Huge Endorsement for Employee Free Choice Act

Sherwood · Jun 13, 2008

let your representatives know that when they support the employee free choice act, they also have the backing of the communist party usa!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN · Jun 13, 2008

I haven't the foggiest what either act is about, but I just want to point out that dismissing something based on who endorses it is a logical fallacy and you're appealing merely to anti-communist emotions and not actual facts.

Whether or not these acts are good for the the American people and nurses in specific has nothing to do with who does and does not support it.

For example, this is like arguing pants are bad as Hitler wore pants.

Kojak · Jun 14, 2008

whether or not these acts are good for the the american people and nurses in specific has nothing to do with who does and does not support it.

ideally, every voter would have sufficient knowledge about every item on the ballot in order to make an informed decision. however you and i both know that's not the reality. endorsements are an important part of the system because most people don't have the time and/or knowledge base to research the specifics of every single item on the ballot. just check out your mailbox at election time to see how much importance is given to endorsements.

the afl-cio obviously also thinks endorsements are important. they have links to who supports and who opposes the employee free choice act. (although find it humorous that they don't list cpusa as one of the organizations supporting the act.)

for example, this is like arguing pants are bad as hitler wore pants.

no, it would be more like arguing to vote for an item because hitler says it will ensure all people are treated as equals.

quite frankly, i would like to see who is opposed to the secret ballot protection act. i'd like to know who doesn't think i should have the right, as an employee, to vote in a secret ballot election regarding unionization at my place of work.

Atheos · Jun 14, 2008

let your representatives know that when they support the employee free choice act, they also have the backing of the communist party usa!
:eek::eek:

are you serious? grow up already. the nerve of people. based on this argument you can't possibly think you are any better than a member of some 'communist party.' jeez, are we back in the 50s.

hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN · Jun 14, 2008

whether or not these acts are good for the the american people and nurses in specific has nothing to do with who does and does not support it.
ideally, every voter would have sufficient knowledge about every item on the ballot in order to make an informed decision. however you and i both know that's not the reality. endorsements are an important part of the system because most people don't have the time and/or knowledge base to research the specifics of every single item on the ballot. just check out your mailbox at election time to see how much importance is given to endorsements.
the afl-cio obviously also thinks endorsements are important. they have links to who supports and who opposes the employee free choice act. (although find it humorous that they don't list cpusa as one of the organizations supporting the act.)

endorsements are important if organizations you personally trust make them, but merely assuming something is bad because an organization you dislike supports it is stupid.

for instance, the aclu takes a lot of heat from extreme conservatives and fundamentalists. however, to always assume the aclu is on the wrong side (from their point of view) of the issue every case is stupid. they've taken a number of cases representing fundamentalists and the right to practice religion.

Sherwood · Jun 14, 2008

whether or not these acts are good for the the american people and nurses in specific has nothing to do with who does and does not support it.
ideally, every voter would have sufficient knowledge about every item on the ballot in order to make an informed decision. however you and i both know that's not the reality. endorsements are an important part of the system because most people don't have the time and/or knowledge base to research the specifics of every single item on the ballot. just check out your mailbox at election time to see how much importance is given to endorsements.
the afl-cio obviously also thinks endorsements are important. they have links to who supports and who opposes the employee free choice act. (although find it humorous that they don't list cpusa as one of the organizations supporting the act.)
for example, this is like arguing pants are bad as hitler wore pants.
no, it would be more like arguing to vote for an item because hitler says it will ensure all people are treated as equals.
quite frankly, i would like to see who is opposed to the secret ballot protection act. i'd like to know who doesn't think i should have the right, as an employee, to vote in a secret ballot election regarding unionization at my place of work.

yeah!!!!!

now your talking.

here is my argument:

secret ballot protection act: a union and it's supporters campaign at a business trying to convince employees there that unionizing would be in their best interest. they pass out flyers, stage an informational picket or two.

the management of the company campaigns too. their message is that unionizing would not be beneficial to the employees. pro-employee grassroots groups do the same, educating their co-workers on why they believe unionizing is not such a good idea.

a vote date is set. a room is set aside where representatives of management, the union and a neutral third party (nlrb representatives) witness the verification of id's and that no one is intimidated or coerced by either side while voting. all employees who care show up and present identification acceptable to all parties. a ballot is given to each employee. on the ballot is two choices.

1. yes, i want to be represented by xxx union.

2. no, i do not want union representation.

once everyone has finished voting within the previously agreed upon time frame, all ballots are counted. if the majority of the ballots are marked yes, the union and it's supporters win. if the majority of the ballots are marked no, then the union packs its bags and goes home. a majority of employees have chosen not to be represented by the union.

the "employee free choice act" basically allows that the union mails or distributes postcards or "signature" cards that may or may not clearly state that by signing this card you are verifying that you want union representation. this signed card is a vote. pro-union employees or union organizers can corner employees in a parking lot, restroom, break room, hallway, stairwell or outhouse and pressure or intimidate people to sign the card. they then turn the card in and if a number of signed cards are collected that represents a majority of employees, the management could be pressured into recognizing the union.

do not think i or anyone else is so naive that this could possibly sound fair and not subject to fraud. people will abuse this. people will intimidate others or trick others into signing a card when given the chance to think about it for two minutes in the privacy of the voting booth they may make a different decision.

now, switch the whole process around. allow the management to distribute signature cards. allow the pro-employee, pro-management groups to mail and/or collect signature cards in the same manner that the union is demanding. how would the words of our debate here be different?

in the united states of america, all parties present their argument, their side of the story. the people, you and i if we are responsible caring voters listen to these arguments, educate ourselves on the pro's and cons of the issue and we go to the polling place on voting day and we present our identification. we walk to the voting booth and we pull that curtain behind us and we make an informed choice in private.

why would we possibly want to change this?

i support the secret ballot protection act,

sherwood cox

for more information check out this link http://www.myprivateballot.com/

and of course, my website.

.

:argue::argue:

Atheos · Jun 14, 2008

Secret ballots would be a better way to ensure fairness. While I approve of unions, the point of a union is not to grow in size or intimidate people. It is to represent employees that WANT their help. Plus, I wouldn't want employers to know my vote either....

nicurn001 · Jun 14, 2008

let your representatives know that when they support the employee free choice act, they also have the backing of the communist party usa!
:eek::eek:

i thought mccarthyism had been discredited many years ago !

you are much better than this sherwood stick to reasoned arguement , which although i and others may disagree with you ,reflects much better on you .

Sherwood · Jun 14, 2008

I thought McCarthyism had been discredited many years ago !
You are much better than this Sherwood stick to reasoned arguement , which although I and others may disagree with you ,reflects much better on you .

Sometimes one has to start a little fire to get the crowd to gather. Looks like I poured gasoline onto this one! Is there a burn nurses in the house?:angryfire:angryfire:angryfire

There is a madness to my method.:jester:

Sherwood

Kojak · Jun 14, 2008

. . . but merely assuming something is bad because an organization you dislike supports it is stupid.

endorsement from an organization i dislike may not cause me to automatically think it's bad, however it may cause me to research further regarding the issue in question. and that is exactly what has happened as a result of reading this thread. i'm definitely going to look more into both sides of the issue of employee free choice act vs. secret ballot protection act. educating oneself to clarify one's position is not such a bad thing in my opinion.

nicurn001 · Jun 14, 2008

yeah!!!!!
now your talking.
here is my argument:
secret ballot protection act: a union and it's supporters campaign at a business trying to convince employees there that unionizing would be in their best interest. they pass out flyers, stage an informational picket or two.
the management of the company campaigns too. their message is that unionizing would not be beneficial to the employees. ( i would have no problem with this scenario ,but the reality , i have witnessed firsthand , is that at present the employer has mandatory anti union meetings and limits union representatives access to staff . if equal access was granted to both sides i and many others would agree with you that this is the best manner in which to decide this issue ) pro-employee ( i would describe these as pro employer , as they would be against unionization ,therefore supporting managements postion )grassroots groups do the same, educating their co-workers on why they believe unionizing is not such a good idea.( pro employee grassroots groups would be able to advocate for the union )
a vote date is set. a room is set aside where representatives of management, the union and a neutral third party (nlrb representatives) witness the verification of id's and that no one is intimidated or coerced by either side while voting. all employees who care show up and present identification acceptable to all parties. a ballot is given to each employee. on the ballot is two choices.
1. yes, i want to be represented by xxx union.
2. no, i do not want union representation.
once everyone has finished voting within the previously agreed upon time frame, all ballots are counted. if the majority of the ballots are marked yes, the union and it's supporters win. if the majority of the ballots are marked no, then the union packs its bags and goes home. a majority of employees have chosen not to be represented by the union.
the "employee free choice act" basically allows that the union mails or distributes postcards or "signature" cards that may or may not clearly state that by signing this card you are verifying that you want union representation. this signed card is a vote. pro-union employees or union organizers can corner employees in a parking lot, restroom, break room, hallway, stairwell or outhouse and pressure or intimidate people to sign the card. they then turn the card in and if a number of signed cards are collected that represents a majority of employees, the management could be pressured into recognizing the union.
do not think i or anyone else is so naive that this could possibly sound fair and not subject to fraud. people will abuse this. people will intimidate others or trick others into signing a card when given the chance to think about it for two minutes in the privacy of the voting booth they may make a different decision.
now, switch the whole process around. allow the management to distribute signature cards. allow the pro-employee, pro-management groups to mail and/or collect signature cards in the same manner that the union is demanding. how would the words of our debate here be different?at present the management has the ability to control access to staff in a facillitywere some employees want to unionize , so the places above mentioned are often the only places unionization can be discussed , as i said earlier if both sides were able to have equal access to the employees , i for one would accept the result of a free and fair election .the justifiction given for the efca is that at present these elections are not free or fair dt management intimidation of staff .
in the united states of america, all parties present their argument, their side of the story. the people, you and i if we are responsible caring voters listen to these arguments, educate ourselves on the pro's and cons of the issue and we go to the polling place on voting day and we present our identification. we walk to the voting booth and we pull that curtain behind us and we make an informed choice in private.
why would we possibly want to change this? i don't wish to change this , but unlike in elections for political office , were equal access to information is available to the electorate , because of the control the employer has over the workplace , it has led to an imbalance in access to information which the unions have addressed by the introduction of the efca .from your perspective a sledgehammer to crack a nut , but a nut that needs to be cracked .
i support the secret ballot protection act,
sherwood cox
for more information check out this link http://www.myprivateballot.com/
and of course, my website.
.
:argue::argue:

if there was free access and ability to distribute information ,pro and anti union during a unionization drive there would be no need for either a employee free choice act

or

secret ballot protection act

:twocents: