Under current law, unions may ask workers if they want to unionize by signing a card which goes to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who certifies the results. The employers do not get to see who signed the cards.
If 30% of the workers want a union, the union may ask the NLRB to hold a secret ballot. Unions tend not to do that because they really need 50%.
If 50% secretly sign the card for union representation, the employer may then ask for the secret ballot. Since it takes at least a couple weeks before the NLRB can set up the election, employers can “persuade” workers or hire specialized companies who will do that for them! It is not uncommon for workers to be scared out of voting for a union.
The EFCA bill is designed to minimize corporate manipulation by allowing the secret card signing by 50% of the workers to be the vote to unionize.
Unions would be much less necessary if employers had their employees’ interests at heart.
While the St. Petersburg Times fact-checking website (www.politifact.com) says there would be fewer secret ballots under EFCA, their description indicates the card signing is kept secret from the employers and other votes, though secret, would be less needed under EFCA.
Rep. Rooney made the mistake of using a “talking point” about EFCA without reference to what is involved in current labor law and practice.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Professor Obama
I know just enough law to be dangerous, I suppose. But let me respond to the angst I see among progressives over the Obama administration's response to a law suit about invasion of privacy/wiretapping.
Here's my premise: if the President wanted to get rid of bad law, one of his routes would be to get the courts to rule the laws are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
If there is a lawsuit aimed at a bad law, his Justice Department has two choices. One is to accede to it and not contest it. That might mean a particular case is no longer "on the books" and the plaintiffs win.
The problem with that, according to my limited knowledge f law, is that the case makes no precedence and therefore the legal flaws which allowed for the dropping of the case are not really settled.
The other option is to press the opposition to the suit and let the matter get the full attention of the court and get settled there after full argument so that a precedent is set which has a lot more weight of law than a "settlement out of court" which is essentially what would happen under option one above.
And if the case is to have even more weight, every possible, obscure, and arcane law that could have been used to support the bad law has to be adjudicated in the course of the case.
With any luck, the judge and the plaintiffs do their job more effectively than the Justice Department, at least in terms of being the more legally persuasive so that the final result will stand throughout appeal. In fact, to really nail it down, the full appeal of a particular law all the way to the Supreme Court could end such a law for the foreseeable future.
Don't forget, we went through something like this during the Nixon presidency so maybe we need to go through this every quarter century!
If my premise is correct, the Justice Department is going further than the Bush people with an eye to clearing the decks so that no future administration can go back to some old law to justify such invasion of privacy in the future.
President Obama is pushing our legal system to function properly.
What do you think?
Here's my premise: if the President wanted to get rid of bad law, one of his routes would be to get the courts to rule the laws are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
If there is a lawsuit aimed at a bad law, his Justice Department has two choices. One is to accede to it and not contest it. That might mean a particular case is no longer "on the books" and the plaintiffs win.
The problem with that, according to my limited knowledge f law, is that the case makes no precedence and therefore the legal flaws which allowed for the dropping of the case are not really settled.
The other option is to press the opposition to the suit and let the matter get the full attention of the court and get settled there after full argument so that a precedent is set which has a lot more weight of law than a "settlement out of court" which is essentially what would happen under option one above.
And if the case is to have even more weight, every possible, obscure, and arcane law that could have been used to support the bad law has to be adjudicated in the course of the case.
With any luck, the judge and the plaintiffs do their job more effectively than the Justice Department, at least in terms of being the more legally persuasive so that the final result will stand throughout appeal. In fact, to really nail it down, the full appeal of a particular law all the way to the Supreme Court could end such a law for the foreseeable future.
Don't forget, we went through something like this during the Nixon presidency so maybe we need to go through this every quarter century!
If my premise is correct, the Justice Department is going further than the Bush people with an eye to clearing the decks so that no future administration can go back to some old law to justify such invasion of privacy in the future.
President Obama is pushing our legal system to function properly.
What do you think?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Attention, Christopher!
Thank you. I just love attention!
I even like negative attention. Feel free to challenge me any time.
(If you haven't read the last couple posts, you will have missed a comment by Christopher to which I offered a response. I've decided to challenge him a little more than I have so far. He still has not contacted me directly.)
Let me remind you of how I view bi-partisanship.
The point of my post was to say that while I have chosen sides, while I have a lot of confidence in my views and the solutions I have worked on for years, I have learned that I have probably missed something. If my suggestions are not challenged, they could fail for that reason. I could have missed something.
What worries me is that not everyone else is willing to give thought to the possibility that they might have missed something important in their enthusiasm to get their suggestions accepted.
A true bi-partisan is one who has taken a side but is not closed to other information s/he has not taken into account.
That's why partisan solutions tend to fail. Their proponents fail to listen. They fail to think the other side may have an important point.
So, when you disagree with me, give me your best information and I just may change my mind. -- I await the copy of the EFCA bill you offered.
And as my post of the other day indicated, arrogance is bad enough when it comes to decision-making but adding greed is really a bummer. Any thoughts on that?
Next time, when you comment, put the shotgun down and tell me specifically why you think I am wrong. We all need to help each other. This is not a team sport where only one side wins. We're talking about the game of life where bad decisions and failure to communicate can lead to all of us losing.
And don't give another thought to my grammar. Have you noticed most people have trouble with grammar? Bring it up only if you want to help me improve my writing.
Okay?
I even like negative attention. Feel free to challenge me any time.
(If you haven't read the last couple posts, you will have missed a comment by Christopher to which I offered a response. I've decided to challenge him a little more than I have so far. He still has not contacted me directly.)
Let me remind you of how I view bi-partisanship.
The point of my post was to say that while I have chosen sides, while I have a lot of confidence in my views and the solutions I have worked on for years, I have learned that I have probably missed something. If my suggestions are not challenged, they could fail for that reason. I could have missed something.
What worries me is that not everyone else is willing to give thought to the possibility that they might have missed something important in their enthusiasm to get their suggestions accepted.
A true bi-partisan is one who has taken a side but is not closed to other information s/he has not taken into account.
That's why partisan solutions tend to fail. Their proponents fail to listen. They fail to think the other side may have an important point.
So, when you disagree with me, give me your best information and I just may change my mind. -- I await the copy of the EFCA bill you offered.
And as my post of the other day indicated, arrogance is bad enough when it comes to decision-making but adding greed is really a bummer. Any thoughts on that?
Next time, when you comment, put the shotgun down and tell me specifically why you think I am wrong. We all need to help each other. This is not a team sport where only one side wins. We're talking about the game of life where bad decisions and failure to communicate can lead to all of us losing.
And don't give another thought to my grammar. Have you noticed most people have trouble with grammar? Bring it up only if you want to help me improve my writing.
Okay?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Christopher comments
To my last posting, "Christopher" offered a comment. Unfortunately, along with grammar, I have an ineptness with handling the internet so I find myself responding by posting.
Here's my response to Christopher, who if I read his comment correctly, must be from this part of Florida. Hey, he's a neighbor. How about that?
Welcome, Christopher, to my blog. Thank you for commenting.
Okay, you caught me. I haven't read the EFCA bill. I've taken the word of several different sources who said that secret ballot is an option if the workers choose to use it. The real issue appears to be who sets how the vote shall be taken, the employers or the employees.
Please send a copy and tell me where you got it.
Finally, be kind enough to point out what grammatical mistakes I made (am making here too?). I'm bad enough at grammar that I'm not even sure which mistakes you are talking about.
I'd have sent this by e-mail but I don't have your address.
Again, thank you for offering your thoughts. That's how we get to know each other. After all, we may agree on something else on which we must work together.
Here's my response to Christopher, who if I read his comment correctly, must be from this part of Florida. Hey, he's a neighbor. How about that?
Welcome, Christopher, to my blog. Thank you for commenting.
Okay, you caught me. I haven't read the EFCA bill. I've taken the word of several different sources who said that secret ballot is an option if the workers choose to use it. The real issue appears to be who sets how the vote shall be taken, the employers or the employees.
Please send a copy and tell me where you got it.
Finally, be kind enough to point out what grammatical mistakes I made (am making here too?). I'm bad enough at grammar that I'm not even sure which mistakes you are talking about.
I'd have sent this by e-mail but I don't have your address.
Again, thank you for offering your thoughts. That's how we get to know each other. After all, we may agree on something else on which we must work together.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Conservadems
I believe in bi-partisanship. I'd love to think I have the best ideas but I learned a long time ago that Me and Mine only see part of what is going on. Me and Mine can't do it alone.
But then, if You and Yours won't consider helping unless you can get stuff for yourself, which is what President Obama ran into with the Republicans on the Stimulus Package, maybe someone else saw that and want in on the payoff.
I could sit here and say that the Blue Dog Democrats are trying to serve their conservative constituencies in order to keep their own election base firm and behind them. That I could understand.
But somehow the payoff of that only keeps them in the game. To really become a player, they have to leverage their vote to where it has a much higher payoff for them.
They can affect their standing in a committee or in a change to a better committee. They can get more for their district/state as a compromise for their vote than if they are simply good soldiers.
Why should we be surprised? Change comes hard.
So, let your Congress members know you are watching and interested and want them to put the country first.
I don't mind a serious difference of opinion and some alternatives that may sound contrary but are based on reality.
I do mind political leveraging as much as I hate it in finances or personal relationships.
But then, if You and Yours won't consider helping unless you can get stuff for yourself, which is what President Obama ran into with the Republicans on the Stimulus Package, maybe someone else saw that and want in on the payoff.
I could sit here and say that the Blue Dog Democrats are trying to serve their conservative constituencies in order to keep their own election base firm and behind them. That I could understand.
But somehow the payoff of that only keeps them in the game. To really become a player, they have to leverage their vote to where it has a much higher payoff for them.
They can affect their standing in a committee or in a change to a better committee. They can get more for their district/state as a compromise for their vote than if they are simply good soldiers.
Why should we be surprised? Change comes hard.
So, let your Congress members know you are watching and interested and want them to put the country first.
I don't mind a serious difference of opinion and some alternatives that may sound contrary but are based on reality.
I do mind political leveraging as much as I hate it in finances or personal relationships.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Where did all the money go?
When we listen to many commentators talk about the current recession, they make it sound like trillions of dollars have just disappeared.
I know about fifty percent of our savings has disappeared.
But I began to wonder where it went and what might get it back into circulation.
Ah, the commentators say that it is just gone and will not come back in any direct way. We will have to work our way out of this recession, we are told.
Okay, I will help do that the best I can.
But it's not like we are completely broke. I know we have our income and that we spend all of it just getting by. We are avoiding tapping our savings, of course, because that's all we have for the future our good health will let us live in!
Here's my question, what did the one who sold the stocks when they were at their highest point do with that money?
Think about it, the wise ones who didn't just listen to CNBC but knew what was really going on got out with lots of cash while the getting was good. Where did that money go?
To the banks caught up in the derivitives, hedge funds, and mixed batches of mortgages and other paper? Not likely.
Probably, they held on to it in some form of savings. And they are holding on to it, and like most of us, waiting until we can be confident that our investments are growing again.
Somehow I think that CitiCorp, BoA, Goldman Sachs, and some of the other huge financial institutions have been holding out for what they could get by pushing forward figures that supported their "need" for recapitalization from the public trough. When they were being looked at more closely, suddenly, they are able to report they made a little more profit than expected in January and February.
That may be pretty cynical. The actual money that has begun to move back into the market may be private individuals. After all, if our resources of labor, raw materials, transportation systems, and communications are largely unaffected by the recession, then that capital can provide grounds for expecting profit from their investing.
No one in their right mind will take my ideas here seriously. After all, I'm not a CNBC, Wall Street Journal, or Washington Post financial reporter.
I know about fifty percent of our savings has disappeared.
But I began to wonder where it went and what might get it back into circulation.
Ah, the commentators say that it is just gone and will not come back in any direct way. We will have to work our way out of this recession, we are told.
Okay, I will help do that the best I can.
But it's not like we are completely broke. I know we have our income and that we spend all of it just getting by. We are avoiding tapping our savings, of course, because that's all we have for the future our good health will let us live in!
Here's my question, what did the one who sold the stocks when they were at their highest point do with that money?
Think about it, the wise ones who didn't just listen to CNBC but knew what was really going on got out with lots of cash while the getting was good. Where did that money go?
To the banks caught up in the derivitives, hedge funds, and mixed batches of mortgages and other paper? Not likely.
Probably, they held on to it in some form of savings. And they are holding on to it, and like most of us, waiting until we can be confident that our investments are growing again.
Somehow I think that CitiCorp, BoA, Goldman Sachs, and some of the other huge financial institutions have been holding out for what they could get by pushing forward figures that supported their "need" for recapitalization from the public trough. When they were being looked at more closely, suddenly, they are able to report they made a little more profit than expected in January and February.
That may be pretty cynical. The actual money that has begun to move back into the market may be private individuals. After all, if our resources of labor, raw materials, transportation systems, and communications are largely unaffected by the recession, then that capital can provide grounds for expecting profit from their investing.
No one in their right mind will take my ideas here seriously. After all, I'm not a CNBC, Wall Street Journal, or Washington Post financial reporter.
Saying it again!
President Obama reminds me of a college professor who intentionally laid out a line that he wanted us to disagree with.
When we sat there like lumps, the prof would smile and say, "Well, you missed that one! You've got to do better and react, you guys."
Most people are busy with their lives, especially now with the economy stressing them. So it is not unusual that most of them do not react to what is going on.
What if the President only changed from using the term "enemy combatant" but did nothing to change those folks' actual circumstances?
I can see Professor Obama looking around the room, especially at the ones who got "A" in "progressivism" and "activism" classes.
"Come on, you guys. Fight me on this! How am I going to show that policy stinks to the other side who want me to continue holding onto the powers of the Bush administration?"
Looking over our heads at the press corps behind us, he asks, "Are you going to leave it up to Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Keith Olberman to be the only ones to notice and respond?"
Even if I am wrong about what the President is doing on some of these new policies that change little or nothing, we still have to react and then find a channel to let him and the rest of Washington know we will not tolerate lousy policy.
If he is being the teacher, then he is preparing us for his successor who may not be as open to our concerns and insights so we are effective in standing up for what is right . . . within the system.
The "ditto heads" get a lot of help to shower Washington with their opinions. We better learn how to do that or the wingnuts will appear to outnumber us and encourage the nay sayers and power grabbers to keep it up, to the detriment of our country.
I find Michael Moore's website offering routes to sign petitions. Moveon.org and groups like IAVA for veterans issues often provide a chance to do a timely response to things we are concerned about.
There are a lot of groups that will want and get your e-mail address once you start signing petitions. In many cases, that's a good thing. You will then have a better chance of being able to let Congress or the President know where you stand.
Better get used to it. If we don't want corporations and know-nothings to retake our government, we have to be involved.
Holler if you want to know more websites or have some good suggestions so we can link for better responding.
When we sat there like lumps, the prof would smile and say, "Well, you missed that one! You've got to do better and react, you guys."
Most people are busy with their lives, especially now with the economy stressing them. So it is not unusual that most of them do not react to what is going on.
What if the President only changed from using the term "enemy combatant" but did nothing to change those folks' actual circumstances?
I can see Professor Obama looking around the room, especially at the ones who got "A" in "progressivism" and "activism" classes.
"Come on, you guys. Fight me on this! How am I going to show that policy stinks to the other side who want me to continue holding onto the powers of the Bush administration?"
Looking over our heads at the press corps behind us, he asks, "Are you going to leave it up to Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Keith Olberman to be the only ones to notice and respond?"
Even if I am wrong about what the President is doing on some of these new policies that change little or nothing, we still have to react and then find a channel to let him and the rest of Washington know we will not tolerate lousy policy.
If he is being the teacher, then he is preparing us for his successor who may not be as open to our concerns and insights so we are effective in standing up for what is right . . . within the system.
The "ditto heads" get a lot of help to shower Washington with their opinions. We better learn how to do that or the wingnuts will appear to outnumber us and encourage the nay sayers and power grabbers to keep it up, to the detriment of our country.
I find Michael Moore's website offering routes to sign petitions. Moveon.org and groups like IAVA for veterans issues often provide a chance to do a timely response to things we are concerned about.
There are a lot of groups that will want and get your e-mail address once you start signing petitions. In many cases, that's a good thing. You will then have a better chance of being able to let Congress or the President know where you stand.
Better get used to it. If we don't want corporations and know-nothings to retake our government, we have to be involved.
Holler if you want to know more websites or have some good suggestions so we can link for better responding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)