About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh: Employee Free Choice Act should be titled "The Union Brass Knuckles Busting On Your Knees Act"

May 18, 2009 2:03 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
      4  
      Yeah! Cause, you know... Then people would understand what's REALLY going on here!

      Sheesh. And the PATRIOT act should have been called the FACIST BEDWETTER'S GREAT WHITE POWER GRAB, or some such thing.

      Personally? I think the best thing we could do is to stop NAMING these acts. Just give them a number. Then we's have to sell them (or argue against them) on on their actual merits (or liabilites) rather than try to market them like the latest gadget Billy Mays is yelling about.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by markbfoot199 (May 18, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
          3
        Eddie, so your ok for us in the future looking at your ballot on any election from this day forward? If you agree with the Freedom Voting Act (laugh) then we should in the future just put our name on the ballot and then after each election have everyones names and voting records listed in the paper the next day? Sounds like you would be ok what that, if your ok with the Labor Union looking at everyone votes.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by steelers84 (May 18, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
          1  
          It would take 30% of opposition to force secret ballots. Secret ballots ARE NOT required now. All this does is change who can force a secret ballot - it gives the choice to the employees rather than the employers.
          And, by the way, I'm ok with you publishing my ballot. But I'm not a bedwetting coward like Limbaugh who lives life in fear of "goons" or "Islamoextremists".
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 19, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
          1  
          Nonsense. As usual you misrepresent the issue. If I don't want to sign, I don't have to. If I want a secret ballot? I won't sign. (Unless I'm needed for the 30% to force the secret ballot.)
          Report Abuse
    • Author by o rly (May 18, 2009 2:14 pm ET)
      3  
      If there's one person working-class people should turn to for help and advice, it's definitely Rush Limbaugh.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by archae (May 18, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
      5  
      Limbaugh whining about EFCA, I guess he never has gotten past the movie, "Hoffa," or the 70's Reader's Digest articles.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (May 18, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
        1  
        I remember those articles. Really hilarious-- right up there with the humor in uniform column-- we never knew that 'Nam could be such fun and frolic.

        If only "the unions" still passed out brass knuckles. We'd all be in much better shape, like the middle class used to be.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
        5
      So far, none of you seem to know what the issue is. Am I wrong? Explain it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mr. l (May 18, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
        4  
        No one 'forces' one to be in a union. Got it?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
            4
          You are wrong. It's called a "closed shop". If you don't join the union you are not allowed to work there. When it comes to state employment, "there" can be a very big company. Of course, you're free to move to another state or change your career, so technically you aren't "forced" to join a union.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by carlileb5935 (May 18, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
            2  
            Not so.

            No one is forced to join a union. If it's a closed shop, any employee is allowed to opt out. They still have to pay an "agency fee" which-- depending upon the contract negotiation-- usually goes to charity.

            The reason for still requring the fee is that if people could waive it, everybody would-- but they'd still enjoy the union benefits in the contract. So they have to pay it-- sometimes not even all of it.

            If people don't like unions, you can always negotiate your own deals with your employer. Good luck.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 4:28 pm ET)
                3
              Sorry, I've lived it. My knowledge is first hand. I had to work hard to beat it after having the union pick my pocket and not be there when their theoretical services should have been. The means by which I beat it won't work for most people. your information may work somewhere, but not in the state I live in.

              The "opt out" fee you're talking about may go to charity somewhere, but not where I live. It goes to pay for union expenses in representing the workers in a "bargaining unit". It pays for union activities, mostly salaries. Political contributions are the only exception. They go about 98% to the Democrats. But in supporting the union at all you are supporting their ability to squeeze involuntary contributions out of working people to feed the propoganda machine of the Democratic Party. Having just "opted out" I would get to pay the union for their representation but they wouldn't have to represent me, which they might not have done anyway.

              Don't pretend to tell me about unions. The Union took thousands of my dollars over a few decades. They were never there when I needed them and the only protection I ever needed was provided by state and federal regulations the unions had little to do with. If they were a free-market company selling me a service I would have cancelled my subscription. You don't get that choice when the union gets into your company. I recommend to all workers that you get out if you can. Whatever the unions started as they're a racket now and part of the racket is taking money from conservatives and middle-road workers and funneling it into the Democratic Party.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
                2  
                They were never there when I needed them and the only protection I ever needed was provided by state and federal regulations the unions had little to do with.

                Such as?! Those regulation exsist because organized labor lobbied the gov't to put them there! What? Do you think the RW Corprate types just threw you a bone out of the kindness of their hearts?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
                    2
                  Unions have lobbied for SOME of them. And agianst some as well. Industry, grassroots actions and our elected representatives have had a little bit to do with it. You're giving unions credit where it isn't due.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 18, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Unions ended child labor, gave us the 40hr workweek. Pensions, healthcare, vacations. NONE of those existed before they were union demands.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 19, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Without unions there would have been no presurr eto make any of them happen. NOr would the wages that YOU (yes, YOU) were paid over those "decades that you were ripped off" have been as high as they were. EVen non-union shops pay more, if only to prevent their workers from organizing, so even THOSE workers owe a lot to unions. You whine about the "thousands" that you paid in dues, while dismissing the TENS OF THOUSANDS more that you earned in income becasue of their very existance. Any Labor that opposes unions is penny wise and pound stupid. Management that gets labor to oppose unions? Laughs all the way to the bank.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 18, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
                2  
                I have had a union job in a closed shop for more than thirty years. The union was ALWAYS there for me. My union makes NO contributions with my dues. We have a seperate fund we can contribute to for that. Corporations make contributions too. They raise the price of the products you buy to pay for them and they mostly go to Rebublicans. You just dont like those with LESS power banding together with their DEMOCRATIC power to get a fair price for their labor. Labor creates all wealth in this country. ALL WEALTH, not one dime is created by buying and selling that is economics 101. I have to wonder WHY your union was not there for you. What did you DO to create THAT situation. Again you spout the propaganda you have been programmed with. Its nonsense. I KNOW. I have LIVED this. I have a good life largely because I have a union job.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by steelers84 (May 18, 2009 7:27 pm ET)
                2  
                I will "pretend" to tell you about unions. I was a union executive, and have worked for both union and nonunion shops, both while I was in college and in my career. The reason you paid to be in the union, first and foremost, was the extra pay. Otherwise, why wouldn't you have gone to a nonunion shop when "The Union took thousands of my dollars over a few decades."? The reason you stayed with the union workplace with the higher pay and better benefits, was, duh, the higher and pay and better benefits. That's what your dues paid for. If your dues cost more than the pay and benefits you received, you would have changed workplaces. It's that simple.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 18, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
            2  
            No one FORCES you to be in a union. If you dont LIKE working for a union dont get a job in a closed shop. There are people like YOU who want the advantages of a union. The higher pay and better benifits but want a free lunch, they want the OTHER workers to pay for it. You dont like your union there are plenty of non union jobs out there.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
        5  
        Why don't YOU explain what you think the issue is, and then we can humiliate you by exposing your ignorance? Why don't we try that instead.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
            5
          Fair enough. The Orwellian "Employee Free Choice Act" allows unions that wish to establish themselves as the representatives for a class of workers in a particular company are allowed to collect the requisite 51% of membership votes in the form of pledges indicating the employee's desire to have this union represent them. This arrangement already exists and is the one used by a union to establish that they have sufficient support to call for a vote to unionize by the targeted employees. One of the most significant changes this act would make is that a union that gathers sufficient numbers of these pledges will no longer need to have the pledges ratified in a secret ballot. The pledge forms themselves will substitute as ballots. These can be obtained in direct contact with individual employees who, in signing them, reveal to the union their vote. This is instead of the current secret ballot in which, no matter how a worker signed their pledge card, they can now vote with no one knowing how they voted. The "Free Choice Act" allows "votes" to be taken in circumstances where they are not annonymus and thereby opens the door to corruption.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 18, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
            2  
            Well, your wrong on one rather important point. Union organizers currenltly only need 30% of the current work force to sign up pubicly in order to hold a ballot. If, as you say, they get 50% or more the emplyoer can STILL FORCE a secret ballot. Now, I ask you, what is the point fo this? If 50% is the threshhold and 50% are willing to risk getting fired, etc... By PUBLICLY stating their desire to organize, WHY would the secret vote be any different? Well... ONE REASON in that management can threaten, cajole, entice or just REPLACE everyone who they suspect of having union sympathies. So who's ebign Orwellian here? The EFCA allows the employees to have the 50% who express their view PUBLICLY have their wishes granted and their rights protected, while at the same time still allowing the secret ballot to happen at a 30% threshold, as if the case now. There's nothing "Orwellian" going on here. The only people who are losing any "rights" are the management and that "right" is just the "right" to sway the ellection through technically illegal tacticts. Of course... it's pretty hard to proove that your employer acted unfairly if you're just one indiviudal, and don't have the union labor law experts on your side. Because you KNOW management will have THEIR experts covering them.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
                3
              Management isn't in a god position to threaten in a secret ballot. The union is in a strong position to threaten in the system this legislation would establish. Rush is right.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 18, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
                2  
                Oh baloney. The NLRB has TONS of examples of EXACTLY that kind of intimidation. They FIRE union supporters they threaten to move the plant, they harass and intimidate the workers they hire union busting lawfirms. It is frankly LUDICROUS to say employers arent in a position to intimidate workers when the record shows the do EXACTLY that
                Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 19, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
                1  
                Huh? MANAGEMENT IS ALWAYS IN A STRONG POSITION TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! That's why everyone wants to go into it! Unions are the ONLY THING that curtails the POWER of MANAGEMENT and that's what they HATE about it!

                No, Rush is WRONG, and so are you.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by markbfoot199 (May 18, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
                2
              Wow Eddie you really showed him, you got right out there and, hummm how did you put it "humiliate you by exposing your ignorance" See Eddie, you just made the case on why the Act is a farce "ONE REASON in that management can threaten, cajole, entice or just REPLACE everyone who they suspect of having union sympathies. Once the Unions know how you voted, they will do this, where as your wrong about management. Next area you are wrong, "who express their view PUBLICLY have their wishes granted and their rights protected" Once your in the union, you no long get a voice, you have to follow what the Union tell you to do, single voice gone. "The only people who are losing any "rights" are the management and that "right" is just the "right" to sway the ellection through technically illegal tacticts. I like how you throw around the word "right" as if it is ok squash anyones Right, but as long as you get what you want, who cares about their rights.
              I will leave it at this, the more the unions take control the more the jobs will leave this country. The Unions were good in the beginning, but now just hurt this country. Thanks to the Unions, the auto industry is in pain and the jobs are leaving for other countries.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 18, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
                2  
                Your post was insane. Unions cannot fire anybody. I have never HEARD of a union that could. It is even sillier to say once you are in a union you have no voice. We vote on EVERY contract, every CHANGE in a contract. My reps are ELECTED. You dont know what you are talking about. Unions didnt hurt the auto industry. Japan and Germany our biggest competitors auto industry is UNION. What hurt them is that those countries have national healthcare and pension plans and their companies dont have to pay those. You definitly know the Limborg programming. Reality however is a foriegn concept for you
                Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 19, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
                1  
                If you think that as an individula laborer youhave a VOICE, You. Are. A. Fool. LABOR only has any power at all when it acts collectovely. If you can negotiate a better deal that a union can, then you should be in sales or purchasing my friend becasue you are obviously one hell of a negotiator, and overqualified for manual labor anyway. If not? You're just whining and don't know how good you have it, or where it all came from.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (May 18, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
        6  
        The issue is that after the Republican Party has spent the last hundred years fighting organized labor, and after Limbaugh and the other talking heads for corporate America have bad mouthed unions since they took to the air, now we're led to believe that they know what's best for the American worker?

        Please excuse my distrust.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 18, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
        3  
        You are wrong and I dont DO requests.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (May 18, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
      3 1
      And Rush's radio show should be called "Fat, drug addict, thrive divorced loud mouth doesn't know what he's talking about.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (May 18, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
        1  
        And who's a member of a union-- that guarantees him primo health benefits above and beyond his formal contract.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by TheThief672 (May 18, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
      3  
      Unions help honest hard working people keep their jobs. I worked for AT&T and if it wasn't for the Union (CWA) I would have lost wages and have been suspended unethically. The people that did not join the union whose jobs were threatened and eventually fired did not have a leg to stand on.
      (on a side note; I recently quit AT&T and testified to the Attorney Generals Office of Economic Crimes about AT&T's unethical sales practices and continuous fraud against the American consumer)
      UNIONS HELP THE WORKER....PERIOD!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ewl94232 (May 18, 2009 4:40 pm ET)
          1
        Not "period", but it is true, unions aren't all bad, some better than others and some have had better experiences than others. But understand this ... the only legal power the union has to protect your job is to threaten a strike or sue in court. Your job was probably protected by laws enacted as part of your state's Activity Codes. It was those regulations that gave your union's lawyers a legal foundation to challenge your termination. You and those hapless other employees could have challenged termination on the same grounds with your own lawyers. The exception to this would be your contract, bargained by the union. If the company violated a contract then it could be threatened with a law suite. Yes, companies the size of AT&T hire lots of lawyers. If not for the union you might not have had as good a contract or as expensive a legal team to negotiate for you. Unions aren't all bad. In fact, I'd be in favor of them again if they were cleaned up and made non-partisan.

        I'm glad yours was a happy experience. It's just not the only experience.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 18, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
          1  
          Again a reasonable post. True there are bad unions. There simply isnt anything run by human beings that cant be corrupted. I have a good strong union and we DEFINITLY have more power than you are talking about but that has to do with federal laws particular to my industry so I will leave that. The IDEA of unionism is GOOD. It is direct participatory democracy. I HAVE seen some unions betray their workers here and there. Blame those running it not the concept of unionism. People are corruptable that isnt a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. More unions will mean MORE middle class. More higher paid workers to buy MORE products that WE can produce and that would be a good thing for the economy. History shows that when the countries wealth is TOO concentrated it is bad for the economy and when the middle class grows and there is more disposable income in the hands of consumers it is good for the economy
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dadre (May 18, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
      1  
      He forgot to add "woe is me" and if it works 90% of the time then it doesn't work at all.....Every time someone works for good there are always people who take advantage of the situation. Look at just about every scientific breakthrough in history. but as previously stated before Unions have worked tirelessly for workers for many years and have raised wages and improved the quality environment of many work places.

      If we didn't have Unions wages would be a decreased and the quality of the workplace would be just above habitable. The whole union concept is that we are stronger together than we are apart and of course anyone keeping ou down would want to separate you....(try to get rid of unions)

      That's like telling me that an organization can regulate itself. If we disposed of affirmative action today most ethnics wouldn't be able to get a job unless no whites wanted to do it. Most people will do just about anything for money as long as it doesn't hurt them. The only rights that Limbaugh fights for are his and the rights of anyone who serves him food.....or drugs. That is only if it effects their ability to do so.
      Report Abuse