Go Back   iRV2 Forums > iRV2.com COMMUNITY FORUMS > Just Conversation
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Closed Thread
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-02-2009, 10:00 AM   #421
Registered User
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in Philly for the fall heading to Sunshine before the snow flies
Posts: 1,485
Lindsay, that looks like a "FOX News" fair and balanced report. Like I said everything written anymore has a slant, hence this thread goes on and on.
__________________

__________________
hondo122 is offline  
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-02-2009, 10:32 AM   #422
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
Once again. The prounion individuals won’t discuss the actual facts, but would rather just attack the messenger even when direct quotes are included. Management of the WSJ has stated that Rupert Murdock has made no changes at all in the editorial positions of the paper, but it is common fr people who never read it or look at Fox News to bash them from a position if zero information. I guess it is easy to speak for “most people” when you never back anything up with facts. Just so we are sure where we stand, I am for secret ballots in unionization elections. Where do you guys stand; with the union bosses who are against secret ballots or for secret ballots?
Are you guys saying that the senate is going to pass the anti secret ballot law soon or what? One thing that we do know is that the recent UAW problems have stopped any possibility of them winning any elections among the transplants who have seen what goes on and how they want to be working for a company that can survive. There have been 3 elections and all failed miserably and % of yes votes fell way below the % of signed card. (The 3 elections were held in only 2 plants as one plant had 2 elections). Card check activities have been going on at plants of all 12 companies with little results.
__________________

__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 10:53 AM   #423
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Posts: 140
A few years ago one of the hospital systems here in the Phoenix Metro area tried to unionize. As anyone can imagine there was a lot of emotion on both sides of the issue and there were some long time friendships that ended over the issue. I can't imagine what the fall out would have been secret balloting had not been in place. Why wouldn't you want to have secret balloting for something as important as this? Do we not cast our votes for public office in secret? Will that be the next item up to be done away with? If you don't think that couldn't happen, I believe that taking the secret balloting away from union votes will open the door. Once a law is on the books it is then open to muliple interpretations.
__________________
ScottyP is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 12:43 PM   #424
Registered User
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in Philly for the fall heading to Sunshine before the snow flies
Posts: 1,485
The Text of the Act
please point out where free choice is taken away by this act. Where intimidation (on either side) is authorized by this act. Everything we read has a slant except the act itself. So let's let it speak for itself.

HR 800 PCS

Calendar No. 66

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 800

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 1, 2007

Received and read the first time

March 2, 2007

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Employee Free Choice Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(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).

(7) The Board shall develop guidelines and procedures for the designation by employees of a bargaining representative in the manner described in paragraph (6). Such guidelines and procedures shall include--

(A) model collective bargaining authorization language that may be used for purposes of making the designations described in paragraph (6); and

(B) procedures to be used by the Board to establish the validity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives.'.

(b) Conforming Amendments-

(1) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 153(b)) is amended, in the second sentence--

(A) by striking `and to' and inserting `to'; and

(B) by striking `and certify the results thereof,' and inserting `, and to issue certifications as provided for in that section,'.

(2) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES- Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (7)(B) by striking `, or' and inserting `or a petition has been filed under section 9(c)(6), or'; and

(B) in paragraph (7)(C) by striking `when such a petition has been filed' and inserting `when such a petition other than a petition under section 9(c)(6) has been filed'.

SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.

Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(h) Whenever collective bargaining is for the purpose of establishing an initial agreement following certification or recognition, the provisions of subsection (d) shall be modified as follows:

(1) Not later than 10 days after receiving a written request for collective bargaining from an individual or labor organization that has been newly organized or certified as a representative as defined in section 9(a), or within such further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall meet and commence to bargain collectively and shall make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective bargaining agreement.

(2) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement.

(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.'.

SEC. 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Injunctions Against Unfair Labor Practices During Organizing Drives-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(l)) is amended--

(A) in the second sentence, by striking `If, after such' and inserting the following:

(2) If, after such'; and

(B) by striking the first sentence and inserting the following:

(1) Whenever it is charged--

(A) that any employer--

(i) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8;

(ii) threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(1) of section 8; or

(iii) engaged in any other unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsection (a)(1) that significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;

while employees of that employer were seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in section 9(a) until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative; or

(B) that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) of section 8(b)(4), section 8(e), or section 8(b)(7);

the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over all other cases except cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is referred.'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 10(m) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(m)) is amended by inserting `under circumstances not subject to section 10(l)' after `section 8'.

(b) Remedies for Violations-

(1) BACKPAY- Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) is amended by striking `And provided further,' and inserting `Provided further, That if the Board finds that an employer has discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8 while employees of the employer were seeking representation by a labor organization, or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in subsection (a) of section 9 until the first collective bargaining contract was entered into between the employer and the representative, the Board in such order shall award the employee back pay and, in addition, 2 times that amount as liquidated damages: Provided further,'.

(2) CIVIL PENALTIES- Section 12 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 162) is amended--

(A) by striking `Any' and inserting `(a) Any'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

(b) Any employer who willfully or repeatedly commits any unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsections (a)(1) or (a)(3) of section 8 while employees of the employer are seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization has been recognized as a representative defined in subsection (a) of section 9 until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative shall, in addition to any make-whole remedy ordered, be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $20,000 for each violation. In determining the amount of any penalty under this section, the Board shall consider the gravity of the unfair labor practice and the impact of the unfair labor practice on the charging party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights guaranteed by this Act, or on the public interest.'.

Passed the House of Representatives March 1, 2007.

Attest:

LORRAINE C. MILLER,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 66

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 800

AN ACT

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.
__________________
hondo122 is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 12:51 PM   #425
Registered User
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in Philly for the fall heading to Sunshine before the snow flies
Posts: 1,485
Lindsay, I do read the WSJ for financial news. And I watch FOX whenever I need a laugh!
__________________
hondo122 is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 12:57 PM   #426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 443
Lindsay , I subscribed to the WSJ for several years, even for a year after Rupert bought it. The drivel put out after his purchase convinced me that it is a RAG, not a newspaper. I also watch Fox "Funnies" for entertainment occasionally. Their "news" lacks one thing which is being objective. Most of their stories are, at best, a stretch of the truth. The Unionization of the transplants has been a battle for the UAW. Most of the workers at the transplants don't vote for the Union because of the threat by management to close the plants. They also threaten the workers that anyone talking about a Union will be fired and never see the inside of any of the non-union transplant factories. How do I know? My Nephew worked for one of the transplant factories for about 2 years. He promptly quit after the threats. He said that he valued his life more that the job at the transplant factory. Indiana Journey
__________________
indiana journey is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 01:47 PM   #427
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
If the union can coerce and intimidate 50% of the employees into signing a card check, then the union is in without any election. Under the present act if 30% or more of employees sign the card check cards, then there is an election with the NLRB holding an election with secret ballots. I keep saying this and somehow I am not making it clear. It is all over the press too. If there is no election there can be no secret ballot. The new law would mean no election and no secret ballot. People are intimidated to signing the cards in the present of the union thugs as we saw on video. Let’s see some documentation on why the UAW lost the elections. You seem to just throw out stuff as fact like the average UAW worker dying after 2 months. You hate the WSJ and Fox news. You left out Wal-Mart I guess. That’s on your liberal list too. Should I believe you or the editor of the WSJ who worked on the paper before and after Rupert and said he made zero changes.
Once and for all, are you for or against the secret ballot. I can not determine by what you say. Please just tell me so I will know. Are you for the secret ballot or against it.

The transplant workers have a future and the UAW workers have already lost half their jobs and the other half is hanging by a bailout.
__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 02:33 PM   #428
Registered User
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in Philly for the fall heading to Sunshine before the snow flies
Posts: 1,485
Lindsay, I will support the law whatever it is. The thrust behind the new law isn't to take anything away from anyone, but rather make it easier for unions to organize. Are you opposed to people organizing? When you frame everything in the negative ie: if you're for the law you must be against secret ballots. Can't you be for something without being against another? I think you can do both. I find it amazing that you have so little faith in folks that you think they can be easily coerced into going against their own self interest.
__________________
hondo122 is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 06:04 PM   #429
Registered User
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in Philly for the fall heading to Sunshine before the snow flies
Posts: 1,485
Glad you brought up Wal-Mart they don't need any union. The feds take care of the when they have low paid workers work "OFF THE CLOCK" so they don't have to pay overtime per the federal labor laws.
__________________
hondo122 is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 07:35 PM   #430
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 443
Lindsay ,Please read the post about the average UAW auto worker living an average of 2 months after retirement. It was in 1970! The contract for 30 and out was first voted on by the UAW in 1970. One of the reasons for the 30 and out was to allow the workers to be able to have more of their retirement. Since that historic contract the average of the UAW retired autoworker's lifespan has gone up. Most of the first 30 and out retirees are now dead. By the way, their retirement was about $590 per month untill age 62. It was then reduced about half when their social security started. Indiana Journey
__________________
indiana journey is offline  
Old 01-02-2009, 07:37 PM   #431
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 443
Lindsay, Intimidation by the companies is never documented. That is why they get away with it. Indiana Journey
__________________
indiana journey is offline  
Old 01-03-2009, 05:56 AM   #432
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
Let me ask you one more time as you refuse to answer. Are you against the secret ballot or not? The secret ballot takes away any result of coercion. You don’t have the union or management looking over your shoulder. This is now the law and the union wants to take it away. Only one reason possible and that is to make their browbeating people (especially women) forever. Shameful. Wal -Mart is the biggest employer in the USA and generally have long waiting list. The unions have been after them with horrible tactics for decades. People working there (78%) have benefits and the rest are part time an most of those are by choice. They even have the ever shrinking union masses against Wal-Mart. I will never believe any statement that UAW workers die any earlier than the general public. If it is the case, then document it. Should be easy. The UAW president would have it blasted from the roof tops if it was true. Attempts showing alleged company intimidate are brought to court all the time and most of the time are thrown out. Sometimes it happens I am sure, but the most intimidation in union elections happens between the thug paid by the signed card and the scared employee.
__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 01-03-2009, 07:04 AM   #433
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
Section 6 of the incorrectly named Employee Free Choice Act does away with the election process altogether. If the union is able to coerce and intimidate over 50% of the employees into signing the cards, then NO ELECTION IS HELD. How anybody can conclude that taking away the secret ballot “”The thrust behind the new law isn't to take anything away from anyone, but rather make it easier for unions to organize.”” is absolutely beyond me. Did you not read this section you posted yourself???? The whole thrust of the act is to take away the secret ballot, which gives every employee the right to vote anyway they wish and to have their vote cast without the knowledge of either the company or the union. This is a basic American right and it should not be taken away. Although you won’t admit it (ashamed I guess), you are for removing this right. Please admit that you are against the right of Americans to vote secretly and to do so without the intimidation of anybody or anything or defend your position of eliminating the secret ballot. Right now employees have the perfect right to organize and that fact that the unions have been losing membership faster than the Titanic going down isn’t a factor of the law which allows secret ballots, but rather a factor of the unions themselves as evidenced by the recent video about the UAW thugs. Americans have the right to vote in secret and you nor anybody else has the right to take their rights away no matter how much money given to the dems. This is wrong and you need to defend why you want to take away this basic American right,
__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 01-03-2009, 08:48 AM   #434
Registered User
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in Philly for the fall heading to Sunshine before the snow flies
Posts: 1,485
Lindsay the only thing you have backing up what you are saying are the Republican talking points. It didn't work for McCain and it won't work now. The American people no longer believe the BIG LIE no matter how often it's repeated or by whom. Hopefully we will no longer be lead to slaughter by some snappy catch phrase chanted over and over. Read the facts not as presented by either side but the true facts and make an intelligent decision. We have been force fed a bunch of crap by both sides and need to start thinking on our own. This is like the Gay marriage bs, just enough truth to get you to take your eyes off the ball, while they steal the ball! I don't have to defend anything just because you or the republican talking heads say something is true doesn't make it so!
__________________

__________________
hondo122 is offline  
Closed Thread



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dog attack GraciesMom RV'ing with Pets 29 04-30-2009 09:51 AM
King of the road goes bankrupt Jim Wilson 5th Wheel Discussion 2 02-09-2007 08:08 AM
2007 MADP - Or, the Attack of the Electrical Gremlins Doc Mark Newmar Owner's Forum 11 01-05-2007 04:43 PM
Eagle Cap Camper .....Bankrupt! TJ Camper Truck Camper Discussion 9 10-13-2005 12:14 PM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.