rob Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 sure, like I'm just going to throw my vote away. No thanks. Quote
builder206 Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 She's gained some weight since the days she broke on The Scene as a 'feminist slut' but I'd still hit it. Quote
marylou Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 Lazy liberals, here's a list of endorsements from King County Labor Coucil: Â KCLC Endorsements Quote
rob Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 If I send them my ballot, will they just fill it out for me? Quote
builder206 Posted November 5, 2007 Posted November 5, 2007 I hear she needs help with her pumpkins  Oh yeah, I can taste that pie. Quote
marylou Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 If I send them my ballot, will they just fill it out for me? Â I don't see why not. Quote
JayB Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 That'd be roughly analogous to the "card-check" law that constitutes organized labor's foremost legislative priority these days. Â Â Quote
Dave_Schuldt Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 I'll be glad when the robo calls stop, I'm not answering the phone tonite. Quote
marylou Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 That'd be roughly analogous to the "card-check" law that constitutes organized labor's foremost legislative priority these days.  Must be pretty rough, 'cuz I'm a union member and a voter and I'm not making the connection.  I'd be happy to fill out your ballot for you if you need any help though. Quote
JayB Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 "The signed cards are then submitted to the National Labor Relations Board, known as the NLRB. Under current U.S. law, the employer need not recognize the union as its employees' collective bargaining representative if a majority of employees express their intent to join the union under through card check; instead, employers may require a secret-ballot vote overseen by the NLRB.  The Employee Free Choice Act, introduced in the United States Congress in 2005 and again in 2007, would require that the NLRB recognize the union's role as the official bargaining representative if a majority of employees have authorized that representation via card check, without any secret ballot vote. [1] It was passed by the House on March 1, 2007.  Organized labor groups argue that the card check process is preferable to traditional NLRB elections because it avoids the anti-union campaigns that can accompany elections and leads to healthier workplace relations by avoiding a direct confrontation between employer and its employees. Critics of card check organizing argue that the process takes away employees' right to vote for or against the union in a secret ballot and permits union intimidation of workers."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check  Just signed into law in MA recently. Should do wonders for the already stellar rates of private employment growth amongst the non-degreed population here. Quote
marylou Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 Yes, I know what card checks are. Card checks have been a part of union organizing for a long time. I just don't see it analgous with a tame joke about having the KCLC fill out your ballot for you. Â I need to spend more time on the Heritage Foundation website, obviously. Quote
JayB Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 A member of the Teamsters Union will be glad to check the "yes" box for you, if you are unable to do so... Â In the private sector, the union/private-business follows roughly the same dynamics as the host/parasite model, and the passage of this legislation won't affect the final outcome, which invariably ends with a contract guaranteeing above-market wages far beyond what the skill-set in question would warrant - with a company that no longer exists. So the means may change, but the end will remain the same. Â Â Quote
marylou Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 I'm a union member and I work for a living, and I have to say  you sure about that? Quote
JayB Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 Which part of "that" are you referring to? Â Surely not the stats concerning the percentage of workers in the private workforce that are unionized. The numbers would be even lower in the absence of the aptly-named "Davis-Bacon Act." Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Quote
olyclimber Posted November 6, 2007 Author Posted November 6, 2007 BECAUSE OF THE INVISIBLE HAND OF THE MARKET PLACE. Quote
JayB Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 She'd certainly be much better off if her family sold her to brothel to help fend-off starvation. Â Â But yeah - that's pretty much what's happened this century. Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc - all much worse off than they once were on account of trade. Â Quote
chucK Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 I think the point is JayB that you need some check on corporations just to prevent abuse. Labor unions are a way to do that. Why aren't labor unions given their due right to exist by the freedom of the markets. What is so evil about workers banding together to gain enough power to get what they want? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.