, monitoring the vote and counting the votes.

I am in the union (Utility Workers Union Of America Local 604) and know their tactics.

[Evan Thomas]

Hkmp5sd, it sounds like your experience of the process involved a pretty enlightened management. I wish more companies were like that. Unfortunately, the data suggest that many, if not most, are not.

[Playboypenguin]

And why would any employee choose not to vote by secret ballot?

Why should they not have the option?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

It really doesn't matter if you "buy it" or not. It is the reality of the situation. As Vanya is pointing out, the employees have almost no power as the system stands now. Corporations have control of how and when votes happen. A card check system allows a majority of employees to act independently to achieve their goals in a manner that is harder for big bosses to squash.

I have been on both sides of the coin. I have been a member of unions, and I have owned businesses that had union and non-union employees. I know how the system works, and the current system greatly favors the company and not the worker.

If I find out a majority of my employees have signed cards with a union to bring forth a vote to unionize I can take preemptive actions to intimidate my employees before a secret ballot ever occurs. The union has no power to step in and protect those workers in the interim. With the new system, employees would be provided protections against being singled out as examples before the vote takes place.

[Hkmp5sd]

With the new system, employees would be provided protections against being singled out as examples before the vote takes place.

So please explain to me how the union can be prevented from going after those employees they know have not signed a union card?

Sounds to me you are merely shifting the "intimidation" power from the employer to the union.

[Playboypenguin]

So please explain to me how the union can be prevented from going after those employees they know have not signed a union card?

Just as with a regular vote, once a majority of the employees have signed for union representation the union can act on behalf of the employees of the business. They then have legal reason to be involved until official votes can be held. Under the current system they have no legal standing to protect the employees until after the vote. That means employers can go after whatever employee they chose before the vote takes place.

Sounds to me you are merely shifting the "intimidation" power from the employer to the union.

What intimidation? If the majority of employees want to be union you become unionized. No different than it is now.

How would anyone ever be able to seriously suggest that the employers should be the ones with the power. That is backwards thinking at it's worst. We all know how well big corporations treat their employees.

[Hkmp5sd]

My question is how to you prevent the UNION from using their knowledge of who has signed a card to adopt the union and those that have not signed a card, to INTIMIDATE those people that have not signed a union card until they either sign a card or quit the job?

You are in effect handing the union a list of those pro union (turned in a card) and those against the union (haven't signed a card). The union can then "influence" those non-union folks until they get their 51% signed cards.

Not what the union does after elected.

[Playboypenguin]

My question is how to you prevent the UNION from using their knowledge of who has signed a card to adopt the union and those that have not signed a card, to INTIMIDATE those people that have not signed a union card until they either sign a card or quit the job?

And just how do you suppose these unions are going to intimidate people? Are they going to threaten to fire them? I know Rush has spent a lot of time these past couple month going "BOO" about this, but it is just a bunch of crap in support of his corporate sponsors.

[Nunya53]

Unions are so last-century. They had their time and place, but today information is instantaneous and we are more educated.

However, they do serve a purpose...they bankrupt businesses and perpetuate corruption in cities like Chicago.

Nunya
(Kansas farm boy and 20 year military vet)

[Playboypenguin]

They had their time and place, but today information is instantaneous and we are more educated.

How does that have anything to do with workplace protection? How does knowing anything prevent a corporation from lower wages, cutting benefits, discriminating against an employee?

[Evan Thomas]

And just how do you suppose these unions are going to intimidate people? Are they going to threaten to fire them?

Exactly. A union that's trying to organize in a particular workplace has very little power, nor is it in their own interest to threaten people in this situation. Management, on the other hand, can fire people, threaten to close plants, require them to listen to anti-union propaganda... etc.