Employee Freedom of Choice Act

Pocono Joe

The Democrats are pushing to enact the Employee Freedom of Choice Act (how misleading can the name of a legislation get?).

It is a way to intimidate employees into unionizing. If Obama has his way, the Employee Freedom of Choice Act will become law, thereby eliminating the secret ballot that allows employees to decide whether they want to belong to a union. How un-American is that?

Under EFCA, employees will be forced to publicly declare their vote. So in order to replace the “allegedly” intimidating tactics of employers, we'll now be forcing the same tactics on the unions.

It would be sad and chilling if our new president condoned it, don’t you think?

Bubba HoTep

From what i've read its to give rights to workers to form unions that currently aren't allowed to have a union where they work

couldnt find anything about whether the vote was private or not, where did you read that?

Pocono Joe

In a run up to the vote, I see at least 3 commercials on the TV per day in support of it. And not once have I seen on the commercial that it eliminates the secret ballot - no such thing as truth in advertising here.

Ludo

Yup...seems like another silly waste of time to be honest. Unions suck. But the Wagner Act is pretty stupid as it is so no big deal. Much bigger fish to fry than this in fairness.

Ugh...I feel ill now. I agreed with Joe in two posts in a row. I'm off to wash my mouth out

Pocono Joe

Don't apologize for clear and rational thinking. And there are things far worse than agreeing with me… amoebic dysentery comes to mind.

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Under EFCA, employees will be forced to publicly declare their vote. So in order to replace the “allegedly” intimidating tactics of employers, we'll now be forcing the same tactics on the unions.

That's not my reading of the act, but feel free to correct me - with reference to the legislation itself.

Bubba HoTep

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not my reading of the act, but feel free to correct me - with reference to the legislation itself.

i agree, can you point us to where it says the vote has to be made public? i havent seen that anywhere online, and as for commercials that you've seen, us living in ireland would limit our chance of seeing that...

@Ludo, why do unions suck??

SeanW

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

@Ludo, why do unions suck??

Methinks you have never had to use a public service ...

Pocono Joe

Here is some reading on the matter from what I think to be a pretty nonpartisan source.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/02/obama-mccain-unions-oped-cx_drh_1103henderson.html

Jim_Are_Great

I get the monopoly slant from the article, but where is the denial of secrecy bit? I can't find the text of the bill. Maybe you'd be so good as to share Joe?

Overheal

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

I get the monopoly slant from the article, but where is the denial of secrecy bit? I can't find the text of the bill. Maybe you'd be so good as to share Joe?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.800:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

I'm on the fence.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Don't apologize for clear and rational thinking. And there are things far worse than agreeing with me… amoebic dysentery comes to mind.

At least you put yourself up for comparison with Amoebic Dysentery

I kid, I kid.

InReality

Eh no it would not be sad and chilling.

There has been a pro-employer/business agenda in the US for the last x no of years.

You need a bit of balance to this sort of thing so that one side of the "balance of power" does not become too skewed.

So I think its righting the balance a little bit back to the union side of things, which is no harm.

Matt Holck

secret votes don't keep people from being intimidated by others (union or employer)

for some reason, one is not supposed to talk about how much they make

Ludo

InReality wrote: »

Eh no it would not be sad and chilling.

There has been a pro-employer/business agenda in the US for the last x no of years.

You need a bit of balance to this sort of thing so that one side of the "balance of power" does not become too skewed.

So I think its righting the balance a little bit back to the union side of things, which is no harm.

How about righting the balance in the side of the employee for a change. Unions are not automatically on the side of the employee. They have their own agenda.

InReality

I don't follow you.

What agenda would a union have ?

Ludo

InReality wrote: »

I don't follow you.

What agenda would a union have ?

erm...lining their own pockets...just like a business. Not that I am a cynic or anything :-)

Overheal

Better a group of emplyees lining their pockets than one employer.

http://consumerist.com/5140996/lehman-brothers-ceo-sold-14-million-house-to-his-wife-for-100