Union Head Would Back Bill Without Card Check

[Pirate Smile]

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president has signaled a significant shift to try to move a long-stalled pro-union bill, saying he would support a change that calls for speedy unionization elections, a provision that would replace the much-attacked card-check provision.

In an interview, John J. Sweeney, the federation’s president, said he would accept a fast election campaign instead of card check because it would meet his goal of minimizing management interference during organizing drives.

Mr. Sweeney said he “could live with” fast or snap elections “as long as there is a fair process that protects workers against anti-union intimidation by employers and eliminates the threats to workers.”

-snip-
“If modifying that in some way or another is going to bring some more votes for the bill, I think that’s worth it,” Mr. Sweeney said.
Under Mr. Sweeney’s idea, a secret ballot would be held probably within five or 10 days of a substantial number of workers petitioning for a union. Such a brief length of time would be far different from the current practice when campaigns often last two months, giving companies time to persuade workers to vote against a union.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/business/05labor.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimespolitics

[OnyxCollie]

1. (Sigh.) nt

[drm604]

2. Why the hell do we have to compromise on everything?

We won the damned election. We have a majority. Why, why, why can't we get anything done? :banghead: I am getting so fucking frustrated.

[Pirate Smile]

3. We don't have 60 votes in the Senate on this Bill with Card Check in it.

We just don't.

I think there are a lot of good things that Labor wants which are in the Bill even after Card Check gets dropped. Let's get them what we can even if it isn't all we hoped for. :shrug:

[drm604]

4. I understand that,

But what is the point of having a majority if the minority can block everything?

• No card check
  
• Possibly no robust public option
  
• Probably no real regulatory reform for the financial industry

This business of requiring a super majority for cloture to even bring something to a vote is strangling us. We can't fix things that need to be fixed.

It wouldn't be so bad if we had sane reasonable opponents, but look at who we have to compromise with. And why? Because of some damned parliamentary tactic. If they're going to filibuster than make them REALLY filibuster. Make them read from the damned phone book and piss their pants.

Sorry for the rant, I'm just so frustrated lately.

[JBear]

6. The point of the minority blocking things is this...

Protection of the rights of the minority.

A "democracy" can only function if there are protections in place for the rights of the minority. If we did not have these protections, the last 8 years would have been MUCH worse. They could have included things like full denial of marriage rights even in states where they have been granted to gays and lesbians, removal of the separation of church and state, state sanctioned torture (oh wait...) - but you get the idea.

The point of having this check on the ravages of the majority is to ensure that things are properly debated and are well thought out. Sadly, as an earlier post points out, when both sides of the debate are bought and paid for, even this breaks down.

It all comes down to a game of chess.

:bounce:

[No Elephants]

16. Disagree. When Bush had a Republican majority--not a supermajority, mind you, only a

majority, they crushed the Democrats. When Bush had a Congress with a Democratic simple majority, he got his way most of the time anyway, including on stem cell research, which even had bi-partisan support. Now that the Democrats have a super majority AND the Oval Office, the Republicans still win.

[Enrique]

9. we did have the votes when Bush was president

every single Democrat, plus Lieberman, plus Specter, voted for EFCA, but the republicans filibustered it and Bush was going to veto it anyway.

Now when we have a dem president and enough votes to pass it, suddenly it can't be done. Why is that?

[tritsofme]

12. Comparable to Republicans and ANWR.

They were able to move legislation through both houses of Congress in the 90s to the point that it met President Clinton's veto pen.

However despite controlling Congress and the White House for six years, they were unable to get the legislation to Bush's desk.

[No Elephants]

15. You need enough votes to end the fillibuster, not just enough votes to pass a bill. I say, force a

vote on the check off alone before you compromise. You can always pass the other things later. Make the Purple Vultures and the Republicans go on record, both as to the fillibuster cloture vote and the vote (if any) on the bill itself.

[Iowa]

5. We didn't win the election.

We didn't win a damn thing because neither party represents the people. Both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America. Foxes are guarding the hen-house, and that will continue until we throw all the bums out. And it has nothing to do with not having 60 votes. If all we needed was 50 votes, they'd be telling us they can only muster 49. If all we needed was 40 votes they'd tell us they could only get 39. We could elect 100 Dems to the Senate and it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference - they will always come up with some excuse for selling out the people.

Bottom line: With the exception of a handful of politicians who have consciences, they don't work for us.

[No Elephants]

17. Ding, Ding. Ding. We have a winnah.

[JonQ]

21. Well said

I've long felt that political parties exist only to perpetuate their own existence (like a virus).

And that in theory they stay in power by giving their constituents what they need/want. In reality they stay in power by giving their lobbyists what they want, but not so blatantly as to really piss off (and motivate) 51% of the voters.

[fascisthunter]

10. obviously having a majority isn't enough

[No Elephants]

18. Having a majority seems to be enough if you are Republican, though. So does having a minority, if

you are Republican. In other words, the Republicans get what they want, no matter what.

[JonQ]

20. You think the republicans got everything they wanted

when bush was in office?

Consider the fact that his popularity was abysmal, even among republicans towards the end. Clearly he wasn't delivering everything he promised.

[JonQ]

19. Because we live in a democracy

not an autocracy.

Bush didn't get everything he wanted either. Neither did clinton, or any president really. Even FDR had to compromise on many occasions.

[Crowman2009]

7. Now I know why the Teamsters left that group a few years ago.

[teamster633]

8. Personally, I wouldn't give us too much credit.

The rank and file did elect Hoffa Jr. after all. There are very few sell-outs he doesn't gladly endorse. And then he has the nerve to brag about what a "good deal" he got us. God I hope we can vote him out in a couple of years.

[jmowreader]

11. I'd prefer fast elections over card check

Assume we had card check and the workers decided Jones Steel needed a contract with the United Steelworkers. About 75 percent of them sign cards, and the union is approved. Now there have to be negotiations between labor and management, right? Well, guess what we've handed Jones Steel's management: a list of exactly who to fire for pro-union sentiments. Next thing you know, Harry Smith is getting fired for wasting acetylene, Jack Martin gets fired for being late to work three times in the last six months, Mary White gets fired for being seen within the plant area without her safety glasses on (yeah, she was in the restroom washing them, but she could have washed them while they were on her face, right?)...it just so happens Harry, Jack and Mary were all really pro-union...now are the rest of you sure you want to go forward with this union thing? We just so happen to have a complete list of the disloyal workers who want a union...

A secret ballot held within five to ten business days of the start of a union petition would be much better. Sure, the leaders of the campaign will probably still get illegally fired for trying to get the union in, but the rank and file won't be at so much risk.

[Enrique]

13. if card check made it easier to retaliate against union supporters

then the business lobby wouldn't be fighting so hard against it. In fact they would be its biggest supporters because they would love nothing more than to let businesses get rid of union supporters.

[jmowreader]

14. The business lobby will fight anything that allows unions to organize

The business lobby wants unions to go away. They'll fight ANYTHING that allows unions to organize--card check, fast elections, slow elections, anything.

[24601]

22. Hey John, if you aren't insisting on the public option, how about a

national right to work law in its place? See how "Gore my ox, watch out for yours" is played?