Maybe a "Non-Union" Bill? (4.00 / 1)

It's actually just like the Credit Card Reform bill that refused to cap interest rates or late fees.  The Credit Card Non-Reform Bill.

There is a law firm in San Francisco which is named after the last names of the main partners whose names are something like "Mister, Mostorini and Blastit" but which people in the know call "Hitler, Mussolini and Fascist."  It is an anti-union, anti-worker, anti-labor firm.  Employers hire them to prepare extreme anti-union programs and plans to be used to intimidate workers who even think of trying to get a union.  They are very ruthless and effective.  

At the same time, for decades, the unions have continued to rely on the NLRB (Labor Board) and the Democrats to help them fight back.  Union insiders, management and leadership pay themselves so much money that they live the lives of the rich, their kids go to schools with the kids of the CEOs, they live in the neighborhoods of the wealthy, and they have no real connection to their members.  Well, unions, look around:  you're losing.  The NLRB is pro-business and does nothing to help the working people.  Same for the Democrats.  Your leaders are rich, corrupt, and lazy, and mostly they want to be popular, to get invited to the Democrats' big parties, get their pictures in the newspapers for rubbing elbows.  So wake up.

Most of the old unions are so mired in sexism and racism that they refused to allow women or non-whites into their ranks when they had the opportunity, and now look like old German beer halls with old white men sitting around, doing nothing.  Then you've got the serious problem of the upstart SEIU which in most of its activities seems to be a employer-sponsored union, undercutting the real unions, taking dues from working people and selling out to the Republicans and to businesses.

No card-check.  No surprise.  It's time to get people out in the street.  For example, go after Wal-Mart.  Either get every worker there into a union or shut down the business.  Be aggressive.  Stop sucking up to the rich, to the Democrats, and waiting for somebody else to solve the problem.  It's like the union leaders have their members lined up before the Reverand Jones, kool-aid cups in hand, and they wonder why they're not so popular.  Get aggressive, get militant.  Stop asking the politicians to like you.  Slash your own union-boss salaries and get out into the streets.  Then you might get the support you need.

---

by: NABNYC @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 13:17:39 PM CDT

The House bill is garbage! (0.00 / 0)

The main "benefit" is supposed to be faster elections, after a union starts organizing!

Splendiferous!

Meanwhile, the bosses start anti-union propaganda from the first day on the job.

The only real upside is binding arbitration to make sure new unions (if any) get some kind of contract, and why would anybody think exactly that provision will disappear from the final bill?

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 13:47:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, (1.33 / 3)

under your concept, 1.5 million people should lose their jobs if Wal-Mart doesn't go union?  Sounds like forced unionism versus the will of the people.  that is exactly why unions are at an all time low of 7.2% in the private sector.  Because of greedy unions who no longer have the best interest of the employee at heart.  its now all about the money.  My dad was in the union for nearly 40 years.  his union time was about taking care of people, taking care of families.  The unions of today are all about power.  Who's the biggest and the best.  All they do is fight with each other and try to steal each other members at all cost.  with all the media coverage on unions now a days, more and more people just stay away from any union issues.  The unions have played the biggest role in their own demise.

---

by: RR @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:23:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another obituary for the EFCA (0.00 / 0)

Marc Ambinder has also posted an obituary for card-check in the Atlantic...

As of a few months ago, labor strategists could accurately claim as many as 58 votes in the Senate, just two shy of the magic 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. But even as President Obama and Vice President Biden dutifully praised card check in speeches, the White House did not put any political muscle into passing it, and they very clearly indicated to Congressional leaders that its passage was less important than health care, its economic stimulus efforts, its financial industry regulation proposals, and -- did we mention, health care, where the White House still believes that engagement with the private sector will push health care over the top in the end.

 

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 18:18:32 PM CDT

Stop giving money to (4.00 / 1)

the dccc and dscc.  Many dems are just as worthless as the republicans from a labor perspective.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sun Jul 19, 2009 at 17:08:49 PM CDT

I'd take it (4.00 / 1)

If it had binding arbitration, a provision of EFCA which I would consider more important than card check.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:24:42 AM CDT

I agree that binding arbitration is important, but... (0.00 / 0)

There's still some wiggle room with the selection of arbiters, and if there is no union, there is no arbitration.

For example, if the NLRB is in charge of selecting arbiters, every time a Republican administration packs the board with "black shirts," as Biden called Bush's NLRB board, then the whole process breaks down.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:50:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the labor board (4.00 / 1)

is normally appointed by the current administration.  traditionally, depending on the political party, the makeup of the board is 3 democrats, 2 republicans or 3 republicans, 2 democrats.  Wilma Leibman (current board chair) was on the Bush board and is a carry over.  There are currently 3 democratic board members and no republican board members.  It seems to me that the current board has every opportunity to make whatever changes they want.  The problem is that there are hundreds of backlogged cases in the system and it will take them years to hear/review.  It is not yet clear if the board would select an Arbitor or if the current rules would still apply whereby a mutually agreed upon arbitor is chosen by the union and company.  

---

by: RR @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 14:49:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]