Obama New Union voting rules

[North by Northwest]

Fact Check: Would Obama 'take away right' to secret ballot for unions?
Posted: 02:48 PM ET
Sen McCain challend Obama over unions Monday.

The Statement
In a speech Monday, October 13, in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain took on Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama's stance on unions. "Senator Obama is measuring the drapes (in the White House), and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to … take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections," he said.

Get the facts!

The Facts
McCain is referring to a BY A OBAMA/BIDEN plan supported by labor union leaders. Currently, workers must get a majority of their colleagues to sign an authorization form to ask for union representation — then hold a secret-ballot vote to finalize it. The change Obama supports would let a union be recognized by the National Labor Relations Board immediately after a majority of workers sign the authorization.

Supporters of the change, including the AFL-CIO and other unions, say it would cut down on the ability of employers to pressure their workers to vote against a union. Business groups, meanwhile, say the opposite — that the secret ballot allows workers who don't want to unionize to publicly sign off on the plan, pleasing union leaders, then privately vote against it.

The change is part of the Employee Free-Choice Act, which Obama co-sponsored. The plan is designed to make it easier to create unions in the workplace, and both supporters and opponents agree it would increase the number of union members in the United States. Backers say it will lead to better wages and benefits for workers and increase the size of the middle class, while opponents say it will hurt businesses by costing them more at a time when profits for many are already thin.

The bill passed the House last year by a vote of 241-185. It was also supported in the Senate, 51-48 — but that didn't reach the 60 votes that would have been needed to survive a filibuster on a final vote. That's also not enough to override a veto by President Bush, who is against it (THAT'S A SHOCKER! ). Obama and running mate Sen. Joe Biden voted on June 26, 2007, to move the bill forward, while McCain voted against it.

Verdict: True. McCain accurately represents Obama's stance, although the candidates disagree on the merits of the plan. Organized labor backs Obama's position, while business groups and some non-union workers support McCain's.

 

[lineguy43]

To be truthful I have about had it with unions..The unions of today (with the exception of the longshoreman) have lost their way. It is all about the dues money and not the membership. I endured a long painful reign under the iam then amfa. I now work for FedEx and I make more money and have better benefits than I ever did and I am non-union. Now would FedEx pay me these wages if unions were not around? Probably not. But I was always in the fight for better wages and under amfa we raised the industry bar in terms of pay. I now enjoy the fruits of that labor. While the current NWA scabs enjoy a far lower wage. The Teamsters have been agressive trying to get the mechanic vote at FedEx I have been doing my best to convince my co workers NOT to sign a card. Unions need to be out there but not in my life. I've had enough.

 

[BrownEyedSkyguy]

lineguy43, I'm sorry you take such a dim view of unions. Granted there is good and bad in both union and non-union work environments. Overall, my impression is that a union environment is better.

When I changed companies 12 years ago, I went from $5.50 per hour at my old employer to $10.22 per hour at my new employer for doing the same type of work. My old employer was non-union; my new employer is union. Unskilled work at McDonald's in my city was paying $7.00 per hour to start at the time. You can see how insulting that non-union wage was. In the union work environment, I have better pay and better benefits than I ever had at any non-union employer.

 

[Come Fly with Me]

To be truthful I have about had it with unions..The unions of today (with the exception of the longshoreman) have lost their way. It is all about the dues money and not the membership. I endured a long painful reign under the iam then amfa. I now work for FedEx and I make more money and have better benefits than I ever did and I am non-union. Now would FedEx pay me these wages if unions were not around? Probably not. But I was always in the fight for better wages and under amfa we raised the industry bar in terms of pay. I now enjoy the fruits of that labor. While the current NWA scabs enjoy a far lower wage. The Teamsters have been agressive trying to get the mechanic vote at FedEx I have been doing my best to convince my co workers NOT to sign a card. Unions need to be out there but not in my life. I've had enough.

And the only reason why you enjoy those benefits is b/c UPS who is your competor and is 100% unionize......

 

[lineguy43]

And the only reason why you enjoy those benefits is b/c UPS who is your competor and is 100% unionize......

I don't disagree with that statement..I just said I don't want the union especially the teamsters in my life..I am here to tell you that Fred Smith of FedEx is different from UPS in a lot of ways..Fred Smith saw what a determined company can do to rid themselves of a union aka NWA. NWA proved to the world that you can replace your entire mechanic workforce...This has happened to me once and I am not going to take the risk of it happening again. UPS does not hire like FedEx does...If I had to wait for UPS to hire me I would be broke..I also would have been hired as a part time mechanic something that FedEx does not have. You have your point and now you know mine.

 

[1Conehead]

Sen. Barack Obama's stance on unions. "Senator Obama is measuring the drapes (in the White House), and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to … take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections," he said.

Get the facts!

The Facts
McCain is referring to a BY A OBAMA/BIDEN plan supported by labor union leaders. Currently, workers must get a majority of their colleagues to sign an authorization form to ask for union representation — then hold a secret-ballot vote to finalize it. The change Obama supports would let a union be recognized by the National Labor Relations Board immediately after a majority of workers sign the authorization.

.
[/b]

Why are you afraid of a secret ballot(the way most elections are held).
I have met a lot of people who signed a card for a free beer from the IAM who have no interest in them.
Under the plan you seem to endorse buying votes would be to easy.

 

[North by Northwest]

Why are you afraid of a secret ballot(the way most elections are held).
I have met a lot of people who signed a card for a free beer from the IAM who have no interest in them.
Under the plan you seem to endorse buying votes would be to easy.

I guess it's difficult for you to understand how most democratic elections are held. You know the ones...like the US Federal elections. An election is held, the side with the MOST VOTES wins. Is that a problem for you?

If you don't want to work in a Union eviorn...quit and go work for a non union joint.

 

[Kev3188]

I have met a lot of people who signed a card for a free beer from the IAM who have no interest in them.

Then you've met a lot of sleazebags...

Let's see:

1. They wasted the organizer's time.

2. They wasted their own time.

All for a beer? That's just weak. I thought you non-union guys made plenty? If so, what're you doing scamming for free brew?

 

[JS]

PineyBob is right; vote Libertarian and government will stay out of your way, including formation of a labor union as well as going on strike.

 

[North by Northwest]

More half baked ideas from half wits.

Number one what is the Federal Government doing meddling in the affairs of private organizations such as corporations and unions?

Why do we have the RLA, NLRB etc etc? Not for the benefit of you or I who supposedly gain from an Obama presidency and his Robin Hood tax reform plan.

Say you tax a person who makes over 300,000 and extra 10%. Can he/she afford it? For sure they can. That takes $30,000 out of that persons pocket. Now as a result the 2 domestics he/she paid $300/wk cash under the table are dismissed and into the public welfare system further draining the very resources the taxing of the rich was supposed to fix.

Cause and effect folks. When Government interferes workers lose. Vote Libertarian while you still can.

Number one: Because of extreme greed and abuse demonstrated by American corporations over the last 2 centuries. Legal oversight was the only legal way to rectify a problem that that would have prevented the rise of the largest middle class in the world, thus creating the largest economy in the world (where it is 2/3rds based on consumer spending)

Number two: see number one. American History will give you a clear perspective of WHY these regulations are required. Better yet, ask yourself if you would prefer the wages and standard of living in China vs. the USA.

Your blanket use of "gov. involvement" is un-realistic and is full of holes. You enjoy your way of life in this country BECAUSE of intervention.

Your trickle down economics is a failure...haven't you been around for the last 3 months (8 years) In case you missed it, that trickle down formula was smoke and mirrors and has put the entire planet's economy in a tail spin of destrution.

 

[JS]

Number one: Because of extreme greed and abuse demonstrated by American corporations over the last 2 centuries. Legal oversight was the only legal way to rectify a problem that that would have prevented the rise of the largest middle class in the world, thus creating the largest economy in the world (where it is 2/3rds based on consumer spending)

Number two: see number one. American History will give you a clear perspective of WHY these regulations are required. Better yet, ask yourself if you would prefer the wages and standard of living in China vs. the USA.

Your blanket use of "gov. involvement" is un-realistic and is full of holes. You enjoy your way of life in this country BECAUSE of intervention.

What does this have to do with the government getting out of the way of workers deciding whether to join a labor union?

Your trickle down economics is a failure...haven't you been around for the last 3 months (8 years) In case you missed it, that trickle down formula was smoke and mirrors and has put the entire planet's economy in a tail spin of destrution.

"a tailspin of destruction" ... that piece of vitriol has so much spin it's making me dizzy :wacko:

 

[southwind]

I guess it's difficult for you to understand how most democratic elections are held. You know the ones...like the US Federal elections. An election is held, the side with the MOST VOTES wins. Is that a problem for you?

If you don't want to work in a Union eviorn...quit and go work for a non union joint.

I do work for a non-union joint and before long , you will too ! ............................unless you quit !

 

[1Conehead]

I guess it's difficult for you to understand how most democratic elections are held. You know the ones...like the US Federal elections. An election is held, the side with the MOST VOTES wins. Is that a problem for you?

If you don't want to work in a Union eviorn...quit and go work for a non union joint.

No,most democratic elections are by secret ballot I have no problem with that.
Yes the side with the most true votes should win.
Saying I would like to vote should not constitute a vote.

 

[1Conehead]

Then you've met a lot of sleazebags...

Let's see:

1. They wasted the organizer's time.

2. They wasted their own time.

All for a beer? That's just weak. I thought you non-union guys made plenty? If so, what're you doing scamming for free brew?

1. Yes they are both sleazebags.

2. How is it wasting your time getting a product for free that you were willing to pay for?In a place you already were at to purchase such product.

P.S. Just like my Ingles and Kroger card mine is signed by Charles Brown 234 Main st.