Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: In Employee Free Choice Act, a Numbers Game for La...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-02T04:20:56.083-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 ...

2009-04-16T02:09:00.000-04:00

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇 ...

2009-03-28T05:28:00.000-04:00

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風成人論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

@Intellectual Redneck:Apparently, you are more red...

2009-02-14T00:28:00.000-05:00

@Intellectual Redneck:

Apparently, you are more redneck than intellectual. The EFCA will save far more jobs than it costs.

No offense to those pre-emptively fired, but this is like complaining about the shot that cures your otherwise fatal disease.

Since I started working 35 years ago, employers have grown more and more callous, calculating, and ruthless toward employees. Although I escaped the rat race through good fortune; the modern low wage employee is a virtual slave, expendable, exploited, emotionally abused. Easy unions will turn the tide against the grubby fisted overlords, and if it is no longer worth it to them: FINE, take your ill-gotten gains and close up shop. A group of their enterprising employees will fill the market niche for less, making more money for themselves and ripping off customers for less.

Let them form partnerships and compete against each other, better to have twenty small partnerships sharing the market than one giant asshole.

The Employee Free Choice Act (card check) is costi...

2009-02-13T21:18:00.000-05:00

The Employee Free Choice Act (card check) is costing jobs now. Many employers are facing the difficult task of what to do with their excess workforce in these slow economic times. Many are choosing to have a traditional layoff. My own company has been forced to have a layoff. However, fear of passage of the Employee Free Choice Act is forcing some companies to make the difficult decision to permanently fire employees. These fired employees will not have recall rights. If they are rehired, they will have to start all over for wages and benefits. Why is this? Fired employees can not be a part of a unionization campaign. If they have signed cards or sign cards in the future, these cards will not count under the EFCA. Most employers believe the 'card check' legislation will pass this year. President Obama supports this legislation and democrats control both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives has already passed this legislation. Employers are terrified of how easy it will be to unionize their workforces when this law passes. They are taking every step possible to prevent this from occurring. Unfortunately, this has a bad effect on employees who are being downsized. You can find information about what the Employees Free Choice Act(card check) is and how to fight back against 'card check' here.

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-01-17T01:02:00.000-05:00

@Aquaria: First, I am a fan of unions, but I am no...

2008-12-28T16:50:00.000-05:00

@Aquaria: First, I am a fan of unions, but I am not a fan of seniority promotions, in fact it is nearly the stupidest standard for promotion and retention imaginable.

Just because it prevents subjective decision making doesn't make it good; it is completely arbitrary. Why not promote based on how fast somebody can do word jumbles, or high score in Scrabble? It is just as determinative as seniority at determining how productive somebody is, or how effective as a manager or team leader, and by that I mean not predictive at all.

I believe strongly in collective bargaining, but it is possible to do that and still believe in merit based and economic based promotion. People should NOT get more salary based on seniority, they should get more salary because they are more economically productive, efficient, make fewer mistakes, or make more right decisions. We can develop more objective measurements of worker value to the health of the corporation besides how long they have survived their job. Time in grade does NOT translate to experience or wisdom or greater value at all, we have all known dummies that never seem to learn anything; the workers that have one year of experience twenty times instead of twenty years of learning and improvement.

The union exists to prevent corporate management from hogging all the profit for themselves and the shareholders and screwing the workers into poverty. Everybody has a stake in the continuing operation and profitability of the corporation, and promoting people automatically on arbitrary grounds is movement in the wrong direction.

It is 100% in the interest of the workers to make the profit pie bigger, and that means promoting people and paying people based on merit, measured objectively so it doesn't leave room for the arbitrary bias, bigotry and prejudice you mentioned. The more profit the corporation makes the more we can demand as our fair share and the easier it is for management to concede it.

Union negotiators are famously tough nuts, but they fail miserably when it comes to negotiating with their own members. Just because something is objective doesn't make it fair, and seniority is not just an arbitrary measurement of worth it is a counter-productive measurement of worth. Unions should be trying to promote the best and brightest, not the oldest and sleepiest. A more efficient work force is a more profitable work force and if the union negotiates with management properly, a better paid work force. Profit and cost reduction and efficiencies and waste control all flow from the bottom up, and unions should be all about making the workers and the corporate leaders and investors a partnership in profit with a fair share to each.

Unions promote mediocrity.Show me ONE independent,...

2008-12-26T05:31:00.000-05:00

Unions promote mediocrity.

Show me ONE independent, objective study that shows union workers are either less productive or do shoddier work than non-union employees.

I can tell you now that you won't find it. If it existed, it would have been trumpeted through Congress and every media outlet until you'd get sick of hearing it.

So what union have you worked for to know whether or not they promote mediocrity?

If you'd actually worked in a union shop, you'd know you're basing things on what you've "heard" about unions, from some pretty ignorant and biased sources.

Know what's the most disgusting part of the rest of your little screed? Most workers are capable and good employees, but even the ones who are good at several facets of a job aren't perfect. At least with the seniority system in the unions, you don't have to put up with not getting a new job just because the boss was a Methodist and you weren't. Or because you're a woman. Or because you're an ethnic minority. Or because you didn't praise the boss's wife's beauty enough. Or the boss didn't like the way you wore your hair.

Oh, non-union management hides their extremely biased and subjective selection methods behind some pretty slick little games, but they are rarely fair in their assessments. There are always--always--subjective factors that are beyond anyone's control in non-union promotion practices.

Seniority wipes that crap out. And again, overall, it's fair to do it that way, because most workers are good workers. It's only corporatist fucktards who think otherwise.

It's not the fault of workers that management is too arrogant/incompetent/stupid to get rid of slackers. It's really easy to do. All you have to do is follow the corrective practices as laid out in the union contract.

If there are slackers persisting in a unit, it's because the manager didn't take the steps he was supposed to take, in the order he was supposed to take them, to have the employee correct his behavior, and if that didn't happen, to remove the employee. Or he caved in the union negotiation and let the loser come back to work. You don't know how many times I've seen people who deserved to lose their jobs come back because management screwed up the process, somehow.

The union isn't to blame for that. Management is. Just like they're to blame when companies go under, not the workers. They're not the ones making the decisions about whether to invest in R&D or buy a new personal jet. They're not the ones who decide to make fleets of SUVs when oil won't be cheap forever.

Ahh, yes, right-to-work is one more item on the gr...

2008-12-23T05:02:00.000-05:00

Ahh, yes, right-to-work is one more item on the growing list of things I hate about Texas. Unfortunately, it's not worth it to leave while all my family and friends still live here...

Well said EV. Well done.

2008-12-22T23:16:00.000-05:00

Well said EV. Well done.

1sunnyday said: This fight has absolutely nothing ...

2008-12-22T22:25:00.000-05:00

1sunnyday said: This fight has absolutely nothing to do with ballot secrecy. Nothing at all. All this talk of secrecy is an issue fabricated by the anti-union forces to make the bill seem undemocratic. The truth is far more complicated and unseemly.

The language of EFCA (H.R. 800, 110th Congress) clearly dictates otherwise. Currently, § 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) allows any labor organization to petition for an election in which employees can exercise their § 7 rights by deciding whether or not they want to unionize. Section 2 of EFCA amends § 9(c) of the NLRA by dictating that when a labor organization files petition accompanied by authorization cards signed by a majority of the bargaining unit “the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative…” The direct and inescapable consequence of this change in the law would be to eliminate secret ballot elections in labor organizing campaigns. If EFCA “has absolutely nothing to do with ballot secrecy,” then why does § 2 of EFCA amend the NLRA with respect to ballot secrecy? The facts simply contradict your argument.

The pro-union forces don't really want non-secret ballots, they just want a system that can't be gamed by employers. The anti-union forces don't give a damn about secrecy at all, they just want to keep unions out.

You are conflating two issues here. It may very well be true that employers do want a system that enables them to keep unions out. Even if we assume that to be true (a safe assumption, I agree), that does not say anything whatsoever regarding EFCA’s impact on secret ballot voting. If pro-union forces want a system that gives them a better shot at organizing, they have every right to work towards that end. Eliminating the secret ballot, a fundamental feature of American democratic decision making, however, is far from a necessary component of such an effort.

So why are the unions asking for a non-secret instant vote? Long experience has proven that under current US law, an election, any election, secret ballot or not, just doesn't work. Elections have to be planned, elections take times, that time allows employers to bring in union busting "consultants". These consultants are extremely good at delaying a vote as long as possible. Their goal is to see that the vote never happens at all. They use every possible tactic to identify the "ringleaders" of the union and have the employer come up with a reason to fire them. When a single branch or store is thought to be unionizing, the company will ensure that store has high employee turnover, which naturally dilutes the percentage of pro union employees.

The solution to these problems is not eliminating free choice in a secret ballot. The solution to these problems is to amend the law to directly address the problems you identify. Direct changes would include the following:

(1)Requiring equal time for both pro- and anti-union presentations during organizing campaigns. You are correct that under current law, employers may require employees to attend anti-union presentations during work hours. Unions, however, under the Republic Aviation and Lechmere standards, are able only to conduct outreach off of company property (if by non-employee organizers) or on company property but during non-work hours and in non-work areas (if by employees). This amounts to an unfair informational advantage for employers, as evidenced by the fact that most unions do not petition for an election until they’ve got signed authorization cards from 70+% of the bargaining unit (with the expectation that 20-odd percent will change sides during the campaign). Congress would be right to remedy this imbalance.

(2)Setting a somewhat shorter campaign period in law. Right now much of the law with respect to the length and nature of organizing campaigns is left to the NLRB to establish through case-by-base adjudication. Congress can easily, however, override that Board precedent by setting new terms in statute. EFCA can help by setting some guidelines as regards the maximum duration of campaigns, etc. That said, during a campaign, employers should have every right to speak their side of the story. Like all elections, representation elections are best when the voters are as informed as possible, and allowing employer speech serves that end just as much as allowing union speech does.

(3)Current law already has robust protections for union members who choose to exercise their § 7 rights to organize, etc. See Budd Mfg. Co.; Mueller Brass Co.. Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA explicitly prohibits employer discrimination against employees for involvement in union activities. If enforcement of that provision has been lacking, the remedy is not taking away the secret ballot, it is staffing the NLRB and its regional offices with better members, or perhaps giving the NLRB more financial resources to conduct enforcement activities and investigations.

Companies fighting against unionization force employees to attend on-the-clock meetings with non-stop scare tactics about unionization. Those attempting to unionize are do not have the right to hold workplace counter meetings.

See (1) above. I agree with this point.

Further, companies can fire union organizers with the most minimal of consequences. The penalties are so inconsequential and delayed to be almost meaningless. When a penalty is given, it's often years later. The large companies spend far more on consultants than they do on fines for firing union organizers.

Fine points all. There’s a pretty good argument that both employer and union wrongdoing would be much more efficiently deterred by giving the NLRB authority to issue monetary penalties (currently under the NLRA the Board has only injunctive powers). To the extent dispute processes need to be expedited, EFCA could overrule Hammontree and allow some grievances to be exempted from internal appeal exhaustion procedures. Again, none of these changes to the law require doing away with secret ballots.

The system is so sharply tilted against unionization that it is clearly impossible to form a union in great many US workplaces. How impossible? There is not a single unionized Wal Mart in the entire US.

You are assuming that unionizing Wal Mart stores is a good idea. I don’t know if it is or not, but this fact alone does nothing to prove your point. The decline in unionization documented above by Nate could correspond with an increasing number of employees deciding that unions just won’t make them better off. The decline could reflect a view that unions have been a source of corruption that employees want to avoid. The decline could correspond with rulings from the NLRB that advantage employers. The decline could result from all of the above, or from other factors. But surely if there’s a case to be made that the law alone is the problem, you haven’t made it. Under current law, employees are free to do all the organizing they want free from reprisal. See §§ 7-8 NLRA. If some minor adjustments are necessary as described above, fine. But none of these require doing away with secret ballot voting.

The unions simply want a level playing field, they want a chance. They realize that any system requiring a planned election (secret or not) is highly susceptible to gamesmanship. I suppose a bill could be written to try to plug the loopholes and level the playing field. Such a bill would be very, very unlikely to plug all the loop holes. The big corporations would have huge incentive to spend tremendous amounts of money finding any loophole or any reason to keep parts of such legislation in the courts. The unions realize that if just a single major loophole remained, companies could continue their current practice of completely and totally shutting out unions.

I salute your recognition that a reform package retaining secret ballot elections could potentially work. As evidenced by the above, it is my sincere belief that such a package could succeed. Yes, there will *always* be loopholes and litigation. Giving the NLRB the appropriate authority to create interstitial law [via rulemaking or adjudication, either of which would be sufficient under the Administrative Procedure Act] plugging those gaps would address the problem at least for the most part.

This is why the unions want card check, which is really nothing more than an 'instant' election. The unions' goal isn't to remove secrecy, it's to bring about instancy. They want a vote held immediately, without giving a company time to bring in union busting consultants, without giving a company the time to fire union organizers, without giving a company the time to move union-supporting employees to other locations or make a lot of redundancies. It's thought to be impossible (or very difficult) to have such instancy while also having secrecy.

Then why not have short-track “Canadian-style” election campaigns? Those work pretty well, according to what I’ve heard. EFCA could re-write the NLRA to place a 2 week limit on election campaigns, but it doesn’t do that. Instead, it uses a meat axe where a scalpel would’ve been more appropriate.

Moreover, card-check is a far, far cry from an “instant election.” In a card-check scenario, the employer doesn’t even necessarily even know an organizing campaign is underway, and is thus prevented from speaking its point of view. Since unions are all about collective bargaining between employees and employers (see § 1 NLRA), employers can and should have a voice during organizing drives. Moreover, card check is flawed in that it practically invites coercion. Organizers can visit employees at home, or pressure them to sign under duress, or do any number of other things that are just as unfair as the bad employer behavior you document above. EFCA does absolutely nothing to combat or even deter unions from unfairly coercing employees from signing authorization cards. The point of the NLRA is to allow employees to freely decide whether or not to engage in concerted activity, and the NLRB works hard (or *should* work hard) to guarantee fair “laboratory conditions” in which employees can make that choice. See Gissel Packing.

There’s another problem with EFCA’s approach to card-check. It says nothing as to when a signed authorization card expires. Lets say SEIU goes and tries to organize a Wal Mart location in early 2009, but falls short of a majority. If SEIU comes back in 2011 and tries again, are the old 2009 cards signed by employees still on the payroll valid? Prudence dictates that employee decisions should only be valid for a fixed period, but EFCA makes no provision for this.

The lack of secrecy is not the goal. The lack of secrecy is just a consequence an instant election. A consequence that has only become necessary because large US corporations have made it literally impossible to form a union.

The repeal of secret ballot elections is NOT necessary, as I have demonstrated above. The push for card check certification is an unnecessary over-reach by the unions, and thanks to Senate Rule XXII, the ultimate result on this point will (likely) be that secret ballot elections will be retained in § 9(c) of the NLRA. That said, I agree that there are a number of reforms that could improve the balance in current labor law, and EFCA can serve as a vehicle for those reforms.

@ Jack-be-nimbleNice come back, really...So I'm wr...

2008-12-22T21:10:00.000-05:00

@ Jack-be-nimble

Nice come back, really...

So I'm wrong, and you're right, and "I" need to research all the ways I'm wrong? You're joking, right?

Saying "you're wrong, I'm right" isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

So how exactly are my points wrong? Is there a clandestine Wal Mart somewhere in the US that has secretly unionized?

Unless you can provide some counter points, I'll have to put you in the category of faithful Republicans that know unions are evil because for the simple reason that they've always known unions were evil.

Simply stating that big business, free enterprise, small government, few regulations and NO UNIONS are good for the country, is a whole lot different from being able to explain exactly precisely why those policies are best course of action.... You've done zero explaining.

The truth is that we've been traveling the pro-business at all costs road for over a decade, the entire nation can see just how "well" its worked out for us.

Low regulation government has screwed up the country to an extreme degree. The public is more than ready to give something else a try. You can't even explain why you don't like card check, good luck trying to stop it.

1sunnyday, you are either foolishly ignorant or na...

2008-12-22T19:41:00.000-05:00

1sunnyday, you are either foolishly ignorant or naive.

Whether Card check will be successful or not is unknown. You need to read the history of it and the reasons it was eliminated before you come on here and blather such nonsense.

Please read the history, then you can comment.

@ Jack-be-nimble and others.This fight has absolut...

2008-12-22T18:30:00.000-05:00

@ Jack-be-nimble and others.

This fight has absolutely nothing to do with ballot secrecy. Nothing at all. All this talk of secrecy is an issue fabricated by the anti-union forces to make the bill seem undemocratic. The truth is far more complicated and unseemly.

The pro-union forces don't really want non-secret ballots, they just want a system that can't be gamed by employers. The anti-union forces don't give a damn about secrecy at all, they just want to keep unions out.

Anyone that tells you corporate management is truly concerned about worker's secrecy in this is lying. These anti-union forces are the only players even mentioning the secrecy issue.

So why are the unions asking for a non-secret instant vote? Long experience has proven that under current US law, an election, any election, secret ballot or not, just doesn't work. Elections have to be planned, elections take times, that time allows employers to bring in union busting "consultants". These consultants are extremely good at delaying a vote as long as possible. Their goal is to see that the vote never happens at all. They use every possible tactic to identify the "ringleaders" of the union and have the employer come up with a reason to fire them. When a single branch or store is thought to be unionizing, the company will ensure that store has high employee turnover, which naturally dilutes the percentage of pro union employees.

Companies fighting against unionization force employees to attend on-the-clock meetings with non-stop scare tactics about unionization. Those attempting to unionize are do not have the right to hold workplace counter meetings. Further, companies can fire union organizers with the most minimal of consequences. The penalties are so inconsequential and delayed to be almost meaningless. When a penalty is given, it's often years later. The large companies spend far more on consultants than they do on fines for firing union organizers.

The system is so sharply tilted against unionization that it is clearly impossible to form a union in great many US workplaces. How impossible? There is not a single unionized Wal Mart in the entire US.

The unions simply want a level playing field, they want a chance. They realize that any system requiring a planned election (secret or not) is highly susceptible to gamesmanship. I suppose a bill could be written to try to plug the loopholes and level the playing field. Such a bill would be very, very unlikely to plug all the loop holes. The big corporations would have huge incentive to spend tremendous amounts of money finding any loophole or any reason to keep parts of such legislation in the courts. The unions realize that if just a single major loophole remained, companies could continue their current practice of completely and totally shutting out unions.

This is why the unions want card check, which is really nothing more than an 'instant' election. The unions' goal isn't to remove secrecy, it's to bring about instancy. They want a vote held immediately, without giving a company time to bring in union busting consultants, without giving a company the time to fire union organizers, without giving a company the time to move union-supporting employees to other locations or make a lot of redundancies. It's thought to be impossible (or very difficult) to have such instancy while also having secrecy.

The lack of secrecy is not the goal. The lack of secrecy is just a consequence an instant election. A consequence that has only become necessary because large US corporations have made it literally impossible to form a union.

Perhaps had these corporations given the unions a few crumbs, a few stores, made unionization not completely impossible, card check wouldn't have as much support as it does. The big corporations got greedy. The fact that the largest employer in the US doesn't have a single unionized store gives card check more ammunition than almost any other factor.

@ mhz - Your three proposed "options" for respondi...

2008-12-22T18:17:00.000-05:00

@ mhz - Your three proposed "options" for responding to the need for 60 votes on major legislation are not actual options. If you take a look at the comments to Nate's post a few days ago about filibuster rates, you'll see why.

@ 1sunnyday - Agree in full that there will be a significant number of Senators who split their votes on EFCA (e.g. yea on cloture, nay on final passage). EFCA in its current form will not draw any GOP votes on cloture other than Specter, and even he is not a definite vote considering the extremely tough situation he faces in 2010 (pressure in the primary from the right and in the general from the left). Voinovich is a pretty staunch pro-business guy, and seems like an unlikely candidate to support cloture. Snowe and Collins maybe. I think a few of those moderate R's begin to change their votes when you amend EFCA to reinstate the secret ballot requirement in Sec. 9 of the NLRA and do a few of the other things I outlined above. When those amendments are incorporated and the D's make other related legislative trades, you'll see 61-65 Senators support cloture.

Once cloture is achieved, there'll be all kinds of amendments from the left and the right. Some hyper-liberal northern members may try to repeal Sec. 14(b) of NLRA, which grants states the right to adopt right-to-work status. These efforts, if they're executed, will fail miserably. There may also be a move from the left to legislatively overturn Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, a recent SCOTUS case which struck down CA's statute prohibiting state contractors from using state funds to promote or speak against unionization. Unsure as to how such an amendment would come out, but it'd probably fail as well.

Final thought: Unions have all kinds of problems, as we've seen in recent decades. That said, I do think that in at least some contexts they play a constructive role. Many of our workplace safety and environmental statutes rely extensively on private enforcement, since the agencies charged with governmental enforcement are leanly staffed. Unions help fill this void by providing third party oversight and grievance/litigation actions necessary to enforce OSHA, etc.

How about a little help for us who are "color chal...

2008-12-22T18:07:00.000-05:00

How about a little help for us who are "color challenged"? :). Such as NOT color-coding graphs but using different line symbols instead? Even many who are not color blind prob'ly have trouble seeing the colors when the legend lines are so thin.....

Obama's choice for Labor Secretary (Hilda Solis) h...

2008-12-22T17:15:00.000-05:00

Obama's choice for Labor Secretary (Hilda Solis) has said she will fight for EFCA, but recently criticized the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for not having SECRET ballots.

Can you spell hypocrisy?

Hey mister.....Are you voting for the union? You ...

2008-12-22T17:04:00.000-05:00

Hey mister.....Are you voting for the union? You know how important the union is to your wages and safety. You gotta remember, there are plenty of other people that would gladly take your spot in the union. You want to be able to support that new family of yours right? Remember, many others are signing up for the union. If the union passes and you are shown to have voted against you will lose your benefits......I know where you live......

Just sign the union card so we know you are with us.

Various elements of EFCA will be horse-traded with...

2008-12-22T15:45:00.000-05:00

Various elements of EFCA will be horse-traded with the Republicans, as will the bill itself in return for the Dems dropping some other bill the Republicans don't want passed.

Nate, I think you're over analyzing this. Senator...

2008-12-22T15:27:00.000-05:00

Nate, I think you're over analyzing this.

Senators can vote for cloture and against the final measure, it's not that uncommon.

A bill this important to the Democrats will see ALL the Dems voting for cloture. Were a single "lone wolf" Democratic Senator keeps this bill from cloture, there would not be a doghouse remote enough to describe that Senator's loss of political juice. Pet projects, committee seats, election funding would all be risked by taking a "lone wolf" stand against the party on such a landmark issue.

Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and a few other Democratic Senators will be under heavy pressure from all sides. The easiest thing for them to do will be to split the baby, vote for cloture and against the measure. In the final analysis, those Senators will be able to say they voted against the bill.

Once cloture is achieved, as many as nine Democrats could probably vote against the final bill while still ensuring its passage. Such political cover doesn't come for free, splitting one's vote on this would certainly raise the ire of the unions. I can't imagine a very high number of Democratic senators would be willing to risk the consequences. For those small few like Blanch Lincoln, a split vote is a likely strategy.

I haven't had a chance to read the comments yet, b...

2008-12-22T15:26:00.000-05:00

I haven't had a chance to read the comments yet, but I have a few ideas re: process and politics on the EFCA issue, and will try to post later.

As a preview, I predict that EFCA will pass and be signed into law, but with the following modifications:

1.) Secret ballot elections will be retained, but on an extremely truncated (e.g. "Canadian-style" campaign schedule).

2.) The period leading to mandatory interest arbitration following impasse will be extended from the EFCA bill introduced in the 110th Congress.

3.) The enforcement penalties provisions will be modified in several respects (e.g. to permit monetary damages not just against employers, but against labor organizations commiting extreme ULPs as well)

4.) The NLRB will receive a huge infusion of new funding to carry out its expanded mission.

5.) There will be an effort to change the law such that NLRB Member terms do not expire until a successor is confirmed. Currently, the Board has only 2 members due to holds in the Senate. This membership issue has debilitated the Board over the past few years, and potentially imperiled a number of its decisions legally (since a 2 member Board acting as a quorum of a 3 member Board may not have actual authority under law -- though no court has ruled on this issue yet AFAIK).

Unions promote mediocrityNo, the typical american ...

2008-12-22T15:21:00.000-05:00

Unions promote mediocrity

No, the typical american business promotes mediocrity, by removing any incentive for workers to work hard and advance. Walmart isn't unionized, but I know from relatives that work there, they don't do one thing to make workers want to work there, and their rules are designed to stifle innovation and thwart any attempt to do anything other than exactly what they are told to do. Their schedules are computer generated and screw up the lives of their workers and make it impossible to work there for some of them; or changes their bus commute to over an hour each way.

Mediocrity is the result of a lack of effort to excel, and when excelling has no reward, or even incurs penalties (as it does at Walmart), nobody excels.

What promotes mediocrity is standardization of duties and pay based on synthetically designed "roles" and thus not engaging people's brains. Now that may be a hallmark of union thinking, but that is in response to management's original sin of exploiting their power over captive workers and over-working them or putting them in danger. Unions and standardization were one solution to that, but not the only solution.

So yeah, you can say Unions promote mediocrity, but Management greed and sociopathy promotes Unions.

As I recall, this is exactly what happened the las...

2008-12-22T15:15:00.000-05:00

As I recall, this is exactly what happened the last time there was a chance to pass right-to-organize legislation in the Senate (1993/94), when it fell two votes short (58) because the two Democratic senators from Arkansas voted against cloture.

Unions promote mediocrity.Exactly!

2008-12-22T15:08:00.000-05:00

Unions promote mediocrity.

Exactly!

It's pretty simple. In TN, they can actually hear ...

2008-12-22T15:07:00.000-05:00

It's pretty simple. In TN, they can actually hear what the wages are in Detroit, via the telephone, the tv, and nowadays even those interwebs. Pay much less than the UAW gets, and workers start to think they want to get them some of that union action.

Only if those rednecks want to end up destroying the companies they work for.

Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: In Employee Free Choice Act, a Numbers Game for La...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 ...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 ...

@Intellectual Redneck:Apparently, you are more red...

The Employee Free Choice Act (card check) is costi...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

@Aquaria: First, I am a fan of unions, but I am no...

Unions promote mediocrity.Show me ONE independent,...

Ahh, yes, right-to-work is one more item on the gr...

Well said EV. Well done.

1sunnyday said: This fight has absolutely nothing ...

@ Jack-be-nimbleNice come back, really...So I'm wr...

1sunnyday, you are either foolishly ignorant or na...

@ Jack-be-nimble and others.This fight has absolut...

@ mhz - Your three proposed "options" for respondi...

How about a little help for us who are "color chal...

Obama's choice for Labor Secretary (Hilda Solis) h...

Hey mister.....Are you voting for the union? You ...

Various elements of EFCA will be horse-traded with...

Nate, I think you're over analyzing this. Senator...

I haven't had a chance to read the comments yet, b...

Unions promote mediocrityNo, the typical american ...

As I recall, this is exactly what happened the las...

Unions promote mediocrity.Exactly!

It's pretty simple. In TN, they can actually hear ...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 ...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇 ...