TOPIC: Offers coming in

Has anyone seen the unions try to push through that bullshit of eliminating the secret ballot? They're trying to strongarm people into becoming union members, identifying them for intimidation. Normally, this sort of crap would be driving liberals up a wall, but they've been mum about it because they get so much institutional support from the unions. It's in their best interest if the corrupt leadership can rob more people, turning them into members whose funds then prop up the democratic party. It's pathetic.

Once again Henwy, the truth of your statements is undeniable. That issue has been all over the news. The only excuse I heard was from a democratic congressman who sheepishly argued that the unions need some legal backing to be able to battle corporations. Can you think of a lamer excuse for congress to consider removing form american workers one of the most basic rights granted by our constitution?

The Constitution grants no rights concerning private elections, which are what union elections are, in effect.  Come to think of it, the Constitution grants no rights to a secret ballot at all.  The Australian ballot (the secret ballot) was slowly adopted in the US over time as concerns over voters' rights grew.  The first elections often involved voting by voice, wherein voters had to publicly state who they were supporting, sometimes right in front of the candidates themselves!<br />

As someone who has been in a job where the union came in and tried to unionize, I think that eliminating the secret ballot is a HORRIBLE idea.  I was on the anti-union side and was pretty vocal (imagine that) about it.  This was essentially an office job and the teamsters were in there trying to organize a union.  People who had been friends for YEARS suddenly would not speak to one another over their difference in the unionize/don't unionize opinion. <br /><br />Because of that, many people just kept their mouths shut.  They were not about to vocalize one way or the other.  If the secret ballot wasn't there as a privacy protection measure, I wonder if the union would've been voted down.  When people saw the ridicule and other crazy things that happened to the non-union employees would they have voted NO had the ballots been open for public eye?  I doubt it.  The secret ballot gave people the opportunity to keep their employment under their OWN control rather than a labor unions and they didn't have to worry about having flat tires at the end of the day for opposing the union.<br /><br />So, as you can tell, I am STRONGLY against eliminating the secret ballot.  Thank goodness we don't currently have a filibuster proof government, as we came so closely to.

Well, that's still possible, but pretty unlikely.  Anyway, while I am pretty strongly pro-union, I am also strongly in favor of the secret ballot and the Employee Free Choice Act.<br />

How in the world could you be _in_ favor of a secret ballot yet support the act? That's the act that eliminates the damn thing. The only way a secret ballot would be run if this ridiculous act was passed is if there were allegations of fraud. Is this another case of the whole double talk?<br /><br />The best part of this is the hypocrisy of some democrats:<br /><br />Opponents also point to a 2001 letter to Mexican government officials, signed by 11 Democrats who subsequently voted in favor of HR 800, encouraging the "use of secret ballots in all union recognition elections." The letter further states, "we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose," seeming to contradict the spirit of the legislation passed by the House. Congressman George Miller was the lead signatory of the 2001 letter and the sponsor of H.R.800. However, Rep. Miller and the other signatories to the 2001 letter now contend that their demand for a secret ballot election was limited to situations where "workers seek to replace one union with another union," although the letter makes no mention of this case and instead states "all union recognition elections."<br /><br />The above was a blurb summary from Wiki.<br /><br />I think any sane person can see that this whole act is bullcrap. Free choice, my ass.

<br />Thank goodness we don't currently have a filibuster proof government, as we came so closely to.<br />

<br /><br />Amen. I don't think enough people thought of that before they went into the voting booth. We came within a hair's breadth of entering a real cluster !#%^.

The EFCA in no way eliminates a secret ballot.  It calls for employees to be allowed to form a union if a majority indicate support for it via a signature drive, a card check process, or a secret ballot election.  The purpose of the act is to allow employees to join unions in the face of management opposition.  The change from current law means that an employer cannot call for a secret ballot election IF a majority of employees already indicate (thru signatures on certification cards) their desire to join or form a union.<br /><br />A union could still be decertified thru a secret ballot election under the EFCA.<br /><br />And as I said, it is still possible, though unlikely, for the Democratic Party to achieve a filibuster-proof majority.<br />

Of course it does. It functionally eliminates the secret ballot as even many democrats and union leaders have admitted. It's just weak sophistry to claim otherwise. The AFLCIO has even had the audacity to claim that it's the secret ballot that's undemocratic. It's ridiculous bullcrap.<br /><br />The most pathetic part is if someone tried to do this for any other sort of election, those hippie nutjobs would be shrieking about it. Oh, if we collect the signatures of a majority of people in a city, then someone can be elected mayor immediately without an election or a vote. Oh, but the candidate dosen't _need_ to choose to do it that way. Since it's also an option for them to decide to go with the old method, it must be legit.<br /><br />Complete Bullcrap.<br /><br />On a sidenote, it's also possible for the republicans to get a fillibuster proof majority. I just imagine the bomb would have to be bigger .

The thought of forcing people to submit to a public ballot for unionization is so horrific I can't conceive of it becoming a reality in this country. Even those who support unions can surely see that forcing a vote to be public removes free choice. <br /><br />

Obama says he supports the bill and would sign it into law. Surprise, surprise.<br /><br />All we can hope for at this point is that the public becomes more educated about the issue. Of course, the traditional media isn't exactly cooperating with that. The most recent article on the issue in the NYT was on page 26 or thereabouts.

EFCA does not get rid of the secret ballot.  It is one of the possible ways to certify a union, but not the only one.  Is that your problem?  That the only way to certify a union should be via secret ballot?<br /><br />The act is necessary to prevent employers from doing things like firing workers for advocating unionization.<br />