|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Senate law to allow workers to form unions
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Senate law to allow workers to form unions
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| muntz |
ok ironpirate/ncmike tell me why this is bad i want to hear the crap coming from your mouths on this one....
from afl-cio.org article 5/19/06
43 Senators Now Back Workers’ Freedom to Form Unions
The effort to pass legislation to strengthen workers’ freedom to choose union representation continues to build. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) agreed this week to co-sponsor the Employee Free Choice Act, bringing the number of co-sponsors to 43 in the Senate and 216 in the U.S. House.
In April 2005, a bipartisan coalition reintroduced the Employee Free Choice Act. The act would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of employees signs authorization cards. It also would provide for mediation and arbitration of first-contract disputes and authorize stronger penalties for violation of labor law when workers seek to form unions.
The bill follows the model established by employers such as Cingular Wireless that have agreed to be neutral and respect their employees’ choice. As a result, a year after its merger with AT&T, some 17,000 former AT&T employees have joined the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Overall, the union represents some 40,000 Cingular employees who work under union contracts providing regular wage increases, good benefits and a voice on the job.
Even though some 57 million workers say they would join a union, according to research by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, employers routinely mount vicious anti-union campaigns and use the federal union elections process to coerce workers to vote against the union.
Last year, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Urban Economic Development reported that when faced with organizing drives, 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers, 49 percent threaten to close a worksite if the union prevails and 51 percent coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism.
Despite support from 259 members of Congress, Republican leaders aren’t likely to allow a vote on the Employee Free Choice Act even if it does gain majority support. A more likely scenario would bring a vote on legislation backed by Big Business and anti-worker lawmakers that would ban the majority sign-up process.
The Bush administration’s National Labor Relations Board, which is charged with protecting workers’ freedom to form unions, has systematically been reducing the coverage of federal labor law, ruling recently that the law does not apply to college graduate assistants, among others. |
|
|
| Luther |
| Workers are already allowed to form unions. Smells like a political stunt to me. |
|
|
| Dubya is a Dick |
| Luther.. ask the employees of Wal-Mart what happens when they talk about unionizing. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Luther is correct.
The employer actions cited in the article are also illegal under federal law.
An employer that takes, or treatens to take punitive action against an employee, or group of employees for engaging in union organizing actives, is subject to sanction and fines. |
|
|
| muntz |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Luther is correct.
The employer actions cited in the article are also illegal under federal law.
An employer that takes, or treatens to take punitive action against an employee, or group of employees for engaging in union organizing actives, is subject to sanction and fines. |
but you know what the existing laws dont help people... just be honest you hate unions.... |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by muntz
but you know what the existing laws dont help people... just be honest you hate unions.... |
bingo
the laws that protect workers rights to unionize are ineffective and are rarely enforced. |
|
|
| crowbar317 |
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
the laws that protect workers rights to unionize are ineffective and are rarely enforced. |
Absolutely. And living in a "right to work" state (a very Bushian phrase, although it pre-dates him), I can attest to that.
At every job I have had here, there is a full page in the employee handbook warning on the dangers of unions and why employees should be very wary of any union official that approaches them.
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Smells like a political stunt to me. |
First, the bill actually does something. It strengthens the current sanctions. Second, sometimes all it takes is the threat of legislation- regardless of how minor- to make corporations nervous and back them off from what they are doing. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
by the way, just so i don't get labelled anti-american.
the situation is no better here in canada.
had a wal mart in quebec unionize a yearish ago
the store closed, was busy and profitable, was done simply as a threat to other walmarts in canada.
and just how are those former walmart associates(as if)
expected to replace those jobs? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| crowbar317 |
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
the situation is no better here in canada.
had a wal mart in quebec unionize a yearish ago
the store closed, was busy and profitable, was done simply as a threat to other walmarts in canada.
and just how are those former walmart associates(as if)
expected to replace those jobs? |
I remember when that happened, and it really sucks. Of course, a pro-union guy like me is gonna say that if more Wal-Marts would unionize, this type of thing wouldn't happen.
They might can close down one store, but I doubt they would want to close 100.
But it's doubtful those workers will get jobs as union organizers.
Without widespread organization in a company, the only way to prevent that is for the truck drivers that deliver to Wal-Marts to strike. For all union workers to boycott Wal-Mart. To the unionized storage facilities to strike.
Of course, Wal-Mart may have their own warehouses and trucking fleet.
Unfortunately, for Wal-Mart to become organized, a lot of good, hard-working people will suffer in the short-term. They will close and/or relocate some stores. But they cannot sustain the profit losses and relocation costs very long.
The problem for an organizer is telling employees that yes, some of you are going to get fired for this cause. And you can't feed a family on a cause.
On the other hand, you can't feed a family on $5.50 per hour either. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by muntz
but you know what the existing laws dont help people... just be honest you hate unions.... |
Uneducated opinion. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by thoroldjames
bingo
the laws that protect workers rights to unionize are ineffective and are rarely enforced. |
Uneducated opinion. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Uneducated opinion. |
uneducated opinion |
|
|
| muntz |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Uneducated opinion. |
sorry YOU have the uneducated opinion |
|
|
| crowbar317 |
| another great discourse lost.... |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by crowbar317
another great discourse lost.... |
this is what luther will do when he not only knows he's wrong but actually agrees with those he's arguing with. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Wrong. I hold two union cards. Teamsters 856 and AFM Local 6.
I would submit that I may know a hell of a lot more about unions and labor law than you do.
Quote: Originally posted by muntz
but you know what the existing laws dont help people... just be honest you hate unions.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
