| September 7, 2008 | Posted by rachel c under 2008, Elections, Jobs, Labor, Politics, Poverty, Uncategorized, Voting Rights |
A caller on the Thom Hartmann show last week said that card check neutrality (when an employer agrees to remain neutral when their employees form a union — what the Employee Free Choice Act would guarentee for all workers) is really analogous to voter registration. I like that.
Opponents of employee free choice often frame card check agreements as if an employer is agreeing to mandate that its workers join a union. That’s just not the case– only workers can organize a union. The “neutrality” is that the employer just agrees to not interfere as they practice that choice, that vote. The employer agrees to honor democratic freedom in the workplace.
Indeed, unions are the only institution for workplace democracy
More:
2) Read this interesting Op-Ed from today’s paper, an employer who supports the Employee Free Choice Act:
http://www.pittsburghpost-gazette.com/pg/08246/908668-432.stm
|
About : |
Michelle Obama to Attend Fundraiser at Rivers Club on April 17
The Obama Victory Fund
Invites you to a reception with special guest
First Lady Michelle Obama
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
3:00 PM
The Rivers Club
301 Grant Street
One Oxford Centre Suite 411
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
To rsvp or for more details, please contact tfletcher@barackobama.com

Infographic on voter suppression from @ACLU - Let People Vote

PA <3 O’Bama via @ofa_pa
Sign in a storefront on Penn Avenue in East Liberty that reads, “Pennsylvania Loves O’Bama”.

MoveOn Pgh is hosting a free screening of the Document Hot Coffee on Sun. March 11, 2012 1pm @ USW Building
MoveOn Pgh is hosting a free screening of the Document Hot Coffee on Sun. March 11, 2012 1pm @ USW Building - RSVP here http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=127094&is_manage=1
The state Senate rejected a series of Democratic amendments before passing the voter identification bill 26-23, with three Republicans joining the Democrats in opposition. Democrats had tried to add new forms of acceptable identification and postpone the requirement until after the November elections.
Oh? Why did we pass this bill?
“The reason people don’t have confidence is because they think there’s fraud,” [Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele] said. “This would eliminate or dramatically reduce anyone thinking that there are people voting illegally in Pennsylvania.”
So, there’s fraud, is there?
“This is simply a solution in search of a problem,” said Sen. Wayne Fontana, D-Brookline. “It will alienate many of our citizens, including the poor, elderly and minorities.”
But Carol Aichele said there was fraud, didn’t she?
“The reason people don’t have confidence is because they think there’s fraud”
I see. So there is no fraud, but people think there is fraud. So we need to do this so that no one will see people without ID voting, and think there is fraud.
“This bill is a simple, common sense measure to protect the integrity of the voting process, which is the very foundation of our democracy,” Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi said. “It’s important to note that no voter will be turned away from the polls on election day.”
So people will go to the polls, see people asked for ID, which they will not be required to actually provide, and this method will assure everyone that there is no fraud, which we have already agreed is the case.
Gov. Tom Corbett supports requiring voters to show photo identification, and a spokesman for House Republicans said he expects the House to pass the bill in its current form.
Well, at least everyone can get behind this measure that everyone agrees will fail to solve a problem that does not, in any case, exist.
Who are you supporting for Allegheny County Controller
Total Votes: 33
Your brief post does not even mention the most contentious (and IMO outrageous) aspect of the EFCA. And that is the FACT that this law will make it possible for UNION BOSSES to choose whether or not a secret ballot election is held. And why would th UNION BOSSES want a secret ballot election if they can use coercion and intimidation to get the union approved with a card check (personally handed ballots) election? I can’t believe that anyone would give anybody this kind of power. Are the unions trying to return to the good old days of racketeering and cement shoes?
hmm.. actually, “Merit Man,” that was the point of my post. looks like you’re on the other side of the debate and are just trying to argue?
in “FACT,” why would there need to be a closed ballot election when a majority of workers in a given work place sign union membership cards?
furthermore, i’m not sure about “union bosses,” but i’ve sure seen real bosses intimidate the heck out of workers who try to exercise their choice in so-called “closed ballot” elections.
supporting EFCA is about supporting people’s right to exercise actual democracy in the workplace. period.