Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By mooseberryinn on 07-11-09
Once again Rehberg is right and Baucus and Testor wait to see which way the political winds will blow.
I have written the comment below before. I repeat it here:
As to the Employee Free Choice Act card check process, this is how I understand the process works today. If 30% or more of workers sign a union card THEN an election through secret ballot is called to decide IF a union is formed. Under card check, if >50% of workers sign a union card, the union is de facto formed. The secret ballot would only occur as an effort by workers challenging the card check process. As it exists today a secret ballot is part of the union certification process. Under the Employee Free Choice Act card check it would only be the exception in an effort to overturn the signed cards. Everyone can draw their own conclusions as to what the secret ballot to overturn that result means. As I understand it would take 30% of the workers to challenge the card check results before a secret ballot would be called. Now, those challenging workers would be specifically outed before the vote. There would be retribution if labor history is any indicator.
Now why is it that Montana’s workers needs this perversion of the certification process?
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By mooseberryinn on 07-12-09
it’s rather humorous the way names of things under past and present communist regimes mean exactly the opposite of what they actually were. Example - East Germany was the People’s Demoratic Republic” or some such when in fact it wasn’t democratic in the slightest. Same with China, Venezuala, etc. And so - same with this bill - The Regime has named it wrongly to deceive.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
Cat-Griz: 109th Meeting Could Have Playoff Implications
A Holiday Curtain Call
Mixed Martial Arts Return to Kalispell
DOR Director Says Reappraisal Process Working
After 42 Years, Books West Closes its Doors
Comments on: Employee Free Choice Act: A Push to Expand Unions
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By mooseberryinn on 07-11-09
Once again Rehberg is right and Baucus and Testor wait to see which way the political winds will blow.
By Craig moore on 07-11-09
Look at what’s happening with the SEIU and the union on union cannibalism. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-union24-2009jun24,0,135543.story
Employee free choice? Not hardly.
By Craig moore on 07-11-09
I have written the comment below before. I repeat it here:
As to the Employee Free Choice Act card check process, this is how I understand the process works today. If 30% or more of workers sign a union card THEN an election through secret ballot is called to decide IF a union is formed. Under card check, if >50% of workers sign a union card, the union is de facto formed. The secret ballot would only occur as an effort by workers challenging the card check process. As it exists today a secret ballot is part of the union certification process. Under the Employee Free Choice Act card check it would only be the exception in an effort to overturn the signed cards. Everyone can draw their own conclusions as to what the secret ballot to overturn that result means. As I understand it would take 30% of the workers to challenge the card check results before a secret ballot would be called. Now, those challenging workers would be specifically outed before the vote. There would be retribution if labor history is any indicator.
Now why is it that Montana’s workers needs this perversion of the certification process?
By mooseberryinn on 07-12-09
it’s rather humorous the way names of things under past and present communist regimes mean exactly the opposite of what they actually were. Example - East Germany was the People’s Demoratic Republic” or some such when in fact it wasn’t democratic in the slightest. Same with China, Venezuala, etc. And so - same with this bill - The Regime has named it wrongly to deceive.