Conservatives Support the Working Class

Capper asked of those of us who oppose the Card Check Legislation…

When was the last time any of them cared about what was the best for the working class?

How about…. all the flippin’ time?  Let’s see… opportunity, freedom, low taxes, vibrant business environment, merit pay, and on and on and on.  Yes, capper, we support policies that are best for all workers.  I suppose that militant union goons may benefit a few, but certainly not the working class. 

On another note, liberals use the term “working class” to the exclusion of many people who work very hard.  It’s a way that they try to put a wedge between workers in order to advance their agenda.  I’m a worker and I work hard for a lot of hours.  But somehow I don’t think I fit the liberals’ definition of “working class.” 

1. I would ask why removing the secret ballot and opening the employees to overt intimidation from both sides is hardly in their best interests either. 

   The secret ballot is the epitome of American elections.

   If the unions can’t get in without them, perhaps its their message that is faulty. 

   I completely agree that unions were needed at a point in time.  I just watched a History Channel show on the West Virginia coal mine wars. 

   But….

   This ain’t the early 1900s anymore (OSHA, EEOC, et al) and Wal-Mart ain’t the coal mines.

   Btw - I too wonder what the statist definition of working class is.  I work hard to put food on the table, but I doubt I count either.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1750 hrs




2. Why I think the liberals have it all figured out. All they need to do is check their bible: “Das Capital” to learn about the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The party is for the proletariat, don’t you know.

   From Wikipedia.org:

   According to Marxism, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. This exploitation takes place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must use the means of production that are property of others in order to produce, and, consequently, earn their life. Instead of hiring those means of production, they themselves get hired by capitalists and work for them, producing goods or services. These goods or services become the property of the capitalist, who sells them at the market.

   Sound familiar comrade?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1839 hrs




3. We are the “working class”.  I’m the son of a union guy, who spent 40 years being told to slow down, that he made the rest of the workers look bad.  My father worked for the City of Milwaukee, and he used to do more work than the other 20 guys in his dept combined.  All four kids put themselves through college with multiple part time jobs.  I’ve worked more than 40 hours a week since my sophmore year of high school.  “Conservatives” are the people working hard to put food on the table.  Some conservatives vote Democratic, but from ignorance, and against their self interest.  Conservatives believe in working hard, taking care of one’s family, and not depending on Government to take care of them.  Liberals either think government needs to take care of them, or worse, think so lowly of their fellow citizens, that they can’t take care of even the smallest things. 

   Don’t confuse republican with conservative, nor liberal with Democrat.  There are plenty of Democrats who work hard and are tired of supporting people too lazy to support themselves, and who are tired of being over taxed.  Conversely we keep electing Rebublicans who claim to be conservative, then push through more of the same crap.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1941 hrs




4. We ask the our US Senators ” Why do they want to take the secret ballot away from the workers?”

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 2013 hrs




5. Amen Curt.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 2034 hrs




6. The secret ballot is not the epitome of American elections. In fact I think the founding fathers, who voted publicly, would have thought of a secret ballot as cowardly. It takes some stones to stand up in public and express your political views openly, especially when doing so could bring negative consequences. Doing the right thing isn’t always easy.

   Posted by Mike on May 19, 2009 at 2135 hrs




7. If you can get half a workforce to stand up and declare their support for a union, even when negative consequences could come their way for doing so, you’ve got a strong base of support.

   Posted by Mike on May 19, 2009 at 2138 hrs




8. Where did the secret ballot come from?  and do we need the secret ballot in any elctions? 
   Mike can you give me source where the founding fathers were against a secret ballot.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 2202 hrs




9. Mike,
   Anyone who wants to make their vote public can by their own choice.  Why do you want to take choice away from them?
   So you are anti-choice.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 2207 hrs




10. Mike: The founding fathers were elected or appointed representatives. It would be kind of silly if we let Sensenbrenner, Kohl, or any other elected representative vote in a secret ballot. So don’t base your position on a bogus historical precedent. I think the stones you refer to are in your head.

    If the union has such great appeal why would they care if the ballot was secret or not? They care because they are more likely to use thuggery than management to force the issue.

    This applies as much to the teachers union as it does the AFL-CIO, or Teamsters.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 2233 hrs




11. Also from Wikipedia.org. The secret ballot entry there is a section in the History portion entitled United States, reproduced below:

    In the United States the practice became known as the “Australian ballot”, defined as having four parts:[5]

      1. an official ballot being printed at public expense,
      2. on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
      3. being distributed only at the polling place and
      4. being marked in secret.

    In the United States, most states had moved to secret ballots soon after the presidential election of 1884. However, Kentucky was the last state to in 1891, when it quit using an oral ballot. Therefore, the first President of the United States elected completely under the Australian ballot was president Grover Cleveland in 1892.

    The first Australian ballot used in the United States was at Lexington, Massachusetts.

    Elections in the United States are now almost always held by secret ballot.[6] The Constitution for the State of West Virginia still allows voters to cast “open ballots”[7]. The Populists, a short-lived American political party during 1870s through 1890s, listed the Australian ballot as one of their party platforms in the Ocala Demands.

    An old memory seems to tell me that the secret ballot initiative gained currency during/after the election of Andrew Jackson.  There were a lot of public reprisals for folks’ votes in that election. But I’d defer to Owen and the other history folks on the board for their knowledge on the topic.

    Posted by Mike on May 20, 2009 at 0745 hrs




12. Despite the spin in the “Liberal” media the Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot. It just changes from the employer to the employees who decides whether or not to accept card check or force an election. If 30 percent or more want a vote, you have a vote. Currently 100 percent can sign union cards and the employer can still force and election.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 0818 hrs




13. It is not the spin of the” liberal” media , Card check does take away the secret ballot for workers. I think lefty works for the UNION.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 0843 hrs




14. Lefty,
    Remember how some Bush defenders just looked stupid some of the time and it was fun to point it out and make fun?  Now that is you.

    There is no defense for this.  There is no positive for the worker to change away from a secret ballot.  Whether it technically takes it away yet now or not, is there any doubt that this is not a measure or a step in the direction of taking away the secret ballot?

    Or maybe there is.  Mike, Lefty, what are the positive things that workers will get from this measure passing?  Don’t tell me history, or what it technically does or does not do at this time.  What is the good from the workers point of view this measure brings them?  Honest question that you seem to be evading, what is the answer?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1023 hrs




15. Tuerqas,

    Honest answer.  How about simply setting a standard that if a union reaches a certain threshold of workers signing a car it triggers an election?  Like 30% for instance?  And if a super majority sign cards, like 75%, you forego the election and unionize the shop?

    Keep the provisions in the bill that prohibt employers from firing employees for organizing, and penalties for intimidation as well, and get labor and management agreed upon language defining parameters for how contract disputes are settled.

    Basically you would remove the decision making process from the employer (current law) and employee (under the bill) from the election trigger, and put it back in the hands of the neutral party that is the NLRB.

    Again, the bill doesn’t do away with the secret ballot, it simply changes who decides if there is going to be one.  I’m in full agreement that the decision should probably rest with someone other than the two interested parties, but spin is the only word to define how this provision of the bill is being characterized.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1042 hrs




16. As an overall thought… I think there should always be a secret ballot election.  Period.  That prevents intimidation of folks by either the union or the employer.

    Posted by Owen on May 20, 2009 at 1049 hrs




17. Honest answer.  How about simply setting a standard that if a union reaches a certain threshold of workers signing a car it triggers an election?  Like 30% for instance?  And if a super majority sign cards, like 75%, you forego the election and unionize the shop?

    Exactly what triggers it now?(I am unclear)  I could see a 45% (you should have a chance of winning to call for a vote) perhaps triggering a vote, but I can’t see foregoing the election, ever.  You may be able to pressure someone in to doing something in public that he would never do in private.  Wouldn’t that allow the union, other workers or the employer to see who they have to give special attention to ‘convince’?

    In a secret ballot, you can agree to all the threats, bribes, etc. and still vote your mind with no repercussions.  I see no reason to ever take that out.  Any sort of ‘supermajority’ clause does take out the secret ballot, doesn’t it?  It would allow any one side to coerce votes (actually, not ‘votes’, coerce agreement) because you have taken away the right to put it to a final vote. 

    So the union never calls for a vote, they just keep forcing agreements until they have the 75%.  I don’t mean broken legs, torture coercion, but there are many subtle threats and inducements that can be offered over a beer.  The difference is that there are many people who do not have ‘the stones’ to non-conform in public ever, but they know what is best for them in a secret ballot.  If there is any sort of public ‘supermajority’ clause, this is not spin, it is taking away the right to vote secret or not.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1124 hrs




18. Tuerqas,

    Currently an employer can simply recognize a union based upon a simple majority of union cards signed.  There is no requirement that a secret ballot election be held.  Conversely, they can force a secret ballot, even with 100% of the cards signed, with significant lattitude in hiring and firing throughout the process.

    I understand what you are saying.  The reality is this isn’t always as adversarial as either side claims it is in the public debate.  There are reasons some companies just accept union cards and recognize the union, they have a good relationship with their employees and the union that represents them, and the time and energy and potential for bad blood to develop over an election is seen as unnecessary and undesirable to them.  I was simply suggesting a scenario under which that practice could continue, that also retained the integrity of the election process under more contentious circumstances.

    Further, the one thing that I always thinks get lost in this debate (and I know as a comment on a blog this is going to come off flippant, but it isn’t intended to be in anyway) is that employees have a choice of whether or not to work in a union work place.  If they are in the minority of people who oppose the union at their company, they are free to go look for work in a non-union setting, just like someone who is in a non-union job is free to apply for a union job.  The same choice you support still exists, and it works both ways.  It may or may not be a condition of employment, and it is a factor one must consider when accepting a job.  Those of us who want to see changes in the law aren’t looking to unionize everyone, just to undo how uneven the playing field got for the anti-union folks to defeat unions in the 80’s.

    Further, I hope you and Owen and others here recognize the power of being able to fire 20 employees, for example, without cause just before an election, even in a workplace where 90% or more want a union, and how quickly that can change people’s minds when they fear retribution.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1200 hrs




19. I agree with what Senator George McGovern wrote in the Wall Sreet Journal , August 8 , 2009

    My Party Should Respect Secret Union Ballots

    By GEORGE MCGOVERN
    As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I’ve participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn’t always win, but I always respected the process.

    Voting is an immense privilege.

    That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.”
    I agree with what Senator George McGovern wrote in the Wall Sreet Journal , Auguat 8 , 2009
    The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1347 hrs




20. Jim-
    I’m thinking McGovern wrote in August of 2008?, not 2009, right? Cuz otherwise yer, like, from the future…

    Posted by Mike on May 20, 2009 at 1405 hrs




21. Lefty, thanks for a real interchange of thought, in my opinion.  I know there are many cases where a union is acceptable to both sides so I don’t think those instances are really part of this debate.  I think there still should be an official vote called for by the employer if no one else, even if there are 100% signed cards.  It would be revealing if the vote still passed 80-20 or even 90-10.  Why did the minority sign cards?  If it was always a 100% pro-vote after a 100% card signing for a few years in every situation I would be more apt to agree to your suggestions. 

    I will respond to the ‘everyone has a choice’ with 2 comments:  First it is always utterly dismissed when it doesn’t favor a specific idealogical view for either side(don’t send your kids to the library you pay for if you don’t like the titles in the student section, do not visit a smoking bar if you dislike smoking except to gamble, move out of state if you do not like the current politics).  If you want to make a living teaching (and by most accounts it is a calling, not a career choice based on greed) you will join the union. 

    Second, for this argument’s sake, let us assume we are talking about unionizing a current non-union job without 100% consent.  i.e. a person would have to quit or go union as opposed to a new hire situation.  Taken at face value it is not a smart option to leave your job in today’s market.  It is a great time, however, to force new rules on scared workers by either the employer or a new union.  Right now any major forced changes by either, on joe average worker, likely should be looked at with suspicion or outrage.

    On the last, there is indeed power in being able to fire 20 people at a time, but there should be.  Without owners/investors, there is no job in the first place.  They have the power and they deserve it.  If more businesses were willing to go through the expense and bother of training ($500,000 easy for some jobs… in the public sector) new personnel to get rid of bad workers, the entire economy would benefit.  Bad workers may very well end up becoming better workers at their next job… or join a union.  Sorry, but job security and paying for everyone ever to join the public sector until they die and beyond, to spouses, is a major grating point with me so I could not resist the jab(I know the sterotype is not universal, but it is prevalent.) 

    If public officials and staff, and teachers are so elite and intelligent, why can’t they plan for their own futures, like most everyone else?  You don’t see former public employees working at McDonalds in their twlight years very often. 

    You said currently a union can go union without a vote etc.  What specifically does this new legislation allow, that was not allowed before that ‘re-levels the playing field’? You say unions lost power in the 80s, but while unions have their place in a booming economy, I think they hurt in a shrinking economy.  UAW workers did not deserve to get money before investors and creditors.  That decision does/will have a negative impact on the economy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1439 hrs




22. Tuerqas,

    I don’t disagree with what you were saying in rebuttal to my argument that could be summed up as…, “don’t like it, find another job…,”  I certainly understand all the obstacles in play.  I just think the ability to make choices gets swallowed up in the rhetoric over this issue.

    The big changes are who has the ability to force an election, what is and is not allowed under the law by the employer in influencing their employees decisions to vote for or against unionization, a mechanism for settling first bargain contracts, and putting teeth back into the NLRB’s ability to enforce laws on the books.

    One thing that isn’t being talked about, that unions want as badly as the changes in the card check and election process, is the ability to force a first settlement.  Under current law if a contract isn’t agreed to within the first year after a vote it becomes legal to run a decertifying election to disband the union.  Anti-union employers intentionally drag out the contract negotiations over the first year and recruit employees to force a decertification vote in exchange for favorable standing with the employer.

    Additionally, the NLRB was essentially neutered two and a half decades ago and has never been restored in either power or funding and staffing.  So not only was their authority to oversee management labor negotiations reduced, their ability to enforce the laws still on the books was effectively eliminated in the process.

    So there is a lot out there.

    And again, I know that there is this American ideal of the secret ballot, and it is something that people want to preserve, and I get that.  But the significant departure in this bill isn’t that it allows for card check to form a union, it is that the employer is no longer the entity with the decision making authority over whether the election is held.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1459 hrs




23. Last first, so you are saying that currently only the employer can force a vote?  Is there a super majority clause in the current legislation?

    I understand the stall tactic that an employer currently uses to the detriment of the union, but more specifically, how much power would be given to the union to force an agreement?  Like I said before, the owner should have more power.  Unions are a positive when management abuses the power they have, but just like ATV was saying in a different post about Government:

    Having worked in and around government at all levels, I can safely tell you that, in general, the “common man’s” opinion A>doesn’t carry a whole lot of weight, and B>nor should it. That sounds harsh but let me explain.

    Why does the common man have the right to dictate to the owner, but not to Government?  To me there seems to be a direct parallel, yet the rights that the constitution guarantees are conveniently disregarded because of College education(elitism) by Government officials even as they dictate to private companies infringing on equivalent company rights.

    Sorry, moving tangentally again.  The problem with a deeper discussion is lack of knowledge on my part.  I do not know the limits that were taken away in the 80s and I do not know the specifics on what the legislation does now to change it.

    To bare bones down to one issue at a time, at least, answer one question directly if you know.  Is there a supermajority clause in the legislation of any % (75%, 100%, etc.)that would allow unions to bypass or not need a vote?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1526 hrs




24. Tuerqas,

    I can’t speak with authority, but I do not believe any super majority provision exists.

    When I say force an agreement, I mean an arbitration process.  You get to a point where the sides don’t agree, each submits its last best offer and a third party intervenes and makes a ruling or issues an opinion, depending on how binding you want an arbitrator’s decision to be.

    The way this should be done, when talking about Labor and Employer relations is determining a process agreed upon by all parties.  I wouldn’t argue it is happening now, nor would I argue it happened the other way two decades ago.  In both cases it is/was unfortunate.  I would say that the current stall of this legislation, and the current retooling that it sounds like is going on behind closed doors, means that business has done one hell of a job of re-asserting itself amid a climate where many thought this was a foregone conclusion last November.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1545 hrs




25. So, the more I know, the less I know.  There are too many ifs and maybes to agree or disagree.  I would have no trouble with your first point having a specific number of cards signed triggering an election. Frankly, the lower the % number the better from a mgmt or worker perspective.  I would have a huge problem with any super majority superceding a secret vote or any publicizing of the voting whatsoever from either perspective.  It would basically publicize the support and resistance, thus killing the secret vote before it could happen.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1559 hrs




26. lets do away with all secret ballots. No secret ballots for Democratic senators, when they vote for the leadership of their party.
    If secret ballots are bad, lets pass a law making all voting non-secret, in local, state and national elections.
    new slogan for the Democratic party ” No secret ballots for the workers”

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1616 hrs




27. I’m all for this, personally.  Now if anyone tries to unionize my shop, I can know who they are and organize a campaign of terror and physical violence against them with the rest of the hard-working individuals in the place!

    I realize modern liberals are mostly stupid, but the fact that they never, ever stop to consider unintended consequences sure does make me feel better about our chances of beating them in the long run.

    Posted by Mike Gallo on May 20, 2009 at 1732 hrs




28. I think the secret ballot should be held no matter what, after you collect enough cards to make a ballot necessary.  (45%) 

    The binding arbitration part I have a bigger issue with.  I think you should certainly have a right to form a union, and the owner should have the right to tell the entire union to take a hike.  In a lot of cases the hassles of training an entirely new staff are much less than the hassles of dealing with a union.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 0938 hrs