Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Unions vs. Executive Bonus
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
- Status
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
,
Oh, I think not.......With the current Wall Street bunch having their ultimate greedy ways exposed, this might not be a bad idea. Millions of people unemployed, company profits lower than whale dong....stock value in the toilet ready to be flushed......and the elite people at the top of the food chain still continue to get their due.
For decades, management has successfully painted unions as the unrealistic and greedy ones, but now as we can see with AIG and others where the true greed comes from.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
Well my good cyber friend/Legal Eagle, Thats ALL ABOUT TO CHANGE with...EFCA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even if the Dems got ousted in 2012,..............( I don't think Now is the best time to push EFCA),..........just WAIT until the 2010 congressional elections are over. EFCA will Be the FIRST new law written(probably) in January 2011 !!!!
How do you like ME Now...FWAAA 🙄 🙄
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Exactly. The American public is not to enamored of greedy executives these days. If our unions word these ads the right way the public will be totally on our side.
Something along these lines:
Airline executives cried for your bailout in 2001. They still mismanaged the funds and asked employees for a bailout. They've bonused themselves outrageous sums of money yearly since your bailout. AMR exectutives say they don't have enough money to give their employees, who bailed them out, a raise but they still have enough money to bonus themselves large sums of money. Where will it end? Will you, the American People, once again have to bail these airline fat cats out of trouble only to watch your money line their pockets?
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
How much did this well thought out ad campaign cost the members?....
It have been more productive to simply give each member a "bonus" by not issuing the ad campaign and reducing their monthly dues by the pro-rated cost of the ad buy.
I thought you and the other blue-aid drinkers said EFCA would be signed in Barry O's first 100 days? What happened?
There are also states pursuing ballot initiatives making secret balloting a constitutional right in all elections including collective bargaining. You'll have a hard time convincing Americans that secret balloting is bad. Most believe it to be a fundamental right already, so the unions will have an uphill battle fighting that.
If EFCA couldn't hit the floor now with a blue majority in both chambers, it ain't gonna happen.
It have been more productive to simply give each member a "bonus" by not issuing the ad campaign and reducing their monthly dues by the pro-rated cost of the ad buy.
I thought you and the other blue-aid drinkers said EFCA would be signed in Barry O's first 100 days? What happened?
There are also states pursuing ballot initiatives making secret balloting a constitutional right in all elections including collective bargaining. You'll have a hard time convincing Americans that secret balloting is bad. Most believe it to be a fundamental right already, so the unions will have an uphill battle fighting that.
If EFCA couldn't hit the floor now with a blue majority in both chambers, it ain't gonna happen.
chris perry
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 544
- Reaction score
- 118
Money well spent.....Its about time someone exposed whats really going on!!!
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
You forgot to mention the WALMART tactic of threatening to shut stores down if they voted for a union in a particular community.
I guess you have no problem with $1000 suits and italian shoes handing them "VOTE NO FOR UNION OR LOSE JOB" pamphlets.
I sometimes read too much into things and I'm mistaken when reading internet posts, but I just wanted to be sure. You're not trying to make an equations to Nazi "brown shirts" are you?
Card check has been on the books since the 1930s. Except that under the current policy the workers sign cards and then the company gets to decide whether or not there's a secret ballott. Right now they only need to collect a third. Under the new proposal the majority has to sign cards. If there is going to be a secret ballott shouldnt the workers decide? Why should the company have a say in determining whether there's a secret ballott or not? You know why but I'll tell you why, so the company can delay things and threaten employees in order to scare them away from voting in a union.
The source for retribution is the company, not the union. Do you have any documented court cases in the last 50 years where workers were threatened or punished for not signing cards? There are scores of cases where the company has taken retribution on people who have chosen to support unions. Companys have threatened workers who support unions, terminated workers who support unions and even closed down stores where the workers unionized.
The fact is that the likelyhood that union officials are going to go around and threaten workers into signing cards is very, very low. What are they going to do threaten to beat them up? Sure, and with all the electronic survielance available they would end up in jail. On the other hand when a company terminates a worker for supporting a union, a very real and common occurance, all they face is having to rehire the worker and at the most pay his back pay-less whatever he earned in the meantime. So in other words no real penalty even if they act on their threats.
The card check is only part of the bill. Its the part of the bill that anti-labor forces have focused on because its the easiest part to lie about. The key points of the bill address putting in more effective enforcements of a workers right to organize. We are one of the few industrialized countries that dont have this already. Workers in Europe have had these protections against corporate retribution and interference for decades.
We all know that neither of you could care less about workers rights or the secret ballott and that you want to preserve the corporate sides ability to threaten and coerce workers into rejecting unions. They hide behind free speech and make threats to captive audiences. If they really supported democracy then they would allow unions equal access to their members and allow a real debate.
By the way the fact that you guys speak out against the ad means that it was a good investment on the part of the union.
- Status
