This week we have seen average Americans voicing their legitimate concerns over the healthcare debate. During consecutive Town Hall meetings voters are stepping up their protest to a government takeover of an industry that comprises 16% of our economy.
The idea that there is really anything to debate is a misnomer. The radicals on the left have already decided the direction they want to go and have no intention of considering the concerns of average Americans. The intention has been to throttle this legislation through Congress without meaningful debate.
Much the same as they did with the stimulus bill and Cap & Trade.
Much to the lefts chagrin, voters took time to begin reading & dissecting the healthcare bill before they could get it to the floor for a vote.
Just about all members had not and have not bothered to read the bill themselves. A great disservice to voters who elected them.
The radicals on the left of the political spectrum have been knocked back on their heels at the public reaction.
They have told the citizens that what the citizens read in the bill is not there. The left cries out "scare tactics" and "racism" as if the terms are somehow interchangeable, and applicable. The left has used the terms so dubiously in the past that they no longer hold sway.
The radical left has implied that citizens who read the bills should not "believe their lying eyes".
The left has complained that the citizens have burned members of Congress in effigy. I say they should be happy it was only in effigy.
I heard no complaints from the left when Bush was burned in effigy.
The left complains that the angry constituents shout the speakers down when the speaker only wants to provide information about the bill. Truth be told, they are only providing a censored version of the bill. They are not covering it with a point-by-point explanation.
The left knows if they did tell constituents what was really in there, they would be facing tar & feathers.
The left says insurance companies & rich conservatives are emailing their followers to show up & protest. I never received such an email or request.
Obama and his Chicago style cronies are preparing to strike back at the average citizens very hard.
Thursday & Friday saw the White House dispatch union thugs to these Town Hall meetings to rough up anyone opposing the bill. Obama wants any dissenters silenced. Anyone watching the numerous videos these past couple of days can see the SEIU (union thugs) labels emblazoned on their shirts.
Now the White House website has employed the Orwellian tactic of requesting our citizens to "report" anyone, saying or emailing, anything they find 'fishy' with regards to healthcare. In violation of our Privacy Laws. Nixon compiled lists of opponents too.
That is disturbing.
Question - How many readers have been asked to take a bus to a Town Hall meeting simply to disrupt it? Me neither.
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Friday, October 17, 2008
Unions, Democrats And The Secret Ballot
America goes to the polls on November 4th. We vote using a secret ballot. That is a way to allow us to exercise our right to enfranchisement as citizens. We are able to vote according to our own conscience, without sharing our choice, if we so choose.
The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.
Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.
Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.
The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats still need more votes to pass it in the Senate. They also need a President who will sign it. This coming election may provide them the Senate votes and that President. Obama supports it, McCain does not. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.
The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?
Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.
The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.
Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.
The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get thispassed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.
The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.
Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.
Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot.
The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats still need more votes to pass it in the Senate. They also need a President who will sign it. This coming election may provide them the Senate votes and that President. Obama supports it, McCain does not. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.
The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?
Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.
The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.
Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.
The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get thispassed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
