The place I used to work became a closed shop, so even though a lot of employees voted against the union, they were FORCED to join the union. Which means they had to abide by the union's rules AND were forced to pay union dues, hence some of their rights (and money) were taken from them.
This is not a case of where people came to work knowing it was a union shop. I was there for 14 years when this shit started and there were others who were there long before me. Imagine working someplace for 20 years and then be told by a groups of outsiders how you need to communicate with the management and that you now need to pay them some of your money for this 'priviledge', even after you said 'Thanks, but I kind of like how things were before you showed up'. I have to imagine that if it was a company who did acted this way and garnished an employee's wages at the same time, more than a few of our liberal brethren would be up in arms about it. On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I haven't decided if I'm in favor of the card check law or not but you > are totally wrong here. > > Just because a union exists at a workplace does not necessarily mean > that you have to join it. In some instances, called Open Shops, people > can join a union or not. In what they call an Agency Shop all > employees have to pay dues but do not have to join the union. In a > Closed Shop (or Union Shop), employees must join the union after > becoming employed there. Which type of shop it is depends on the > state, the union and the negotiated bargaining agreement. > > The EFCA bill does not change any of that (as far as I am aware). It > deals primarily with methods for forming a union. Under current labor > law there are two methods, a ballot and a majority card signing. The > EFCA bill does not change that. Instead it changes who gets to decide > which method to use. Currently, the employer gets to decide which > method to use. The EFCA bill would change that to allow the employees > to decide which method to use. > > I think there are some decent arguments on both sides but I dislike > the rampant mischaracterization of the bill. The basic facts of the > bill are not in dispute, they are just being ignored in a partisan > fight. You may dislike the prospect of easier unionization and I have > some qualms as well. But this bill does not force people to join a > union if they wouldn't be before, it does not take away their "right" > to a secret ballot or any crap like that. > > Lets keep the debate to things which are actually debateable, like > whether an easier path to a workplace union is a good idea or not. > > Judah > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > No, card check violates the rights of individual workers who may not wish > to > > join the union. I am protecting the little guy, remember? > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Gruss Gwrote: > > > >> > >> (3.) According to Robert, if unions want more options to organize it > >> violates their Constitutional right > >> > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:292903 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
