GOP says it can block unions' bill

Source: Houston Chronicle/Associated Press

June 15, 2007, 1:03PM
GOP says it can block unions' bill


By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent
© 2007 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans have vowed to kill organized labor's top legislative priority of the year, and it looks like they'll soon get their chance.

The measure, which would make it easier for workers to form unions, cleared the House earlier this year on a party-line vote. It's been awaiting action in the Senate since March, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is circulating word that he'll seek passage before lawmakers begin their July 4 vacation.

A Republican filibuster is a certainty, and in a Senate narrowly divided along party lines, there's virtually no chance the bill's supporters can command the 60 votes needed to prevail.

The legislation, often called the card check bill, would certify a union as soon as a majority of workers at a plant signed cards authorizing it. Currently, employers have the right to demand a secret ballot election when their workers seek to organize a union.

The measure has long been on organized labor's wish list, but it didn't see the light of day until Democrats gained control of Congress last year and wanted to help those who had helped them.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4893521.html

If this bill were to pass it would be a huge stride forward for the working people of this country, but here the GOP shows their true colors.

painfully obvious that the GOP will block any and all bills from here to 2009...Time to beat up on some GOPs and kick their ass to the curb...

what the GOP is doing here could go a long way toward securing a filibuster proof Senate majority in 2009.

This is one issue in which I wish Harry Reid would threaten the repukes with the nuclear option--nuke the union busters!

There are too many right-wing Democrats who would vote with the Republicans. And even if all of the Democrats stuck together (which they won't), all it would need to be defeated is Lieberman voting with his johns and then it is thrown to Cheney. Too bad...

Democrats were full of sh*t when they said they couldn't do anything to stop the Repuke agenda when they were in the minority! :grr:

Namely that the GOP more often than not votes lockstep but the Dems are much more likely to vote in an individual manner, not always one we like, but in that fashion.

I honestly think one of the biggest problems with our system is the fact that Republicans vote for what their party wants and ignore what's desired (and what's best) for their (non-wealthy) constituents.

However ... while I respect the individuality of the Democrats, I do believe that there were times in the past where voting in lockstep would have been the best thing for the country, in order to keep the GOP from ramming through bad laws, bad judges and bad agendas. :-(

Just was stating what is, not what should be. That we have even one party voting as such is something that shouldn't be.

I see you are a Gore supporter. One of the biggest disappointments during the Clinton/Gore Admin, in my view was the lack of union support and the failure of unions to make any significant forward strides. Has Gore indicated that he has moved any further towards unions lately? I'm just asking out of curiosity, because I know there is a real possibility that he may run.

I don't recall him talking about unions in recent years. That doesn't mean he hasn't ... but I'm not aware of any comments he made. Perhaps another DUer can enlighten us both. :-)

that most Democrats' campaign coffers are filled with the same corporate $$ that fill the Republicans' campaign war chests have absolutely NOTHING to do with any of this. :puke:

Enter the "B-b-b-but we don't have the votes" apologists.

we have people like Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh ,Lieberman and all the usual ones that pop up when looking at the Dems that voted with Republicans.

Unfortunately, when you have Shrub and his veto pen to worry about, pukes are relaxed in knowing all they need are 40 to stop any bill. Get rid of their pen and things will be alot different.

If you don't have 60 votes, you can't do jack sh*t against the repukes. The Dems shouldn't have promised sweeping change, when they knew they didn't have 60 votes...because there's no way repukes are going to cross the aisle and do anything decent.

This is what the Dems need to hammer home to the public in 2008--that they need a clear majority to do what they've been trying SO HARD to do since 2006. If we had 60+ votes in the Senate, it wouldn't matter if the President were a freakin' repuke...because the Dems could override every veto.

The Dems are trying, but their hands are tied because there are still too many repukes in the Senate. This is important to remember, and it's important for the Dems to make the public aware of this.

Until then, Congress is going to continue getting low approval numbers. :(

Esteemed Republican Senators and none of them are particularly flattering.


:argh:

congresspeople right now. All politics and all it gets is gridlock. Oh well.

The bill would eliminate the requirement that after a public voice vote, a private vote is held.

The private vote removes the element of peer pressure and coercion from the equation.

Under the proposed guidelines, workers who did not actually want to form a union could be pressured to voice support in the public vote. Without the security of a private vote, they would have no option to vote as they choose.

This is why elections are held decided by private vote.

spread anti-union propaganda (much of it lies), and all but threaten the employees if they vote the "wrong way".

Consider that unions may not themselves be bastions of honor. It is certainly possible that they were also 'all but threatening the employees if they vote the wrong way' to get the cards signed in the first place. And, if the company has time to spread anti-union propaganda, I am unaware of anything stopping the union from spreading pro-union propaganda. In fact, given that they've done the card check already, they have a head start on the process.

A secret ballot is vital to the integrity of the process. It's not just an optional extra.

Look at it this way. Would you support dissolving the union in the same way? I'll assume the answer is no (actually, I'll assume the answer is H*ll No! ;-) So, why one way and not the other?

R. Garrett

The secret ballot is essential, whether it be for forming a union or choosing a Senator.

I doubt anyone here would support a public (that is, non-secret) vote to decide who gets to be President of the U.S.

but EMPLOYERS can't FORCE one if the employees do not request it. Nor could employers force the process to drag out for years, firing and intimidating workers during that time, as they now do. Do some reading about the Bill. Hell, read the Bill itself - it's short and clear enough. You are repeating Corporate spin.

on edit: shouting caps deliberate.

If a company is treating employees right, then most of its employees wouldn't dream of signing a union card.

Signing a union card, I'm sure, for many, is a full choice, and a last resort to dealing with their management. Nobody can make anyone sign a card.

Signing the card IS a vote. There's no need for a second vote.

Companies have ample opportunities to avoid unions before their employees sign any cards, by providing an appropriate workplace, with appropriate pay, appropriate benefits, and appropriate treatment. They can also run all the propaganda they wish *before* their employees sign enough cards to initiate a union.

There is no use for an *additional* period of corporate propaganda to make people change their votes in what is really a second election. Corporations are *not* being treated unfairly here!

I say let's put more power into the hands of the people who are actually doing the real work in this country.

union organizing is massively screwed against unions and democracy, but corporate shills hide behind "secret ballot" as if it is the only or most important part of a democracy.

http://thehill.com/op-eds/true-democracy-in-the-workplace-2007-06-14.html
True democracy in the workplace
By Gordon Lafer, Ph.D.

snip
"When most people hear about “union elections,” they assume they run the same way as elections for Congress or the president. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

When employees want to form a union, they have to go through a process that looks more like the discredited practices of rogue regimes abroad than like anything we would call American.

For an election to be “free and fair,” both sides must have equal access to media and the voters. But not under labor law. Anti-union managers are free to campaign to every employee, every day, throughout the day; but pro-union employees can campaign only on break time. Furthermore, management can post anti-union propaganda on bulletin boards and walls — while prohibiting pro-union employees from doing the same. By law, employers can force workers to attend mass anti-union propaganda events. Not only are pro-union employees not given equal time, but they can be forced to attend on condition that they not ask any questions. Recent data show that workers are forced to attend between five and 10 such one-sided meetings. If, during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democrats could have forced every voter in America to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (or if the Republicans could have forced everyone to watch the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth video), with no opportunity for response from the other side, none of us would have called this “democracy.”

The Founding Fathers understood that workers are particularly vulnerable to the economic coercion, and therefore we have a host of laws designed to protect voters from the economic influence of their employers. For instance, in elections for Congress or the president, it is illegal for a private corporation to tell its employees anything that favors one candidate or the other. But in workplace elections, it is standard practice for supervisors to hold repeated one-on-one conversations with the individuals they oversee. Here, the person who has the most direct control over hiring and firing, promotion, raises, hours and duties tells their subordinates in no uncertain terms why a union would be bad for them. The message is clear: If you ever want a raise, or a day off to take your kid to a doctor, you better not support the union.

Many of the tactics used to intimidate employees are legal. However, because federal labor law contains no possibility of punitive fines, prison or any other type of sanction, employers break the law at will. Last year, approximately 15,000 Americans were illegally fired, suspended or otherwise financially punished for trying to form a union in their workplace........

QED

...their union-busting way. Let's urge solidarity and integrity.

Cynical and corrupt, and feeling unassailable.

...because he can.

The Democrats would never filibuster because they always wanted to keep their powder dry. :shrug: Maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all. Ya' think? :eyes: Why can't the Dems threaten with the "nuclear option" so often bluffed at by the Republics in past years? Wow, the Republics aren't going to keep their powder dry. It's almost like they have a set. I wish the Democrats could find theirs.

They just wanted to tell us smething to get us off of their backs while they rubber stamped our Supreme Court away for a generation. They thought we would go away.

We won't.

of Republican malfeasance, incompetence and blatant felonies. The problem is, they only have about a year and a half left; that will be only enough time to scratch the surface.

a stronger voice in the work place and against corporations lobbyist always out to take from the workers while the corporations reap the benefits & more profits. The corporations have their voice with their huge amount of lobbyist and their million dollar donations to the republicans...What voice do the workers have but trying to create their right for a strong union,against all odds....and that the republican hate and want to destroy!

Reagan was the main asshole republican to begin destroying unions and the Bush republicans want to make so not one union is left and we are all fighting for low paying jobs, no benefits...not unlike the largest company in the world and completely anti union Wal-Mart...All corporations want us workers to be slaves, they all want to be Wal-Mart!

Why any working man or woman would ever support any GOP politician is beyond my comprehension. Stuff like this should be huge rallying cry for most all Americans. The GOP displays it's true colors here.

The dems would not filibuster when they were in the minority.

I can't stand this crap. Once again, we the little people are dumped on. I am sure that the dems will just roll over and take it.

I am almost at the end of my rope with the dems. If they don't stand for this, then the hell with them.

Green Party, you are starting to look good to me.

Once we toss out another 10-15 butt kissing repugs that have turned this country into a sinking toilet, maybe we can get the majority needed to get some things done for the middle class working people in this country.

We're keeping score and they're going to hang themselves.

welcome to DU!!!

You-know-who will veto it, and it certainly Never would pass a veto.
So remind me again - just why is impeachment off the table if everything the Democrats try to do is going to run into a Bush veto? WTF?

This was a good start to getting the working class out of poverty, stabilizing the middle class, and creating a new 21st century labor to stand up to multinational corporations.
So, you fucking Republican scumbags, how does this fit with your moral values? Please, I'd love an explanation. Being a corporate whore isn't a moral value.
We as a nation voted these warmongering corporate tools out of office for a reason...news flash: losing control of the Senate and the House wasn't a message from the American people that you should filibuster working peoples' legislation of the new majority party.
Oh well. So they make their losses in 2008 even more painful. Then we can have a Democratic President and finally get through legislation that is relevant and beneficial to the average American.

welcome to DU!!!

tried to filibuster. The GOPers make me sick and furious.

Things are changing or swinging to the left in the next election. Thanks for the post.

Democrats still keeping their powder dry! :puke:

The Repukes have to be repaid in their own coin. They need to take a hit on some legislation that is dear to their hearts.

....of unkachuck, here's what you do Mr. Reid: go up to the minority leader and when no one is looking, kick him in the balls....tell him if he and his repugs don't support this bill you're going to kick him in the balls every time you see him....

....we need more Unions, Reid, Make It Happen!

capitalists, but really authoritarians.

They should have zero problem with unions. It would be a natural thing they have to deal with.