Card Check - United Auto Workers Try to Unionize Indiana Plant March 25, 2009

Well, Card Check has failed it's first public test, even though it is not even a law yet.

An auto parts manufacturer in Indiana was the target of the UAW unionization attempt. The following video tells a tale of how workers felt threatened and intimidated by union workers into signing the card which would authorize the union:



This intimidation is exactly what opponents of Card Check, aka Employee Free Choice Act, have warned about. This is what loss of a secret ballot buys you.

The bill is scheduled for debate this week.

reply to post by jsobecky


I watched that report myself JSO, and while I think that the union movement was initially based on a good idea to look out for the blue collar crowd, it seems that the Unions' hierarchy have turned into the people that they were originally against.

I could be wrong but these strongarm tactics remind me of the brownshirts in the Hitler era.

All workers should be entitled to a secret ballot, let alone feel safe to go to and leave work without being harassed, let alone being followed home.

Is the bill expected to pass?

COMPLETE BS!!!!

Since when is a union vote open? That defeats the frickin purpose. I'm strong union but it's the choice of the individual as to whether they unionize or not AND it's the choice of the individual as to how they vote once in a union. Can you point the legislation out please, I would like to look at this POS.

reply to post by intrepid


I believe this is the bill in question:
link

OLD BILL disregard...
current legislation linked below

ed:correct a gross error


[edit on 3/25/2009 by JacKatMtn]

reply to post by JacKatMtn



It's very close right now. The unions thought they had Arlen Specter on their side, but now he says he cannot support it, given the economy.

He was expected to give them the 60th vote needed to avoid filibuster:

online.wsj.com...

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter dealt a blow to organized labor's top legislative priority by announcing that he wouldn't support a bill to make it easier to unionize workplaces.

The AFL-CIO and the bill's Democratic sponsors had been counting on Sen. Specter's vote to reach the 60 needed in the Senate to avoid a Republican-led filibuster. In 2007, Sen. Specter voted for cloture on the bill, or to cut off debate, but he said he could not do so now, especially given the recession and the weak economy.

reply to post by intrepid


Here you go.

Is it expected to pass? It is kind of up in the air right now. People are flip-flopping on their stances daily.

I was incorrect, there are 2 bills one in the house and one in the senate which are from this year which would have to be the one's in question here.

senate

house

sorry for the misinfo

reply to post by JacKatMtn


"Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information."

Damn. This is important if I'm reading this right. It's the gov't putting forth legislation that will, in effect, turn union(potential) members against each other? I'd really like to see this.

reply to post by intrepid


thomas.loc.gov...

search parameters : Employee Free Choice Act

this congress session bill will say 2009

hope this leads you there.


ed:clarify

[edit on 3/25/2009 by JacKatMtn]

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by jsobecky

 

it seems that the Unions' hierarchy have turned into the people that they were originally against.

from speaking from first hand experiance,you ARE correct..Its disgusting to see what they have done to our trades..

reply to post by intrepid


My link still works. For the House Bill, at least.

As for turning people against each other, this is basically terminating secret ballots in union votes. I'd say that would turn a lot of groups against each other if the secrecy is taken out of the process.

reply to post by JacKatMtn




The tech challenged thank you.

Here is the Senate version (S 560)

The House version is HR 1409.

Talk about capitalist propaganda! "If the president and the unions have their way..." Give me a break!

reply to post by Redpillblues


I hear you, though I wouldn't paint all of the unions with this broad brush, I just fear the MAJOR ones would use the Open vote as a tool to recruit/harass those who choose not to join.

A situation which would surely weed those people out, IMO, who wants that kind of stress when you are trying to earn a paycheck.

I could be overreacting but I don't trust the unions to act in a professional manner should the open vote become law.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Is there any organization or body who would act in an ethical manner if an open ballot was law?

I honestly don't think that people think these things out, the ramifications of them, before they try to pass them into law.

If this was to become law, and I started getting harassed and they started showing up on my door step. The day they show up on my door step I would tell them to leave and tell them they are trespassing and I would call cops and explain to them that so and so was just at my door and harassing me to sign the card.

This is so there is a paper trail so when they start walking me to my car and harassing me more, I can file a formal complaint of harassment against that person.

Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people are that patient. Just because this would do away with the secret ballot it doesn't give them the right to intimidate and harass you into signing the ballot if you don't want too.

Hopefully this piece of garbage legislation doesn't pass though.

Edit - need to learn to proof read.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by skeptic1



It appears that there is a lack of brain cells operating on Capitol Hill right now, not good for the future....

Ultimately, they were voted into office by US (or were they?), so I can see them all blaming us for the mess they are causing.

I wouldn't put it past them


think positive.. think positive... walks off

In addition to eliminating the secret ballot, the bill has another troubling provision:

If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, the gov't will step in and mediate.

If arbitration cannot reach an accord, then the gov't will 'settle the dispute'.

www.govtrack.us...

‘(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.’.

Oh, brother!

reply to post by jsobecky


Sounds like they are using this bill as a path way for the government to negotiate all contracts.

We are heading down the wrong road fast.