Skip to comments.Unionize or Die
Posted on 03/19/2009 8:39:55 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
The Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would allow unions to organize worksites without secret-ballot elections, was introduced in Congress last week. And this week, we saw how far Big Labor will go to pass it.
On Tuesday the Service Employees International Union posted a YouTube video about the horrific death of a Tulsa, Oklahoma, man who fell into an industrial-sized clothes dryer while clearing a jam of wet laundry. The accident occurred at a plant operated by Cintas Corp., a large uniform supplier. The implication is that the accident never would have occurred if the worksite had been unionized, and that opponents of the union bill have blood on their hands.
The video's target is Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren, a Democrat who recently declared that he'll vote against labor's top priority. The video concludes by calling for Mr. Boren by name to "stop risking workers' lives" and support the bill. The political ad also serves as a warning to other Democrats in Congress -- including Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas; Ben Nelson of Nebraska; Michael Bennet of Colorado; and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- who haven't declared how they'll vote. The message is that if they don't sign on the SEIU line, they'll get roughed up, and perhaps face a primary challenge next election.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
And so the end of what is barely left of a free America begins...
I think Taps ought to be played every day from here on out...pray for a turnaround before our way of live is completely gone.
bump for later
Im sure the Supreme Court will have something to say about all this. And Im sure it will make it that far.
Our Progressive Republican Chief Justice Taft started all of this.
Hopefully our current Chief Justice, John Roberts will make amends.
So you don’t think a Union would make the plant any safer for workers?
In other words, vote your mind - but everyone is going to KNOW how you voted. Your vote is no longer secret, your vote is now PUBLIC. So, vote how ever you want - just don't expect to be able to keep your opinion quiet, or that there won't be any reprecussions for voting against the 'party line'.
If the union tells you to vote one way, and you think it's in your best interests to vote the other way, don't be surprised to see your car trashed, your house burned down, your family threatened or your life endangered. They now have the right to KNOW who voted, and which way they voted.
Is there any legitimate reason to know how someone voted?
At what cost to the company? There's already OSHA and dozens of other federal and state laws ensuring a safe workplace.
The Democrats may try to pass this by voice vote to cover themselves.
You caught the part about this guy DYING didn't you?
Really? So this guy died in an industrial dryer that was properly locked out and in a zero energy state, according to OSHA regs?
That's the point of getting a Union. It's cheaper for the company to ignore the regs when OSHA isn't there to cite them.
Notice how they are still so tight lipped about the circumstances surrounding the accident? That ain't so they can make things safer for the rest of their workforce.
The point isn't to find out how people voted. That's just the only talking point management friendly forces can think of.
The point is not to pin everything on an election the company controls. Didn't you know the so-called "card check" system has ALWAYS been available to management, and has been used by companies like ATT? They don't like it because it keeps the question open instead of allowing them to go back to cheating once they've threatened, cajoled, and fired all the employees willing to stick their neck out to improve conditions and force the company to abide by federal regulations.
These employers are willing to piss away our sovereignty for cheap illegal immigrant workers; you think they blanche at eliminating anyone threatening their margins when abiding by safety regs is so expensive?
In a word, NO!!!
I once worked in an aluminum mill that was a union shop, saw a guy fall into a vat of molten aluminum.
I guess what I am saying is that accidents happen in union shops as well as non union shops.
I have no reply to someone who can deny the manifestly obvious by citing an anecdote.
“You caught the part about this guy DYING didn’t you?”
How exactly will the union prevent anyone from work place death? Please explain.
One of the Union's primary functions is to provide an entity "in house" to hold the company accountable to labor and safety laws without fear of retribution from management.
Where there is a Union, it is impossible to make compliance problems "go away" by firing individuals.
If there is no point to know how an individual voted, then why was the OPEN VOTE portion critical? I can see no reason, absolutely no reason whatsoever, to know how an individual voted unless the intent is to threaten, intimadate, maim or kill someone who disagrees with a particular point of view.
The primary function of a union is to collect union dues and contribute to democratic campaigns.
That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not a choice between safety or no labor union. Labor unions are not the only reason employers work to improve safety in the workplace. If unions were 100% responsible for workplace safety, then why aren’t workers dying off in droves in the Right to Work states
You have got to be kidding! Unions are a slim step above organized crime! And you actually think a union steward would not submit a name to the boss to make that name go away in the monthly RIF! Unions are a collective brotherhood running a vast protection racket on the theory that the company pays protection or the Union puts the company out of business. If the Mafia tries to do that they are prosecuted, but when a Union thug with a collective bargaining card does that he has your full support!?
Perhaps way back in 1885, Sam Gompers' efforts did a modicum of good in the face of the involuntary servitude brought by salaries paid in scrip at Company stores instead of in real Greenbacks, or in the face of dangerous workrooms in dark and dirty factories. Yet the reality was in the 19th century virtually everyone had to toil hard to survive in a time of no modern conveniences such as refrigeration or mechanization. The Garment Workers Union did not prevent 141 workers from dying in the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Factory Fire in 1911. Even in Gompers' time the Trade Unionism was anti-capitalist and still is now.
The most pitiful myth is that the Union protects workers from the company. When a union takes control of a workforce, in less time than it takes to say "Union card-check bill", the next question should be, WHO WILL PROTECT THE WORKERS FROM THE UNION?! There are a myriad of instances of loyal individual union workers finding themselves railroaded as scapegoats by their union leader onto the unemployment lines or even blackballed for not fitting into the personality cult of the Shop steward. The Union bosses are much more to be feared than any company official.
What part of company controlled elections did your ability to "see" cut out on?
Spare me the “outhouse litigation.” It does not take a wizard to figure out a business that has to negotiate with its labor force like any of its other “suppliers” will be more circumspect in its treatment of that supplier.
It's pretty hard to convince someone an idea is a "myth" when they've seen it with their own eyes.
That make the rest of your post nothing but a screed.
I am sorry, but you are simply wrong, and stuck in a 1930’s attitude about labor/management.
And stick it up your outhouse, I’ve seen you in action in this thread, and I’m done with you already.
Declare victory and run away from the debate...why am I not surprised?
Just another union goof trying to defend the indefensible.
America can thank the UAW for driving GM, Ford and Chrysler almost out of business. Screw you and your union buddies.
If Unions were so damn good why do their numbers shrink yearly in the private sector?
Make unions illegal!!!
The ONLY growth in unions has been in the public sector, look how well that’s worked out. Look at the huge deficits local, state and federal governments have racked up with close to 70% of each budget going for “personnel” costs. How’s your local/state working out? If you are in the north I know the answer- deficits with huge pension obligations.
Gee, I’m not hearing any comment about why this guy got killed working on an industrial dryer that wasn’t locked out...and people wonder why unions have the reputation of negotiating with a lead pipe.
They don't. You are confusing what little bit you know about the subject for what can be known.
If Unions were so damn good why do their numbers shrink yearly in the private sector?
Because it's cheaper to ship the jobs overseas than abide by the rules of this country.
I see so Card check is just a whim then?
Or are you coming out against card check?
Like how they struck down Campaign Finance Reform? Oh, that's right, they upheld it. Don't pin your hopes on the Supremes.
You caught the part about the owner’s baby getting new teeth, didn’t you?
Has about as much to do with the two sentences you just tried to associate.
IE, a non-sequitur.
The reason I ask is that my husband is a safety director at the non union plant that he works at, and he does safety checks (watching employees with a checklist) to determine that the safety precautions are both in place, and being utilized.
One of the most expensive components of any factories budget is Workmans Comp insurance, and claims. In order to minimize those costs the big nasty corporations MUST maintain their safety standards.
My dad was the union president at his plant for years, and they had the same exact W/C claims as my husbands plant does!
Card check has always been an option. Companies generally avoid it because it takes more effort to manipulate.
This legislation would take the choice of format away from management and give it to the workers.
So then unions do need special legislation to survive, or are you against card check?
Unions do nothing useful. Unions are not tolerated by Americans and must coerce the population by mafia-like intimidation to exist.
If they win, they will die.
Uhm... threats of physical violence... violent death by industrial accident.
Are you sure you know what "non-sequitur" means?
Sorry (sincerely), must have missed the part where he was being threatened.
Yeah, I can see a goonion thug making an example out of someone who wouldn’t “sign the card”.
And workers forming a collective bargaining unit is a union... big deal.
So how do you explain this Cintas case?
How is this an either/or proposition?
Unions are anti-American and should be outlawed.
Would a Union make the plant, or anywhere outside the plant more dangerous for workers that didn't vote in favor of a union?