Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Would one of you please put this question into a form that even Harry
can understand so we can get an answer? Apparently the Elite left has
lost so much touch with the middle class in America, they don't even
speak English anymore.. Thank you, I am sure others are interested in
this issue.

Here is the question in English:

Just watching CNN. Robert Reich is saying the secret ballot makes it
possible for companies to intimidate workers?? Can you explain how
not knowing how someone votes can create intimidation, and going to
their homes, with their wives and children home with a ballot and
asking them to check off a box in front of union thugs doesn't ??

Thanks, Just Wait...
The problem is, you simply do not understand what Reich was alluding
to...it wasn't the ballot itself, but what happens in the intimidating
processes perpetrated by employers leading up to the vote. Employers
will do whatever they can to chill the pro-union vote, even when there
are more than enough cards to secure an election.

I must say, I've gotten a kick over the years of the anti-unionism
expressed here by guys who couldn't qualify as an apprentice to most
union workers.
Why can't the secret vote be taken in a much more timely manor?
Without getting into a presentation of a dissertation, let me just say
that in the last eight years the Bush Admin has stacked the deck against
unions in terms of union elections, decerts, allowing employer
intimidation, employer delays and packing the NLRB courts. Some of that
will change with the new administration, and if it does, and the playing
field is fairer, there will be less call for card certifications.

In recent years, a favorite tactic of employers has been to refuse to
negotiate in good faith, even after a union has won a rep election.

If you are interested in the subject, there's a decent synopsis here under
union busting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting


I must say, I am much more a fan of the old-fashioned school of union
organizing. What happens today is far too "white collar-ish" for my taste.

I think you avoided my question.


This is what he's talking about

http://www.unionfacts.com/

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

On Nov 25, 11:29*am, "D.Duck" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message

...





D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Would one of you please put this question into a form that even Harry
can understand so we can get an answer? Apparently the Elite left has
lost so much touch with the middle class in America, they don't even
speak English anymore.. Thank you, I am sure others are interested in
this issue.

Here is the question in English:

Just watching CNN. Robert Reich is saying the secret ballot makes it
possible for companies to intimidate workers?? *Can you explain how
not knowing how someone votes can create intimidation, and going to
their homes, with their wives and children home with a ballot and
asking them to check off a box in front of union thugs doesn't ??

Thanks, Just Wait...

The problem is, you simply do not understand what Reich was alluding
to...it wasn't the ballot itself, but what happens in the intimidating
processes perpetrated by employers leading up to the vote. Employers
will do whatever they can to chill the pro-union vote, even when there
are more than enough cards to secure an election.

I must say, I've gotten a kick over the years of the anti-unionism
expressed here by guys who couldn't qualify as an apprentice to most
union workers.

Why can't the secret vote be taken in a much more timely manor?

Without getting into a presentation of a dissertation, let me just say
that in the last eight years the Bush Admin has stacked the deck against
unions in terms of union elections, decerts, allowing employer
intimidation, employer delays and packing the NLRB courts. Some of that
will change with the new administration, and if it does, and the playing
field is fairer, there will be less call for card certifications.

In recent years, a favorite tactic of employers has been to refuse to
negotiate in good faith, even after a union has won a rep election.

If you are interested in the subject, there's a decent synopsis here under
union busting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting

I must say, I am much more a fan of the old-fashioned school of union
organizing. What happens today is far too "white collar-ish" for my taste.

I think you avoided my question.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's new? That's the low life's M.O.

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

On Nov 25, 11:25*am, Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Would one of you please put this question into a form that even Harry
can understand so we can get an answer? Apparently the Elite left has
lost so much touch with the middle class in America, they don't even
speak English anymore.. Thank you, I am sure others are interested in
this issue.

Here is the question in English:

Just watching CNN. Robert Reich is saying the secret ballot makes it
possible for companies to intimidate workers?? *Can you explain how
not knowing how someone votes can create intimidation, and going to
their homes, with their wives and children home with a ballot and
asking them to check off a box in front of union thugs doesn't ??

Thanks, Just Wait...

The problem is, you simply do not understand what Reich was alluding
to...it wasn't the ballot itself, but what happens in the intimidating
processes perpetrated by employers leading up to the vote. Employers will
do whatever they can to chill the pro-union vote, even when there are more
than enough cards to secure an election.

I must say, I've gotten a kick over the years of the anti-unionism
expressed here by guys who couldn't qualify as an apprentice to most union
workers.

Why can't the secret vote be taken in a much more timely manor?

Without getting into a presentation of a dissertation, let me just say
that in the last eight years the Bush Admin has stacked the deck against
unions in terms of union elections, decerts, allowing employer
intimidation, employer delays and packing the NLRB courts. Some of that
will change with the new administration, and if it does, and the playing
field is fairer, there will be less call for card certifications.

In recent years, a favorite tactic of employers has been to refuse to
negotiate in good faith, even after a union has won a rep election.

If you are interested in the subject, there's a decent synopsis here
under union busting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting

I must say, I am much more a fan of the old-fashioned school of union
organizing. What happens today is far too "white collar-ish" for my taste..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

crickets you have answered nothing...

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

On Nov 25, 11:35*am, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Of course the employers don't want the union to get established. *Why
would anyone want to suffer the same fate as the Big 3 automakers are,
having been sucked dry by the UAW?

It's funny to hear the pro-union trash on this NG whine about
intimidation. *That's exactly how unions exist... through
intimidation. *"Give us another raise and increase our benefits, or we
go on strike!"

************************************************** ***********

You best stick to something you know...such as pleasuring the 'palm
sisters'.

In the last number of years where I worked, it was about continual
concessions.. one way of course with the unions on the losing end.
*In the background ...always threats the location could be downsized.

Yeah, and who pushed the concessions votes? Probably your union
business agent who is soundly in the pocket of management :(

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

On Nov 25, 12:55*pm, wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:29*am, "D.Duck" wrote:





"Boater" wrote in message

...

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Would one of you please put this question into a form that even Harry
can understand so we can get an answer? Apparently the Elite left has
lost so much touch with the middle class in America, they don't even
speak English anymore.. Thank you, I am sure others are interested in
this issue.

Here is the question in English:

Just watching CNN. Robert Reich is saying the secret ballot makes it
possible for companies to intimidate workers?? *Can you explain how
not knowing how someone votes can create intimidation, and going to
their homes, with their wives and children home with a ballot and
asking them to check off a box in front of union thugs doesn't ??

Thanks, Just Wait...

The problem is, you simply do not understand what Reich was alluding
to...it wasn't the ballot itself, but what happens in the intimidating
processes perpetrated by employers leading up to the vote. Employers
will do whatever they can to chill the pro-union vote, even when there
are more than enough cards to secure an election.

I must say, I've gotten a kick over the years of the anti-unionism
expressed here by guys who couldn't qualify as an apprentice to most
union workers.

Why can't the secret vote be taken in a much more timely manor?

Without getting into a presentation of a dissertation, let me just say
that in the last eight years the Bush Admin has stacked the deck against
unions in terms of union elections, decerts, allowing employer
intimidation, employer delays and packing the NLRB courts. Some of that
will change with the new administration, and if it does, and the playing
field is fairer, there will be less call for card certifications.

In recent years, a favorite tactic of employers has been to refuse to
negotiate in good faith, even after a union has won a rep election.

If you are interested in the subject, there's a decent synopsis here under
union busting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting

I must say, I am much more a fan of the old-fashioned school of union
organizing. What happens today is far too "white collar-ish" for my taste.

I think you avoided my question.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's new? That's the low life's M.O.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He has never aswered questions. Where have you been? He just spouts
the talking points and outshouts the opposition, it's been the DNC
tactic ever since the Clinton admin.. Censor anybody or threaten
anybody who does not toe the line, then shout over them...

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Would one of you please put this question into a form that even Harry
can understand so we can get an answer? Apparently the Elite left has
lost so much touch with the middle class in America, they don't even
speak English anymore.. Thank you, I am sure others are interested in
this issue.

Here is the question in English:

Just watching CNN. Robert Reich is saying the secret ballot makes it
possible for companies to intimidate workers?? Can you explain how
not knowing how someone votes can create intimidation, and going to
their homes, with their wives and children home with a ballot and
asking them to check off a box in front of union thugs doesn't ??

Thanks, Just Wait...
The problem is, you simply do not understand what Reich was alluding
to...it wasn't the ballot itself, but what happens in the intimidating
processes perpetrated by employers leading up to the vote. Employers
will do whatever they can to chill the pro-union vote, even when there
are more than enough cards to secure an election.

I must say, I've gotten a kick over the years of the anti-unionism
expressed here by guys who couldn't qualify as an apprentice to most
union workers.
Why can't the secret vote be taken in a much more timely manor?
Without getting into a presentation of a dissertation, let me just say
that in the last eight years the Bush Admin has stacked the deck against
unions in terms of union elections, decerts, allowing employer
intimidation, employer delays and packing the NLRB courts. Some of that
will change with the new administration, and if it does, and the playing
field is fairer, there will be less call for card certifications.

In recent years, a favorite tactic of employers has been to refuse to
negotiate in good faith, even after a union has won a rep election.

If you are interested in the subject, there's a decent synopsis here
under union busting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting


I must say, I am much more a fan of the old-fashioned school of union
organizing. What happens today is far too "white collar-ish" for my
taste.

I think you avoided my question.


You missed the part about employer delays?

Mt point is, move up the election. If they can legislate check cards, they
can legislate the vote delay.

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Of course the employers don't want the union to get established. Why
would anyone want to suffer the same fate as the Big 3 automakers are,
having been sucked dry by the UAW?

It's funny to hear the pro-union trash on this NG whine about
intimidation. That's exactly how unions exist... through
intimidation. "Give us another raise and increase our benefits, or we
go on strike!"

************************************************** ***********

You best stick to something you know...such as pleasuring the 'palm
sisters'.

In the last number of years where I worked, it was about continual
concessions.. one way of course with the unions on the losing end.
In the background ...always threats the location could be downsized.


I don't know about recent years, but in the 70s/80s when I was corresponding
with the Canadian resident it seemed like the Canadian postal service was
always on strike.

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

On Nov 25, 11:35*am, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Of course the employers don't want the union to get established. *Why
would anyone want to suffer the same fate as the Big 3 automakers are,
having been sucked dry by the UAW?

It's funny to hear the pro-union trash on this NG whine about
intimidation. *That's exactly how unions exist... through
intimidation. *"Give us another raise and increase our benefits, or we
go on strike!"

************************************************** ***********

You best stick to something you know...such as pleasuring the 'palm
sisters'.

In the last number of years where I worked, it was about continual
concessions.. one way of course with the unions on the losing end.
*In the background ...always threats the location could be downsized.

Your story isn't relevant... I'm sure you worked someplace "special".

But do tell, Don... did you ever participate in a walk-out, a work
slowdown, or a strike? Did your union ever demand something and tell
the company if they didn't get it, they'd strike? You know, did they
use intimidation?

Probably not. You were a member of the puss union.

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Of course the employers don't want the union to get established. Why
would anyone want to suffer the same fate as the Big 3 automakers are,
having been sucked dry by the UAW?

It's funny to hear the pro-union trash on this NG whine about
intimidation. That's exactly how unions exist... through
intimidation. "Give us another raise and increase our benefits, or we
go on strike!"

************************************************** ***********

You best stick to something you know...such as pleasuring the 'palm
sisters'.

In the last number of years where I worked, it was about continual
concessions.. one way of course with the unions on the losing end.
In the background ...always threats the location could be downsized.


I don't know about recent years, but in the 70s/80s when I was
corresponding with the Canadian resident it seemed like the Canadian
postal service was always on strike.


The Post Office went through a rough time. Bosses used to fill the lower
management ranks with retired military types.
They wanted hard nosed yes men to use against the union rank & file.

Hey Eisboch, SW Tom...!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 11:35 am, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Of course the employers don't want the union to get established. Why
would anyone want to suffer the same fate as the Big 3 automakers are,
having been sucked dry by the UAW?

It's funny to hear the pro-union trash on this NG whine about
intimidation. That's exactly how unions exist... through
intimidation. "Give us another raise and increase our benefits, or we
go on strike!"

************************************************** ***********

You best stick to something you know...such as pleasuring the 'palm
sisters'.

In the last number of years where I worked, it was about continual
concessions.. one way of course with the unions on the losing end.
In the background ...always threats the location could be downsized.

Yeah, and who pushed the concessions votes? Probably your union
business agent who is soundly in the pocket of management :(

************************************************** ***
Naw, our leaders were working in our best interests. Our biggest problem
was providing a service in a competitive environment.
We weren't the only game in town and the Crown Corp could go on forever on
the billion dollars of taxpayer money received every year.