Comments on: The Big Lie about the Employee Free Choice Act

By: AndyM

AndyM — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:10:25 +0000

I was accusing you of doing that. I didn’t think you were discussing the issue, only taking issue with a minor point of what I was saying. Thank you for stating your point. If I am trying to deny anybody their voice, I am wrong. However, I was saying if all you want to do is nitpick, not to bother, that I’m not interested. That it came out as saying I deny you the right to post is wrong of me, and you are right to straighten me out. I appreciate you saying you have no argument with my comment, I see it as you are considering the subject. To me, that is what we should discuss. I apologize for saying go elsewhere. I should have said, if you don’t want to discuss the issue, then I don’t wish to have a discussion with you.
Thanks.

By: newtonusr

newtonusr — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:59:47 +0000

I actually have no argument with your comments.

But this is where the public - anyone - gets to write. You, me, anyone can author here.

If you don’t like the ideas expressed, you are free to disagree in print, as you have done. However, if you want to exclude ideas because you do not like them, you are the one with a problem. Either you believe in anyone being free to express their opinions and ideas, or you do not. If you recommend censoring ANYONE, you are, in my opinion, trolling, and at a disadvantage in the argument, and your opinion will not stand scrutiny.

Think again before suggesting that anyone be censored.

By: AndyM

AndyM — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:48:01 +0000

I notice no comment about the substance of what I say. Only my error about where the post is.

Newtonusr, if you don’t want to discuss the issue, but only nitpick, please go elsewhere. I’m happy to discuss issues, not play games.

You would take away my right to secret vote, if you don’t see that as a violation of basic principles of democracy, I believe you are wrong.

By: newtonusr

newtonusr — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:18:55 +0000

In that case, FDL should refrain from making any more posts like the above.

Yeah, I’m sure the management of this public author - repeat, public author region of the blog will get right on it.

By: AndyM

AndyM — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:11:28 +0000

In that case, FDL should refrain from making any more posts like the above. Or any stories about how EFCA will ‘right’ things. An honest post would say something like, “We believe the system is rigged. We believe the system is rigged in favor of management. We believe there are ‘plenty of laws already on the books’ to counter this abuse. However, we don’t believe those laws are being enforced. We don’t believe they will be enforced. Therefore, we believe we should rig the system in favor of unions. We understand that once this law is passed, unions will be begin efforts (legal or otherwise) to make as many organizations into unions as possible. We understand all kinds of intimidation MAY be used to get workers to sign the check cards. However, we believe that this is better for workers, whether they think so or not.” My question to you is, will you be just as fast to represent Joe Schmoe who comes to you and tells you he was coerced into signing a check card he otherwise would not have signed? What if he has video proof? What if he only has ‘psychological scars’ from the ‘talk’ he received from the union organizer? 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Rigging the system in unions favor will work, but at what price? And if management has found ways to circumvent the existing laws, union organizers will find a way to circumvent rules they don’t like. Trading one evil for another is wrong. KEEP THE SECRET VOTE!

By: ubetchaiam

ubetchaiam — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:30:29 +0000

“Add more bite to the penalties, don’t rig the system.”; the ’system’ is already ‘rigged’. It’s like gun laws; there are plenty of laws already on the books to track/prevent those who shouldn’t be trusted with such weapons but they’re not enforced. Same with labor laws.A couple of months ago i took a company to court for violating CA labor laws; won the case(I was the plaintiff,not the attorney) but the CA Labor Board didn’t pursue it(that’s the first step before going to court) and the Company-defendant- wasn’t enjoined to stop it’s violations.
Yes, ‘justice for all’ is the motto but some get more ‘justice’ than others(usually those with the most money).

By: AndyM

AndyM — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:28:48 +0000

Hey Ubetchaiam,

Nice to talk with you again. Here’s the two things about the article you linked: 1) The post seems to suggest the system will be completely rigged either for union organizers or for management, so it would be better to completely rig it in favor of the union organizers. 2) The only part of the EFCA worth a damn is the provision to end the secret ballot, the rest is nice window dressing, but really has no teeth. The legislation is meant to toughen the penalties against management if they try the intimidation methods mentioned. Are these insufficient unto themselves to end the intimidation? Then toughen the penalties till they ARE SUFFICIENT to end the intimidation. Two wrongs don’t make a right, so simply rigging the rules to allow union organizers to beat (mentally? emotionally? physically?) employees into signing the cards is just as egregious as the present system. If the union organizers really believe they can win on an even playing field, then a level playing field is all they should need or want. Add more bite to the penalties, don’t rig the system.

By: ubetchaiam

ubetchaiam — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:58:08 +0000

BBBbbbuuutt Obama mentions EFCA

And Andy, card check MAY be easier but it’s easier for a reason

By: AndyM

AndyM — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:10:12 +0000

Gerald, if you believe that union organizers are not going to insist on using employee signature cards as THE way of getting workers to form unions, you’re telling yourself the FIRST big lie (Oh, sure, you can have a secret ballot, but this way is SOOO much easier!!). Once that lie is established, if you believe that union organizers wont strong-arm employees into signing those cards, your telling yourself the SECOND big lie.
Change that one provision, and you have a great piece of legislation. Keep that provision as it is, and you have a badly flawed piece of legislation. It will be a baseball bat for union organizers.
Is FDL financially supported by unions? I ask because it is SO obvious that that part of the proposed legislation is awful, yet this site puts the blinders on and continues to endorse it. This site likes to pride itself about uncovering the truth. Why are you doing just the opposite on this legislation?