Employee Free Choice Act: "Fox Facts" vs. actual facts
SUMMARY: Fox News has run on-screen text, often billed as "Fox Facts," falsely claiming that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would "kill workplace secret ballots," "kill workers' right to secret ballot" and "take away workers' right to have a secret ballot vote." In fact, as the Christian Science Monitor has noted, the legislation "gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot." Fox News has also aired on-screen text claiming that "current law requires workers to vote by secret ballot"; in fact, current law already allows a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers to represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union.
In recent days, Fox News has run on-screen text -- often billed as "Fox Facts" -- falsely claiming that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would "kill workplace secret ballots," "kill workers' right to secret ballot" and "take away workers' right to have a secret ballot vote." In fact, the legislation would not eliminate employees' right to a secret ballot; as The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Indeed, as the Christian Science Monitor has noted, "[t]he proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot."
Additionally, Fox News has repeatedly aired on-screen text falsely claiming that "current law requires workers to vote by secret ballot." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, current law already allows a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers to represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union.
Media Matters has noted that Fox News hosts and contributors have frequently advanced falsehoods about the Employee Free Choice Act. Think Progress has also noted that, in recent days, Fox News has frequently distorted facts when discussing the bill.
Below are examples of Fox News on-screen text advancing the falsehood that the Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate secret ballots or employees' right to a secret ballot.
From the March 12 edition of America's Newsroom:
From the March 11 edition of The Live Desk:
From the March 11 edition of America's Newsroom:
From the March 10 edition of America's Newsroom:
Below are examples of Fox News on-screen text falsely claiming that current law requires workers to vote by secret ballot.
From the March 12 edition of America's Newsroom:
From the March 11 edition of The Live Desk:
From the March 10 edition of The Live Desk:
Fox Facts? really? is this some sort of early april fools day joke or something......the statement seems oxymoronic. and i think im being nice a bit here
Calling anything a FOX fact is saying it is a fact because we say so even if it i a 100% falsehood.
I should have said because Fox News says it is so.
the bill should fail, it does not guarantee a secret ballot for the employee, and it should. If an employee does not want union representation then he or she should not have to worry about being intimidated into it through a majority sign up.
Hey James,
What does the bill change regarding the current status?
if nothing changes it need not be passed or even discussed, what is the point?
If nothing changes, why are you worried about it?
It's funny though, you arguing against majority sign up. You know direct democracy and all.
But I'll tell you what I told another hater of living wages and real family values; labor organizers are usually fired before elections, employers will hire union busting law firms so they can learn to legally harass employees with lies and intimidation. Employers will routinely tell workers that they will be denied promotion, stripped of their health benefits or perhaps even fired if they are suspected of supporting a union.
So spare us the Tony Soprano talking point that Limbaugh gave you. We don't want to hear it because you have it backwards. Right now companies have the right, and usually demonstrate that they will bring in the brown shirts to crack skulls in terror campaigns.
Do everybody a favor and stop listening to Republicans on worker's rights. They're filthy liars. They have no interest whatsoever in ever helping working people get a fair share of profits or protections.
and the biggest liberal intimidator of them all. You don't know how to discuss anything without laying out inflammatory senseless nonsense, insult and haul out all sorts of accusations with no merit or facts behind you. Just name calling for it's own sake. I am not duly impressed by such foolishness, or your inane fake bluster. you only make my point on this thread even more, and you are too clueless to recognize it. Keep at it, it's fun to read.
So, are you going to address his points or just keep saying "No I'm not, YOU are!" like an eight year old?
what points? That I hate family values, or that I repeat what Limbaugh told me. sorry, it doesn't deserve it. it's more left wing fear mongering lunacy.
Gee, James, you're just the hardest workin' chamber chump in faux business today, little fella.
Nice try. No sale. Take that trash back to freeperville.
jamesB: Conservatives constantly use fear mongering. The fact is that it's the "corporate bosses" that do the intimidation and fire those who try to form a union. Note that There's no 'free market' for Labor ... the privatized Fed sees to that and unions are the only way to overcome that bias.
"Conservatives" do everything they can to destroy "family values" with economic policies that drive people into poverty. Go to "Invisible Hand Drops Ball & Economics 101" to see how the "free market" fails. You are the one who is "clueless" ... and pathetic in your ignorance.
Plus, there is no "left" left in America. There's only a real center that's liberal. You're so far to the "right" that even the center looks like the "left." See the chart at Capitalism, Socialism, & Dictatorship.
" you only make my point on this thread even more"
And that point was................???
What was it again?
And YOU rant about inane bluster, foolishness, inflammatory nonsense with "no merit or facts behind you"???
Pot, this is kettle: YOU'RE BLACK!!!
So it's true? I'm the biggest... and fun? ;)
Seriously. Employers constantly impose their selfish will on union organizers. You did nothing to refute that truth.
btw, way to go personal while claiming victimhood... and avoiding the point.
Links please. We would all like to see just where this is happening! Keep it in the last twenty years at least!
Figurative speech, dimbulb. Here's a link which explains it in a way that even you might comprehend:
Let_me_Google_that_for_you!
Thanks for the assist learning to fly.
And there's this report, tbone.
And this.
This one is good.
Need more? Just ask. Because you should know by now that I don't come here and make stuff up. I leave that to the right wingers.
UR welcome, rh. You might want to add This_one to that list, also... Too... You Betchya!
Part of the problem is that even with a secrect ballot employeers intimidate employees into voting against unions. This is why the Employee Free Choice Act is needed. Also the union does not nesarliy get to be the one that gathers the signatures more often it will be a third party agrreed on by both the union and the employeer.
james,
This bill protects the rights of the workers, so that they can more easily form unions. That's the point.
so does the guarantee of being able to vote by secret ballot, that is the point of those who oppose this bill.
There is currently no guarantee of being able to vote by secret ballot. Only a provision that allows the employer to stipulate it.
and this bill eliminates the guarantee if the employer stipulates it, so unions may intimidate.
The employer shouldn't have any say in the matter. It should be up to the employees to decide for themselves. If there is intimidation by union reps, it should be reported, investigated and subject to penalty, like it currently is.
the point is, for the last time, the employee should not have to worry about whether or not his vote against unionizing may cause him harassment because it should be guaranteed in secret. If it is not, then it opens for door for intimidation, and it shouldn't. There are plenty of ways to intimidate and skirt investigations, and the employee concerned about being the victim of that certainly knows that. As does the union rep doing it.
"There are plenty of ways to intimidate and skirt investigations"
Such as?
oh please ,you can't be that naive to think that. do you think every intimidation tactic, no matter how subtle, can be rung through the wringer of NLRB and settled? no.
I guess it was naive of me to believe you when you asserted your knowledge of it.
you can think what you want, but you must be naive if you think the NLRB can arbitrate every subtle intimidation tactic, and it's a lousy argument to use to bolster your case.
"but you must be naive if you think the NLRB can arbitrate every subtle intimidation tactic"
I don't think they can, and I never said they could. I would also be equally naive to assert that every crime ever committed is reported, investigated and punished.
But I'm quite sure that the NLRB also does not arbitrate every subtle intimidation tactic used by employers.
"it's a lousy argument to use to bolster your case."
At least I'm making an argument. My argument is that there are laws and enforcement in place regarding unfair labor practices and that because of this, the EFCA will not bring about a labor-based worker intimidation epidemic.
"There are plenty of ways to intimidate and skirt investigations"
Which is exactly why employers insist on a "secret" ballot.
Martin Jay Levitt, a union buster with over 250 union busting campaigns under his belt, has described in his book "Confessions of a Union Buster", in vivid detail, the way he went about busting unions:
Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on the truth. As such, it is a war without honour. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack. The law does not hamper the process, rather, it serves to suggest manoeuvres and define strategies. Each "union prevention" campaign, as the wars are called, turns on a combined strategy of disinformation and personal assaults.
When a chief executive hires a labor relations consultant to battle a union, he gives the consultant run of the company and closes his eyes. The consultant, backed by attorneys, installs himself in the corporate offices and goes to work creating a climate of terror that inevitably is blamed on the union.
For union busters, like Levitt, the NLRA is a "union buster's best friend".
According to Levitt, "in its complexity the nation's fundamental Labor law presents endless possibilities for delays, roadblocks, and manoeuvres that can undermine a union's efforts and frustrate would be members." The union buster's key strategy, when confronted with an election, is delay the ballot, thereby buying time to organise a so called counter campaign known as "Counter organising drives"...
..... Levitt turned his attention to workers with union sympathies - what he termed "pushers". The strategy here was to personally discredit unionists. This required information. No means of obtaining information was ruled out. According to Levitt his team of union Busters "routinely pried into worker's police records, personnel files, credit histories, medical records, and family lives in search of a weakness that we could use to discredit union activists".
Where it was not possible to get "dirt" on a unionist, Levitt made it up. "To fell the sturdiest union supporters...I frequently launched rumours that the targeted worker was gay or was cheating on his wife. It was a very effective technique, particularly in blue-collar towns.
If the lies and rumours failed to muzzle union activists, the union buster resorted to sackings. These sackings are illegal under the NLRA. Section 8(a)(3) clearly outlaws discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union. Nevertheless, union busters know that reinstatement procedures are complex, some dragging out for years after the incident. The aim of the union buster is to remove the union support, based in the crucial period, prior to the ballot.
The current law allows for card check if the employer aproves it this puts the choice in the hands of the employees not the employeer. Also under this method the employeer can intimidate just as much as you claim the unions will. Right now there a multiple suits in court against employeers for preventing union votes ileagally and for firing employees for trying to form unions. This bill takes the power from the employeer and gives it to the employees and the right hates that.
Right now there is no guarantee of a secrect ballot. The employeers have been intimidating the employees illeagally to prevent unions for years and will continue it if things are not changed.
James,
There are more protections than just that, so maybe you should read the bill before making foolish comments.
save your insulte, I know what's in the bill.
Obviously not!
If you know whats in the bill then by the questions your asking your just being a hack for business against the working man, because all this bill does as the article states is make it easier for workers to unionize! If your against that admit it,stop hiding behind your stupid facade of taking the secret ballot away...it doesn't!
I am against working men or women who are opposed to unionization in their workplace being intimated through a majority sign up. You are the one who supports working men and women as long as they support unions, but those that don't be damned. your show of plight for the working man only extends to those you cherry pick, you aren't fooling me.
Whats wrong with being in a union? Union workers make more and have better benefits and have a better bargaining position with their employer. Further if the majority sign a card for unionization and the plant is unionized don't the workers who voted against the union still share in the benefits? How is that intimidation? If the union fails to improve living standards workers still have a choice. Your argument makes no sense.
nothing is wrong with being in an union, your attempts to say I hate unions or working people is asinine. your elementary intimidation tactics however don't impress me, but if I was a worker who disagreed with you in our workplace then I would absolutey be opposed to this bill. thanks for making my argument.
No I didn't make your argument and how you could equate answering your comments as intimidation is bogus. Where on a site blogging?!?!?! I assert your positions here are anti-worker,no way around it. The bill just makes it easier for workers to unionize? You could be against the union, but if a majority sign up for it, then shouldn't in this case the majority rule. The secret ballot is still available if a majority want it, this bill does not take that away. Your creating BS arguments to hide behind your dislike for unions, thats not intimidation just the truth! You have not presented any part of the bill that justifies your objection to it, which says to me you really don't have a argument ,your just against unions!
"if a majority want it". sorry, no guarantee there.
What freaky guarantee do you want? Stop making up Stuff!
I voted in one of your "secret ballot" elections to form a Union on June 2nd, 2007. We voted by an OVERWHELMING majority of 72% in favor of unionizing. End of discussion, right? WRONG!!!!!!! The company filed "objections"... one of which was that an employee representing the Union at the "secret" ballot election was POINTING HIS PENCIL AT THE YES BOX on the sample ballot. Others were not as frivolous, but frivolous nonetheless. The Region ruled against the employers in Oct 07. End of discussion, we had our Union...Right? ....WRONG!!!! The employer, unable to INVENT any new objections, now switched their focus to the JUDGE & NLRB PERSONNEL, saying they were incompetent or biased. The NLRB Natl Board ruled against the employer in April 08. NOW we had our Union...Right?......NOT SO MUCH. The employer, ORDERED to begin bargaining with us by the NLRB, REFUSED to recognize the Union, and as of today has continued to do so. But there's penalties for refusing an ORDER to begin bargaining, Right? **BUZZ** WRONG AGAIN. Oh wait, that's not entirely true. They did make them put up a sign saying (papraphrasing) "We know we were naughty, but we PROMISE we won't do it again.
OH YEAH, I JUST LOVES ME SOME "SECRET" BALLOT ELECTIONS. REALLY SOUNDS FAIR, DON'T IT?
Oh yeah, all this took place after we endured 6 weeks of INTIMIDATION, MISINFORMATION AND COERCION by an EMPLOYER MANDATED "labor relations consultant" & management STOOGES.
SPARE ME YOUR WINGNUT PARROT SQWUAKING.
Well played. lil' jimmy quite obviously doesn't understand this bill at all.
Things change in the trenches, which is why we need a new law, if for no other reason than to kill the labor busting industry.
Randy
I notice that jamesB hasn't responded. Anybody surprised?
Can you give us a link showing that a third party rather than the union would collect the cards?
Will the union eventually find out who voted and who didn't?
"If an employee does not want union representation then he or she should not have to worry about being intimidated into it through a majority sign up."
Do you know anyone who's been intimidated for refusing to participate in a majority sign up? Did they report the incident?
Unfair labor practice by management or labor is subject to enforcement by the NLRB. That will not change if the EFCA is passed.
employees should have the absolute guarantee to vote by secret ballot for if they do not they are subject to intimidation by other employees to vote for the union. that is common sense.
They have the same guarantee with or without the Bill. Like I said, try reading the Bill before you comment.
Or are you stating that the Bill needs stronger language regarding the secret ballots?
they do not have the same guarantees, why you stop telling me to read and read it yourself.
James, James, James,
Please, read the Bill and tell me where the "guarantee" is rescinded? Tell me how it allows intimidation?
The other laws still exist, this bill extends protections. Please provide the details of the Bill that take away these protections!
"gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot.
the choice takes away the guarantee. If you can't understand that simple concept, move on.
But there is no "guarantee" now. Majority sign-up is sufficient if the employer says so.
so I ask you too, what is the point of this bill then if nothing changes.
As was stated many posts ago, there is more in the bill, so we are back to "Read the Bill" before you make foolish statements!
For one, it lets the employees decide how they will determine whether or not they want a union.
exactly, and out the window goes the guarantee for the employee to vote by secret ballot. back where we started from again. I oppose the bill on that basis.
Again, that guarantee does not currently exist!
there most certainly is if the employer feels it is necesary to protect the employee from possible intimidation. this bill passes that guarantee is removed.
"there most certainly is if..."
Yep, IF. Therefore, it's not guaranteed.
The word "if" in your comment is incompatible with "guarantee." You think it's best for the employer to have the power in this decision (secret ballot vs. majority sign-up). I think it's best for the employees to have that power. But in either case an individual employee does not have a guarantee that a secret ballot will be the method by which the decision on whether to form a union is made.
At least under EFCA, individual employees will have a voice in that decision.
You said it: "...if the employer feels it is necessarry to protect the employee from possible intimidation..." Then the employer can go to the NLRB just like the employee. Your presenting a weak argument , no rights are being taken away, and a choice is being added.
Yes, that dashing and noble employer who will rush to his employee's side when danger arises. "I will protect you from higher wages."
Read Learning to Fly's comment about "Union Busting" above.
for every anedoctal story about the evil employer trying to bust the union, there is another one detailing the intimidation and strongarm tactics of unions. spare me.
Which do you think is more prevalent? Pro-union workers who try to intimidate their coworkers into backing a union, or employers who intimidate workers keep out a union? Who has more power to intimidate? Who is more likely to get away with little or no consequences?
Anti-union forces and employers have been convited of crimes more than twice a often as pro union employes or union reps in these cases.
But by forcing the secret ballot that is a form of intimidation. Stop being a knuckle head about this.
Hey stupid,
There is no guarantee now!!!!!!!!
your insults only reveal your pathetic desperation in clinging to an argument you can't make. who is the stupid one?
You.
You keep asking about some "gaurantee" that never existed and you base your entire opposition to this bill on the non-existent gaurantee.
So you tell me, who is stupid?
Exactly!!! He's shadow boxing and losing!
"So you tell me, who is stupid?"
(WAVING HAND IN AIR FRANTICALLY IN HOPE THAT TEACHER WILL CALL ON HIM)
OOH, OOH, I KNOW THIS ONE!
That would be a jamesB, right???
Ha, the way many liberals on this thread are practicing their own little ineffective intimidation techniques of calling me stupid, or calling others fools or cowards, and getting all unhinged at anyone who dares oppose this bill, much less even dares to call out union reps or organizers as possible intimidators, only reinforces why this bill should fail. It's not much different from the workplace when unions feel like the power they crave and need is threatened. If I had any doubts about what this bill is really all about, many of the arguments thrown at me has certainly removed those doubts. It's all about big labor, and the Democrats who are in their back pockets, and power, it's always about power.
little ineffective intimidation techniques of calling me stupid
You're lack of understanding about this bill shows your stupidity quite clearly.
It's all about big labor
Wrong again. It's about the workers and enhancing their rights to organize. "Big labor" is already organized and if they support this bill, it's because it has helped their constituency, THE COMMON WORKING MAN.
when are you some of you liberals going to wake up and realize that many of these special interest groups that have your Democratic politicians in their hip pockets, whose contributions to keep them in power and beholden to them, don't really give a damn about anyone or any cause they champion but rather use you all as a vehicle to keep you in the fold and voting to keep them in power. they don't want you independent, self-reliant and strong, but rather weak and dependent on them for what you think they can do for you. Sure it's done to some extent on some rightwingers too, like the religious tools, but it permeates the Democratic party on nearly every constituency.
Unions want workers to be strong and independent (of their employers attempts to abuse them and profit unfairly from their labor), that is the point of unions. Being weak and dependent is what the EMPLOYERS want. And if these "special interest groups that have [our] Democratic politicians in their hip pockets", acheive gains in wages and benefits and protections against unfair labor practices for their members and this results in keeping "us in the fold and voting to keep them in power", ISN"T THAT KINDA THE POINT?
From my perspective, liberals are keenly aware of the corrupting influence of special interests on the political class, both Democrats and Republicans. That's why liberals generally support campaign finance reform and public financing of elections. Conservatives don't seem to be even slightly concerned that Republican politicians are in the "hip pockets" of special interests, particularly the big industry lobbies. They call McCain a liberal for even attempting to reform the system.
When it comes to capital and labor, there has been a major imbalance for decades. Big business gives more money to political campaigns, to Democrats and Republicans, than labor could even imagine. Partly as a result of that fact, not only has union membership has greatly declined, but middle class wages have stagnated. No one wants corrupt unions, but liberals want unions that are responsive to the needs of its members, whereas conservatives are generally vehemently opposed to any collective bargaining.
As I see it, the level of corruption is much greater on the Republican side. Seriously, what have Republicans done to support the "independent, self-reliant and strong"? All I see is corporate welfare, privitazed profits and socialized losses, growing inequality, and expansive deficits. Not to mention a war based on false pretenses and the pandering to "religous tools" that you noted.
That's funny, considering that the politicians opposing this bill (ahem, republicans) are paid more by corporations and big business than the democrats who are pushing for it see contributions or payments from unions.
Who is in whose pocket?
But Foghorn, it this bill passes the daddies -- I mean bosses -- won't be able to protect their children -- I mean employees -- from the big bad union meanies.
"little ineffective intimidation techniques of calling me stupid"
If you feel it was my intent to use "little ineffective intimidation techniques", as you put it, you are mistaken. The purpose of the post you are referring to was to re-inforce "skeptical's" assertion that you are, in fact, stupid, as is so clearly displayed by your repetitive use of your false "guarantee" argument.
I apologize if you were "intimidated" by my calling you stupid, it was not my intent to do so.
BTW, this post shows your true "colors" as to your opinion of Unions.
Yes it's about power. It is always about power. Who has it and who doesn't. So a union grab for power will balance the power of the employer who 1) has better information than the employee, 2) is better able to dictate rates of pay and benefits and 3) can act capriciously against any employee deemed worthy of being "off the bus"...
I suggest you read "Good to Great" and its discussion of who should be on the bus.
Further, as one who has managed employee, I know the kinds of tricks employers play and especially the use of information that employees don't have access to.
EFCA is good for employees, not so good who have had it great during the anti-union reagan years.
I do not mind if a person opposes this bill but when that person is speading lies about what the bill will do I oppose that methodology.
"what is the point of this bill then if nothing changes"
It gives the CHOICE to the EMPLOYEE, rather than the employer.
Hence the title "EMPLOYEE Free CHOICE Act"
D'uh!
What changes is who chooses the method the employer or the employes. When one of the noninvoulved but effected enities can decide for me how I am to vote that is a form of intimidation in and of itself.
Your being obstinate. Let me get this strait. Previously empolyers were able to intimidate and harass workers and union representatives, draw out and obstruct the unionization process. Workers were fired , union representatives acess to workers restricted, and this is not my belief , this is part of American history,and now a bill that shortens this process, making it harder for employers to harass or restrict unions by allowing signing cards or secret ballot, in other words greater choice, is somehow twisted in your head as denying choice...WOW! That is some mental gymnastics!!!! But it shows what llenghts you go through to justify your anti-union BS.
How can you take away a guarentee that does not exist in the first place.
Since this is soo common and makes sense to you, can you give examples where employees have been coerced by other employees to form a union? I'd dare say it is common sense that it is the employer that tries to intimidate and coerce employees from joinning a union. Your against unions admit it!
"if they do not they are subject to intimidation by other employees to vote for the union."
Not legally.
Intimidation falls under unfair labor practice, which is enforced by the NLRB.
Labor will not have free reign to intimidate workers as a result of the EFCA.
He presents a straw argument to hide behind. He's just against unions.
I don't know how many times people have to tell you that EFCA does not eliminate the secret ballot. It provides the option of a secret ballot election OR a majority sign up.
Admit it. Fox is lying when it says that the bill kills the secret ballot.
There is one more thing that you and other conservatives seem to not know. COERSION IN THE WORKPLACE IS ALREADY A CRIME!
EFCA strengthens penalties against coersion by anybody. Corporations really hate this part.
i never said it eliminated the secret ballot, why are you lying? I said it removes the guarantee and as you say provides options, which takes away the guarantee. I don't know why all of you can't see that.
You really think you have an argument????
What guarantee? There isn't one you idiot!
Great. Finally you actually concede that Fox News is lying. If I had Fox News as my only news resource, I wouldn't know that EFCA doesn't eliminate the secret ballot.
I will correct myself, you actually never said that EFCA eliminates the secret ballot. You are not telling Fox's lie. You are in fact telling a DIFFERENT LIE. Over and over again on this thread:
"I said it removes the guarantee and as you say provides options, which takes away the guarantee. I don't know why all of you can't see that." -jamesB
That's a lie. Present law does NOT guarantee a secret ballot. Ask any Walmart employee if they have ever gotten this guarantee. See what answer you get.
You, sir, are disingenuous, and I know you for a fact
You continue to speak of the "secret ballot" as if it's some sacred ritual. In a way it is sacred...to management, because that secret ballot allows them time to call in the labor busters to intimidate the workers in the weeks leading up to the sacred secret ballot. In come the "consultants" to have a "talk" with the employees. Invariably, they warn that the union will be "costly", a not-so subtle hint that you'll lose your job or see your benefits reduced. After the sacred secret ballot come the legal challenges and stall tactics. After all that, maybe, MAYBE, management will recognize the union.
So, I ask, why on Earth would any SANE worker want to opt for a "guarantee" that guarantees management will have the upper hand? They wouldn't. Only a union-hater would support the continuation of such an untenable and unfair law. The card check allows the employees to unionize quickly, without pressure from management, and if you raise the specter of some union-goon leaning on an employee once more, may the gods strike you dead for being a liar and a shill for the power holders.
Randy
What fantagor said.
Under the Bush administration the NLRB only went after unions when a majority of complaints were against employeers. They were told not to go after employeers. Right now the cases against employeers are ones brought by the employyes themselves in court not by the government.
And if he DOES he should not have to worry about manamagement intimidation and bogus threats off layoff and plant-closures in the run up to the election. Opposition to this is insane. If 50% of a group publicly states something, why hold a vote? (Oh... yeah... to get people to change their minds.)
Do you think the union will hold many of these votes that they think will fail? They only need 30% now to demand the COMPANY to allow a vote. At 50% the COMPANY can decide to make them vote. (Essentially for the second time.) But they DON'T HAVE TO. Your hypothetical employee has no RIGHT to a secret vote now - it's the company FORCES it. So who's rights are really being threated / protected here?
And anyone who would not join a union, given the chance, is either woefully misinformed, a coward or a fool.
"And anyone who would not join a union, given the chance, is either woefully misinformed, a coward or a fool"
Or D) ALL OF THE ABOVE.
the bill should fail, it does not guarantee a secret ballot for the employee, and it should.
The current system does not "guarantee" secret ballot either. Employers can let employees form unions by card-check if they wish. So correct me if I'm wrong: You oppose both the current and the proposed plan?
These pictures are definitely worth a "thousand" (or more) words, and I don't think FoxNoise is going to like them that much - hee, hee. My one word describing how FoxNoise would respond to the pictures above: "Ouch". Great job MMFA.
I think the Chuck Norris facts probably have more credibility.
Isn't it funny how burnt-out hollywood has-beens can adopt wing-nuttery and find themselves a home on Fox News?
my personal favorite fact. (im going off my memory as best i can, so if i get it wrong forgive me)
chuck norris was on a tv set doing a commercial nearby that had a lamb. a light fell on the lamb and died and everyone began to cry. chuck picked up the lamb and nuzzled the lamb with his beard and the lamb sprang back to life. which made everyone happy. then chuck promptly roundhoused kicked the lamb, breaking its neck. just to teach the lesson "the good Chuck giveth and the Good Chuck Taketh away"
we are only here because we must be on the list of creatures chuck norris allows to live
Fox is owned by "Uncle" Ruphert and he is very anti union there for FOX is anti union. This is old hat for Faux News they fear equality.
why are wal-mart, fox and conservatives now on the side of labor?
the list of groups opposed to this legislation is like a who's who of anti-union groups.
They are not on the side of labor they are trying to make people think they are because they know they can not win with the truth.
and you think my post implied that I thought that wal-mart, fox and conservatives are now pro-labor?
Sometimes sarcasm is hard to distiguish from conservative ignornace, misunderstanding or typos. That's why I usually ask. (Sarcastically.) ;)
Usually the only true FOX Fact is when Janice Dean does the Current Weather.
The absurdity of the neo con argument amazes me. It's one thing to suggest that a minority that want unionization might bully there way into one by eliminating secret ballots seems VERY rare. The idea that they would first be able to reject a secret ballot for the purpose of bullying there way into a minority union seems patently ridiculous. And the idea that anyone who didn't "sign-up" would therefore be considered anti-union suggests a strange logical leap on the part of union organizers who would normally assume the person was simply apathetic but, more likely, afraid of management rather that unions. Unions are almost always the direct result of poor management. Most rank-and-file employees don't want to unionize because they've been taught from cradle to grave that unions are evil, and they usually only do so because they feel they have no other choice.
"FOX Facts" are just like pineapples - they're not pines, they're not apples.
Discuss. :-)
"FOX Facts" are just like pineapples - they're not pines, they're not apples.
Heh, heh. They're like head cheese. Take small portions of truth, press them together with a lot of misinformation, then coat them with a glossy finish & present it as a delicacy.
Employees already have free choice on this issue. An employer cannot legally stop a union from forming. But what is wrong with an employer having the right to ask fro secret ballots? All secret ballots do is remove the ability for people on both sides of the issue to intimidate individual workers based on their position.
It is still the employers' company and they should have a say in how a union is formed within it even if they can't stop it. Because like it or not none of the people forming the union would have jobs or the ability to unionize were it not for the employer.
The current law is fine and has worked well for many years.
"The current law is fine and has worked well for many years"
You're joking, right?
Unions form under the legal protection of U.S. law. If unions allow intimidation from an employer to stop them they have no one else to blame but themselves.
"If unions allow intimidation from an employer to stop them they have no one else to blame but themselves."
I stand corrected.(insert sarcasm emoticon here)
Hogwash.
The unions have legal recourse on an employer who tries to stop them from forming. If they choose not to exercise it that is there choice and have no one to blame but themselves.
SERIOUSLY, You're kidding, Right?
"An employer cannot legally stop a union from forming"
I have to agree with you there. For that, they use ILLEGAL tactics.
Thing is, the illegal tactics that they do use, if they are caught doing it, normally, it's a small civil fine (less than 1000 in most cases), and it's well worth it to a corporation to violate their workers, and complete illegal acts, and pay a small fine, instead of having a union.
A case in my working life for example. I worked at a plant that produced automotive parts in NC. The folks on the floor who built and labored for the company, and did the hard work of assembly and production did not receive a pay increase for 5 years straight. 5 years! A UAW rep met with them to discuss forming a union. Management go wind of this happening, and help an all employee meeting. They said, in that meeting, that if a union was brought in, the company was going to close the plant, and move everything to MEXICO within 2 weeks of a union being voted in.
This really happened.
The threat to and then moving the company, plant, or other part of th company has become a new threat that works and right now is not a crime.
It shoul be though.
Then you call there bluff and walk out at that exact moment.
Plus it is still their company and if they do not want to own and company that has a union there is nothing wrong with them using every legal means availble to them to try and stop it.
If they have the legal means to close the plant and move to Mexico, then how does one know that it's a bluff? Would you bet the food in your children's mouths on that?
The real change should be not just what is in the bill but prison time for every excutive invoulved in any form stopping the union including hiring union busters.
Unions use illegal tactics to intimidate people to join.
This is a form of intimadation because what it is taking the choice of how to decide on a union from those making the desission and putting it in the hands of the group or person that might get hurt by the dession. That is a way to tell the people you have no rights and that is intimidation. Legal but intimadation none the less.
Support the Freedom to form and join a Union. You can obtain an EFCA bumper sticker here:
https://unionshop.aflcio.org/product1.cfm?Product_ID=1474
We disagree with everything that comes out of Fox News and no surprise that they got this one wrong too. But someone has to cite to the law and provide the true facts about this proposed legislation. It does NOT give employees the right to choose whether they want a secret ballot election or not. If 50% + 1 employees sign authorization cards, then the NLRB "shall not direct an election." (See below for the actual language of the bill - it can also be found on various government websites). That means that 49% of the affected employees may not only disagree, they might not even know that they will be represented by a union until it is a fait accompli, simply because they were never approached to sign a card. Imagine if 49% of the American people woke up one day and found out that we had a new President, but they were never asked to vote. When the they say that employees get to "choose whether they have an election or not," that is a fallacy. Under the proposed law, if 30% to 50% of employees sign cards, then the union organizers decide if they want to risk filing a traditional petition for representation and holding a secret ballot election. But union organizers never have and never will. Almost all union organizing handbooks say that they must wait until they have 70% of employees sign cards before they file a petition and seek an election. (Note again, that it is not "employees" who seek an election, it is union organizers). Why would they risk holding an election when authorization cards are valid for 6 months to a year? They would just keep trying to get a majority to sign. As staunch Obama supporters and huge fans of this site, we expect more from you than to mislead your readers on what this bill provides. You clearly take the time to read and become educated on everything else, please read this bill. The truth is, we are very left leaning people in our house, donate considerably to Obama, DNC and left wing causes, but this law is, quite frankly, a ruse. Thanks for your consideration.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).
So you're afraid that somehow 50%+1 of the workforce of say, a Wal-Mart, will secretly vote to form a union behind the backs of the other 49%. Two big assumptions:
1. The 50%+1 will intentionally keep it secret from the other 49%.
2. That they CAN keep it secret.
Christ, have you worked ANYWHERE where people could keep a LITTLE secret? I haven't. Yet you contend half of the workforce might conspire to unionize against the will of the other half. Even if that's true, your apocryphal tale ASSUMES the other half DOESN'T WANT A UNION. Why? Because the evil doers in the 50%+1 side of the debate have clandestinely held an election, probably in black robes with lots of chanting no doubt. There is no logic to the point you make. It screams of paranoia and conspiracy theory. And, no matter how many vote on such a measure, the vote still must represent a majority opinion, that 50%+1 of the workforce wants a union. So, again, for your tale's dire conclusion to manifest, ALL 50%+1 must vote YES for a union. One dissenter and the measure fails, which further argues against your "double secret ballot" scenario.
Randy
Don't let RealFact get in the way of GoodFact!
Truthiness rules!
Just call out the right-wing fakes already!
Do any of the right wingers who troll here know how a union gets disbanded? CARD CHECK! NO SECRET BALLOT INVOLVED!
Union harassment is an overhyped myth. A union can't fire you, cut your pay, or deny you a promotion.
Fox's hatred for America is mind-boggling.