Bastards!

Look for Becker to be a recess appointment.

One of the things to understand about Card Check is that its all about signatures.

Unions have for years come up with fancy little gimmicks for getting employees signatures.

A common trick is to invite the employees to some event, for example a presentation with free dinner. As the employees walk in they are asked to sign an attendence sheet. What the employees don't notice is that in fine print it will say something like "The above signatories authorize Union X to represent them in all employment negotiations." The employees just signed the Card, and they don't realize it. There is no requirement to let them know either. Those signatures count as far as the NLRB is concerned.

Another common gimmick is to knock on people's doors at 9:00 PM to talk them into the union. They know its an inconvenience, and people will want them to go away. So they give them a choice, sign the red card if you want to join the union, or sign the blue card for more information. The thing is both cards are exactly the same and signing either one is signing Card Check.

I'll call bullshit on Eric's account- both the dinner attendance sheet and the blue card/red card.

I say it's a total fabrication and out right lie. Can you show otherwise, Eric?

Any evidence, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, would be appreciated. Surely there are reports of this going on - since it's illegal and the NLRB would be all over it.

Link please?

Steve Green: "I'll call bullshit on Eric's account- both the dinner attendance sheet and the blue card/red card."

Are you suggesting that Eric's account has not been properly "peer-reviewed"?

Steve Green: "I say it's a total fabrication and out right lie."

Who cares?

Steve Green: "Can you show otherwise, Eric?"

You mean, you are demanding verifiable proof of an assertion? Like, with melting glaciers?

Steve Green: "Any evidence, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, would be appreciated."

Wow, when did you become a stickler for "evidence"?

And given your history of support (without any reservation whatsoever) of the IPCC report, what exactly constitutes "evidence" to you?

Look Steve, we all realize you are a paid troll. But you have got to do alot better than you have been here.

BTW, the over/under on Steve's actual age (given the quality of his posts and clear lack of historical insight) is 27.

Well, Jay, I'd be very careful when I start my car if I was you. If you're lucky, they'll just break your knees!

~~~~~~

I call bullshit on everything Steve Green has ever posted here. Go get your proof - no far left links, please, this is a family site - and come back when you have them all. No credit for partial work.

I quote and link in most of my comments - every time it's relevant.

I don't think you should be making excuses for Eric before he's even had a chance to link to some evidence - any evidence - that what he's said is really going on.

Steve Green I work for a Labor and Employment Law Firm. Do you really want to go there?

Jay forgot to mention the Card Check law would invalidate the right to work laws that are currently enjoyed by 22 states. That is another reason the unions want to force mandatory membership in unions. They hate the thought of people working and making higher wages from a non-union company and not having that money extorted by a union in the form of so-called dues. As it stands now, the states that have right to work laws have a higher employment rate than the states are in bed with the unions.

I don't care if you work for Disneyland, eric.

Cite the NLRB Docket #.

stevie G ...

5 minutes on Google ...

http://www.anchorrising.com/Teamsterovernitecbsettlementstip.pdf

from the Settlement section, this is what the Union had to agree not to do anymore:

Respondent, its officers, and agents shall:
Cease and desist from:
(A) Brandishing or carrying any weapon of any kind, including, but not limited to, guns, knives, slingshots,
rocks, ball bearings, liquid-filled balloons or other projectiles, sledge hammers, bricks, sticks, or two by fours at or near
any picket line, handbilling effort, rally or in any vehicle engaged in ambulatory picketing of any Overnite vehicle or
following the private vehicle of any Overnite employee.
(B) Using or threatening to use a weapon of any kind, including but not limited to guns, knives, slingshots,
rocks, ball bearings, liquid-filled balloons or other projectiles, picket signs, sticks, sledge hammers, bricks, hot coffee,
bottles, two by fours, lit cigarettes, eggs, or bags or balloons filled with excrement against any non-striking Overnite
employee or security guard, or in the presence of any Overnite employee.
(C) Damaging, threatening to damage or attempting to damage any vehicle or equipment owned or operated
by Overnite, its employees or security guards, by any means or manner, including but not limited by slingshots, rocks,
ball bearings, liquid-filled balloons or other projectiles, knives, picket signs, sticks, sledge hammers, bricks, bottles, two
by fours, eggs, or paint, or by tearing off mirrors, windshield wipers or antennas, or breaking windows.
(D) Disabling or attempting to disable vehicles owned or operated by Overnite, by any means or manner,
including but not limited to disconnecting or otherwise severing air brake lines, padlocking doors, spraying substances in
or otherwise jamming locks, stealing keys, puncturing radiators, cutting hoses or door cables, flattening tires or throwing,
placing or otherwise spreading any nails, screws, star nails, jack rocks or similar devices capable of puncturing tires
on any road surface.
(E) Endangering or impeding the progress of, or harassing any non-striking employees or employees of a
neutral person doing business with Overnite, while they are operating a company or personal vehicle, by forcing or
attempting to force them off the road, blocking, delaying or limiting their access to or passage on any road, swerving
toward, driving recklessly near, tailgating or braking abruptly in front of them, impeding their progress by speeding up
and slowing down, or driving at speeds below the legal minimums while in front of them.
(F) Endangering or impeding the progress of, or harassing any non-striking employees or employees of a
neutral person doing business with Overnite, while they are operating a company vehicle or personal vehicle, by jumping
on vehicles, attempting to open the doors of vehicles, throwing paint on windshields, using mirrors, laser pointers,
spot lights or flash photography in the eyes of drivers, or obstructing the view of drivers by holding picket signs over the
windshields of vehicles.
(G) Engaging in mass picketing or otherwise impeding the ingress or egress of Overnite employees or
employees of any other employer to or from any Overnite service center or any facility of any neutral person doing business
with Overnite, or patroling or walking across the entrance of any Overnite service center or a facility of any neutral
person doing business with Overnite in such a manner as to impede or delay the ingress or egress of any individual.
(H) Battering, assaulting, spitting on, blowing whistles loudly near a person's ear, throwing any liquid or
solid object at, or attempting to assault any non-striking employees of Overnite, any member of their family, or any
employee of a neutral employer doing business with Overnite, or any security guard or supervisor or manager of a neutral
employer doing business with Overnite in the presence of employees.
(I) Threatening to kill or inflicting bodily harm, making throat slashing motions, making gun pointing
motions, challenging or threatening to fight or assault employees, threatening to sexually assault non-striking employees
or their family members, threatening to follow non-striking employees to their homes, using racial epithets or obscene
gestures at non-striking employees or otherwise threatening unspecified reprisals on any non-striking employees of
Overnite or any member of their family or any employee of a neutral employee doing business with Overnite, or on any
security guard, supervisor or manager of Overnite or neutral employers doing business with Overnite in the presence of
employees.
(J) Videotaping or photographing any non-striking employees of Overnite, or vehicles of Overnite or of its
non-striking employees while engaging in coercive activity observed by or known by those being videotaped or photographed
or threatening to release the photographs, names, addresses or phone numbers of non-striking employees in
order to intimidate the non-striking employees.
(K) Preventing any non-striking employee from accessing an Overnite vehicle or a personal vehicle or
blocking Overnite vehicles or the personal vehicles of non-striking Overnite employees.
(L) Threatening to fine or cause the discharge of non-member employees because they cross a picket line or
refuse to go on strike.
(M) Threatening to cause any employee's discharge if they do not engage in a strike or picketing of Overnite
or of any neutral person doing business with Overnite.
(N) Attempting to harass and intimidate employees or security guards on Overnite property by using mirrors
to reflect sunlight into the eyes of Overnite drivers or use mirrors or laser pointers to shine light into the eyes or video
cameras of security guards.
(O) Issuing documents or otherwise ratifying or condoning acts which restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights.
(P) Removing the personal property of non-striking employees from their personal vehicles.
(Q) In any other manner, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.

Were you litterly born yesterday Steve ? Have you ever spent anytime around construction or manufacturing Union workers in private or on the job ? Postal Workers and School teachers don't count for obvious reasons ...

Little Stevie said "I quote and link in most of my comments - every time it's relevant."

I call bullshit on this assertion. I've read wayyyyyyy to many of your waste of pixel comments and cannot recall a single link to source material (at least one that wasn't to some leftist propaganda site...those don't count as SOURCE material).

Attention Mr. Soros, whatever you are paying this troll, it is way more than he's worth.

-syb

stevie G ...

NRLB Docket Numbers

9-CB-10716-2
9-CB-10716-4
9-CB-10716-10
9-CB-10716-11
9-CB-10716-13
9-CB-10716-14

go do your homework ...

Look Here

Here

and watch this video
By the way notice that he explictly talks about red cards and blue cards?

Video testimony of employees who were tricked by the unions.

Better evidence than your Palin/Dinosaurs allegation.

Eric.... I know this is obvious to you but.... spoon feeding this asshole [s green] is about as productive as pissing into the wind....

Nothing linked to above by Eric or quoted by Jeff shows any evidence of what Eric described.

It's bullshit.

A common trick is to invite the employees to some event, for example a presentation with free dinner. As the employees walk in they are asked to sign an attendence sheet. What the employees don't notice is that in fine print it will say something like "The above signatories authorize Union X to represent them in all employment negotiations." The employees just signed the Card, and they don't realize it. There is no requirement to let them know either. Those signatures count as far as the NLRB is concerned.

Another common gimmick is to knock on people's doors at 9:00 PM to talk them into the union. They know its an inconvenience, and people will want them to go away. So they give them a choice, sign the red card if you want to join the union, or sign the blue card for more information. The thing is both cards are exactly the same and signing either one is signing Card Check.

If it's so damn common why can't you cite or quote one instance where it's happened?

Nothing I can find in Docket 09-CB-10716-xx makes any mention of employees begin dupped into signing away their rights unknowingly.

And the links you supported don't either.

Here, for example (your example), the language is quote clear what the employee is signing.

and that has nothing to do with someone knocking on your door at night or signing an attendance sheet and unknowingly signing away rights - none of which you say are common practices.

Total bullshit Eric. Nice try, or feel free to keep paddling and bullshiting.

Caught, fried and branded. Wow, what a flameout.

How long have you been working at Disneyland, my friend? Do you wear the Goofy costume, or just cook fries?

little stevie green,

I'll call bullshit

You are the resident expert on that. That is all you post around here.

I quote and link in most of my comments - every time it's relevant.

Most of your comments are nothing but your spewing of your hatred towards conservatives, certainly nothing relevant to any civil discussion.

s green.... you're far, FAR, dumber than even I imagined.

So... you see no "A common trick" or nothing related to "Another common gimmick" all the while completely ignoring proof positive, via video, of usage of Red Cards and Blue Cards by union thugs.

You have reached a brand new level of stupidity, you've entered the Land of Lee Ward, [formerly of WizBang Blue]

Nothing linked to above by Eric or quoted by Jeff shows any evidence of what Eric described.

You obviously didn't watch the video. The guy in the video closely described the scenario I listed about the cards. I found that video AFTER I made my initial comment.

Steve Green you are the one who is full of it. Here is what you requested.

Any evidence, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, would be appreciated.

I provided examples of union deceptive practices. Then you move the goal posts and request NLRB Docket Numbers.

I can't give you specific docket numbers, because I never said that what the unions were doing was illegal. It is perfectly legal, that doesn't change it from being an underhanded way to trick employees into signing away their rights. We have all grown up hearing "read the fine print". This is why.

All the union needs is to have the authorization language to be anywhere on the same document as an employee's signature.

Today, there is a fail safe to those underhanded methods. The Secret Ballot Election, means that employees can specifically and knowingly vote for or against the union without trickery.

EFCA would do away with that election. It would allow the unions to succeed just by tricking enough people into signing the authorization cards.

Care for some more.
Here is more.

More video

Another video, watch the whole thing but go to 3:50 specifically.

"Here, for example (your example), the language is quote clear what the employee is signing."

Steve that example is a valid example of what I am talking about. You see it because it is highlighted. But the card represents itself to be one thing while it is really something else entirely.

The title of the card is "Request for Employees Representation Election..." However, the fine print below in red is the GOTCHA. Because of that fine print "also to represent me in all negotiations of wages..." That is the language used for a union authorization card.

An employee may sign that card thinking he is agreeing to an election, but if he doesn't pay attention to the fine print then in reality he just signed a union authorization card. It is legal, binding and the NLRB would accept it without question. Even if the employee actually was opposed to joining the union.

That's the trick.

It's the same process with the first example I gave. Employees may think they are simply signing an attendence sheet. But in fine print at the bottom, the sheet includes the union authorization language. That's all the NLRB needs, employees' signatures on a piece of paper that includes the authorization language.

Nice try, Goofy. The NLRB Docket you cited said nothing about you said are common practices. Neither hs the numerous link you've posted claiming - you're lying about those as well.

"I provided examples of union deceptive practices. Then you move the goal posts and request NLRB Docket Numbers."

I didn't move any goalposts. I asked you to support your claim that unions were doing what you said they were doing in comment #2 above:

A common trick is to invite the employees to some event, for example a presentation with free dinner. As the employees walk in they are asked to sign an attendence sheet. What the employees don't notice is that in fine print it will say something like "The above signatories authorize Union X to represent them in all employment negotiations." The employees just signed the Card, and they don't realize it. There is no requirement to let them know either. Those signatures count as far as the NLRB is concerned.

Another common gimmick is to knock on people's doors at 9:00 PM to talk them into the union. They know its an inconvenience, and people will want them to go away. So they give them a choice, sign the red card if you want to join the union, or sign the blue card for more information. The thing is both cards are exactly the same and signing either one is signing Card Check.

And you haven't provided one shred of evidence that either of those common practices has ever happened.

I didn't move any goalposts. If what you said was common practice was true the NLRB would have stepped in and dealt with it, so I asked for a NLRB docket that supported your claim.

You couldn't find one. In fact, you lied and provided several docket #s pretending you were answering my challenge - but those dockets had nothing to do with the common practices you cited in comment #2.

Comment #2 is bullshit, Eric.

Did I say unions have never done anything wrong? No, and you can't claim that employers have never done wrong either.

But you can't support the claims you made in comment #2. Comment #2 is bullshit - made up lies. I understand that you may believe those lies, because it's obvious from the links you provided that you are a gullible twit that is easily preyed upon and swayed by big business anti-union propaganda.

But the common practices you cite in comment #2 are lies, Eric, or you'd be able to find NLRB cites at the *wink big labor law firm you work at.

Or was that a lie too?

"I can't give you specific docket numbers, because I never said that what the unions were doing was illegal.

You dont' have to decide whether it's illegal or not, Eric. What you said was common practice is a violation of labor laws, and if in fact it happened the NLRB would hae been called in and would have bitch-slapped those unions into the next county.

But they didn't, and you lied and provided docket #s in comment 12 claiming they did.

And you have not provided one single link or video that shows where the two common practices you wrote about has ever happened once.

Wow. Maybe more people should call bullshit around here more often.

Again, Eric, I have no doubt you earnestly believe what you wrote about is true, but there is no evidence that two common practices have ever happened.

"Or was that a lie too?"

Jay Tea. I am posting this from work. Do a Whois on my IP address and e-mail address. Compare it to my company's website.

Please verify for Steve Green that it is indeed a Labor and Employment Law Firm.

"You dont' have to decide whether it's illegal or not, Eric. What you said was common practice is a violation of labor laws, and if in fact it happened the NLRB would hae been called in and would have bitch-slapped those unions into the next county."

Steve, you are the one who has no experience in labor laws. I repeat, what I listed is not a violation of the NLRA. So there is no reason for the NLRB to bitch slap the unions.

Second, the first video has a former union organizer describing exactly the same practice I described of using red cards and blue cards. That is what is called evidence.

"Did I say unions have never done anything wrong? No, and you can't claim that employers have never done wrong either."

You just moved the goal posts again.

Hey, Green, unless you're busy dodging Martha Coakley's DNC thug, why don't you address Card Check or the Michigan day care providers who got shanghaied into the union? Election by mail, 40,000 total electorate, 6,000 responded, and BANG! They all got unionized.

Tell us how righteous that was...

J.

Jay Tea please see 21

"What you said was common practice is a violation of labor laws, and if in fact it happened the NLRB would hae been called in and would have bitch-slapped those unions into the next county"

Time for me to call bullshit on you. Cite the section of the law where that is illegal. Can you even name the law?

Eric,

You may not be aware that when little stevie reads the information posted, (and if he actually checks out any of the links you provide), that he is wearing both rose-colored glasses and blinders.

You can link to a video, and specifically point him to the 3:50 mark. Yet, if and when he watches it, he will see no wrong doing by anyone on 'his' side. little stevie can only see wrongdoing by conservatives.

Many others (including me) appreciate the information and links you have provided, and will check them out with an open mind. I just hope you don't expect the same or any sort of rational argument from little stevie.

I know. I enjoy the sport of it. He is too stupid to realize that he is cornered and he looks like an idiot.

I gotta go drive in the snow. Have fun Steve. I really suggest you look at the links I provided.

By the way Steve. Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of EFCA?

Would you agree that EFCA does away with Secret Ballot elections?

So, what if I'm wrong? If the employees want the union then the secret ballot election will confirm that fact. What's the harm in that?

But what if I'm right?

"Jay Tea please see 21"
23. Posted by Eric

Yes, Jay Tea,

Until you verify Eric's Whois we must all here assume Eric is strapped to a bench between two buffaloes at an Avis Rent-A-Car call center.

"I know. I enjoy the sport of it. He is too stupid to realize that he is cornered and he looks like an idiot."
26. Posted by Eric

She said "good-bye", you angry nerds!
:-)

Eric,

I know. I enjoy the sport of it. He is too stupid to realize that he is cornered and he looks like an idiot.

Heh. Yep, it's fun at times to bat little stevie around.

bryanD "Until you verify Eric's Whois we must all here assume Eric is strapped to a bench between two buffaloes at an Avis Rent-A-Car call center."

Or until he checks yours and we can all discard the notion you're nothing but a frustrated unpublished fiction writer, 9/11 truther, 7/7 truther and general all round asshat.

"Or until he checks yours and we can all discard the notion you're nothing but a frustrated unpublished fiction writer, 9/11 truther, 7/7 truther and general all round asshat."
30. Posted by Marc

Go ahead. Check it. I'm either at home or wi-fi (xxCox.net) or at the public library M-W(?.net).

I work at home, praise the Lord! (acrylic paintings and drawings). I could be wealthy but I'm not...too artistically anal-retentive (productionwise). I DO live the Republican dream (being a registered Republican myself!) of well-calculated write-offs, which is the American Way and wholly just.

If anyone wishes to test my cred through technical questions or has any questions regarding oil or acrylic painting tips and tricks, I'll answer on any thread. Believe me, I know more than the intertubes links I've come across, no lie!

Will I give out my name?

I think anyone who gives out their name (or primary e-mail account) on-line (with all the free-market warez malware programs available for rent by the hour) is....unwise.

At least if your an "asshat" like me! :-)

Until you verify Eric's Whois we must all here assume Eric is strapped to a bench between two buffaloes at an Avis Rent-A-Car call center.

According to Marc, everyone's got a long, long wait coming. Because unless there is a serious reason (and "two guys getting into a phallus-comparing contest" is NOT what I consider a serious reason), I don't divulge IPs of commenters. Even though Eric invited it, I ain't giving specifics. In this case, there's an element of "appeal to authority" that I don't care for -- arguments should stand on their own.

I will say that I have no reason to contradict anything Eric said about his identity, and that both Eric and Mr. Green appear (presuming there is no IP spoofing going on, because I don't think I'd be able to catch it) to have ready access to quality legal research materials.

Both sides will have to simply make their cases on their own. Putting on my objective hat (which has special blinders that try to keep me from being constantly reminded what a worthless git Green is), I'd have to say this so far about the discussion:

- Eric has made several declarative statements, which puts the burden on him to back them up.

- Green has challenged those assertions most carefully, avoiding making assertions that he will be called upon to defend.

- Eric has put forth a bit of effort into proving his assertions.

- Green dismisses those efforts with incredibly anal nit-picking and rhetoric.

- Green will NOT address the facts I raised in the original article, seemingly content to allow them to be eclisped by nit-picking Eric's elaborations on the themes I put forth.

On purely technical grounds, Green is slightly ahead. He didn't make any assertions, so he hasn't had to "put up or shut up." Further, his unstated goal was, I suspect, to avoid discussing the fundamental points from the original article and wrap the entire discussion around Eric's elaborations -- and in that, he succeeded.

Eric, on the other hand, wins for demonstrating considerably more knowledge and expertise on the subject matter, and being ready to prove it.

So the blinder-enhanced judge rules thus: Green came here to argue, Eric to discuss. Green's whole goal was to get the argument away from grounds where he thought he couldn't win, and he did just that. Eric wasn't fighting that same fight, he thought he was in a rational discussion, and that error cost him technical points.

Well, that oughta piss of both sides adequately...

J.

Pissed? No LoL. That was great.

So, Green, may I presume by your eagerness to argue with Eric's points, that means you have nothing to say about the examples of union corruption and scumbaggery I cited originally? You either are fine with them, or agree that they are utterly indefensible?

J.

and to think these people live like they will never die. I would hate to be one of them on Judgment DAY. Can you feel the WARMING? No not Global.....

I'd be happy to explain exactly how those 40,000 child care workers in Michigan overwhelmingly "voted" for union representation --
UAW and AFSME first assembled an army of door knockers -- paid staff as well as members pulled out of their work sites and paid to do union work for a few weeks. Leading up to the "ballot" being mailed out, voters were assessed on the doors and over the phone to determine who was most likely to vote for the union. then the campaign organizers determine a number they think will be enough to make the election look legitimate -- in this case around 6000 -- and they put together a "field plan" to secure 6000 cards.

A "ballot" was then mailed out that looked very much like junk mail. If you were pro-union you had already been told to watch your mail for it and exactly what it looked like. If you weren't pro-union no one bothered to mention that to you. Meanwhile, the army of door knockers went out with a carefully rehearsed script and instructions for getting a new ballot if you threw yours out but only to those they had pre-identified as supporters. Their "rap" would include certain essential talking points -- you won't pay any dues unless your pay is increased (false), if you don't unionize the program will be cut (false), the union will get you healthcare benefits (false), and if you don't vote immediately the deadline will pass and the union could lose (not likely).
They also would leave behind slick flyers showing child care workers in other states all attesting to wonderful magical improvements in their lives because they unionized -- what they don't mention is how those testimonials were written FOR those "satisfied members" all of whom were hoping for staff jobs with the union. And there would be lots of trigger words used to agitate the voter and lots of talk about "respect" and "having a voice" and their work being "valued".

Bottom line -- many of those "voters" were "voting" for a union the same way many consumers "vote" for a Snickers bar.

If the person they are visiting says they want the union the organizers stand with them until they sign the card and give it back or even walk them to the mailbox. If they say they want to vote yes but need to think about it they are put on a list to be repeatedly called and revisited until they send in the card. If they say they aren't sure or they don't want a union no one reminds them to vote.

In other words, this "election" is about as democratic as those in the old Soviet Union.

Once the 6000 "votes" are tallied, no one ever checks the legitimacy of those signatures or checks to see if any of them were obtained under duress or false pretenses.

AND THE NLRB WILL NOT INVESTIGATE CLAIMS OF WRONG DOING, DUH, BECAUSE THIS WASN'T AN NLRB ELECTION, IT WAS A CARD CHECK DRIVE.
Unless the employer (and in this case there wasn't one) asks the NLRB to investigate how the cards were obtained, the NLRB would not be involved.

"So, Green, may I presume by your eagerness to argue with Eric's points, that means you have nothing to say about the examples..."

I spent 20-30 minutes proving that Eric, an anti-union hack, was lying in comment #2 above.

I'm sure he's not the only anti-union hack who lies, but I'm not going to spend any more time proving that in this case, when challenged, this right wing sycophant can't show where things he says are 'common practice' have ever happened at all.

Further, when challenged, this particular right wing sycophant cited NLRB docket numbers which he claim supported his assertion and in fact they did not - he lied again.

I rested my case yesterday... moving on now. Have a nice V'Day weekend all.

While I wouldn't go so far as to call Eric, or anyone else, a liar, I will say that the National Right To Work Foundation is hardly a credible source. And his belief that deception is a tactic that is "perfectly legal", whether by union or management, and that the NLRB would not act on it if given credible evidence that it was actually occurring, leads me to doubt his assertion that he knows anything about the issue. That is, beyond the propaganda he has linked to here.

I particularly like the "former union organizer" guy. He tells you what is, according to him, "common practice", and "what an organizer can do is...".What he DOESN'T say is, "We used to do this," or "The so-and-so union did this in such and such an election."

Then the lady who said, "The last thing you want is, when your kids walk outside, is for someone to be there wanting their parents to sign something." Huh? And the guy who mumbled something about "At least two people I know had someone come to their house." Isn't that kinda like the person your friend knows who microwaved their poodle?

What Mr Green was asking for was evidence that these allegations were true from someone other than the Echo Chamber. If I made an assertion about management suppressing union organizing, and then as proof offered links from the AFL-CIO, would you accept them, Wizbangers? Of course not.

As for Mr Tea's assertions that what Eric offered here is "proof," I can only say, "Ehh, maybe."

My score: Mr Green, 1; Eric, Jeff, and Mr Tea, 0.

Steve,
1) I never cited any NLRB dockets number. that was Jeff in comment 12.

2) "this right wing sycophant can't show where things he says are 'common practice' have ever happened at all."

Here is what I wrote in comment 2:

Another common gimmick is to knock on people's doors at 9:00 PM to talk them into the union. They know its an inconvenience, and people will want them to go away. So they give them a choice, sign the red card if you want to join the union, or sign the blue card for more information. The thing is both cards are exactly the same and signing either one is signing Card Check.

Here is what a former union organizer said in this video starting at 1:04

"So union organizers who are under a lot of pressure to produce cards would carry two color cards. And they would go to someone's house, knock on their door and say we're asking people who don't want the union to sign the red cards and people who do want the union to sign the blue cards, and the person opposed to the union would sign the red card not reading the authorization language there.

Go to this page scroll down to the sction titled "How Authorization Cards Can Be Used"
It says the following:

This is the authorization card for the Service Employees International Union in California. I have a black and white copy here, but it's a color pamphlet, and it has nice pictures on the front and a bunch of fluff about SEIU and how they're going to get better wages and benefits and all this wonderful stuff. Buried in the middle of that paragraph on the front is the line off of this authorization card that says, "I hereby authorize SEIU to represent me for the purposes of collective bargaining." It's buried in a paragraph. You could also bury it in two or three paragraphs at the top of a petition. But most interesting is the inside of the card. It's just a line of signatures. Put your name, your address, your phone number. I don't see anything on that page on the inside of this pamphlet that says, "I hereby authorize SEIU to represent me for the purposes of collective bargaining." So I have this pamphlet. I'm a union organizer. I hold a meeting at the local pizza joint where I'm buying pizza and beer, and I lay this down on the table like this and say, "Here, sign in on our sign-in sheet." Not against the law. This is the card that they're using right now in California. I'll give you something that union organizers did years ago. They have what they call "red card/blue card." A union organizer would carry two different colors of cards--one in each jacket pocket, a red one and a blue one--and knock on your door and say, "I'm Joe with the union. I want to sign you up for the union." You say, "I don't want the union. I want no part of that." And he says, "Great, that's what we were trying to find out. We were polling workers. We're asking those who are opposed to the union to sign the red one and those who are for the union to sign the blue one, and then we're going to compare and see how many people want the union." And workers would do it.

That is two separate source that describe the same process I did. Since they described it so similarly, it has obviously happened before.

3) You said the following:

What you said was common practice is a violation of labor laws, and if in fact it happened the NLRB would hae been called in and would have bitch-slapped those unions into the next county.

I repeat, cite the law that says the practice is illegal. Can you even name the law?

Let me give you a little hint, this time I'll actually cite a specific NLRB case:
Shopping Kart Food Market, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union Local 99, Retail Clerks International. Association, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 28-RC-2710

The NLRB wrote the following: "In sum, we decide today that the Board will no longer probe into the truth or falsity of the parties' campaign statements."

What this ruling means is that the NLRB is not going to waste time trying to determine whether the unions or the employers lied to the employees during a union campaign. Isn't that special?

Bruce, NRTWF is certainly a biased source but that doesn't mean they are lying. What do you want? A union to post a website listing the top 10 ways to trick employees into signing authorization cards?

It's not going to happen.

What you and Steve keep missing is that I keep saying this is a legal process. The processes I described are perfectly legal. They are just underhanded. The NLRB decided years ago that as far as the employees are concerned "caveat lector".
you can Google it

So, Mr. Henry, who WOULD you accept as an honest reporter as to union organizer chicanery?

J.

I dunno, Mr Tea...60 Minutes? 20/20? McClatchy? USA Today? US News and World Report?

Hell, I'd believe that dude with the ACORN videos before I'd believe National Right To Work.

Eric, you keep repeating that this "former union organizer" guy is proof of your assertions, but don't you see the subtlety here? He never says, "This is what we used to do." He keeps saying what a clever and unethical union organizer COULD do.

I don't doubt that some, or all, of the abuses you allege have happened at one time or the other. But I doubt it's the norm, and you haven't proved it is. On the other hand, employer harassment of union activity is at least as well-documented as these.

Ah, so BryanD only trusts the mainstream media to be fair, honest brokers of the truth.

How the hell did I not see THAT one coming?

J.

It's Bruce Henry, not bryanD, Mr Tea.

And there are several things you didn't see coming. One being that anyone who swallows whole videos, replete with ominous music and hearsay testimony, as Gospel truth, needs to take a Skepticism Supplement. That's whether the videos are from NRTWF or some other partisan group.

To answer your question, if that same "former union organizer" went on, say, FOX "News" and said that HE had engaged in such practices, or could document that these practices were widespread, instead of telling us what a union organizer COULD do, I'd probably accept his account.

But that's not what these videos show, AND they're from a biased source. Therefore I view them with a jaundiced eye, and so should you. Don't be gullible.

First off, Bruce, sorry about the name. I should have been more careful.

As far as your calling for whistleblowers and insiders... that's bullshit. They'll be blown off as "disgruntled former employees" and their allegations dismissed out of hand.

Like it happened with Anita MonCrief, the ACORN whisteleblower.

Like it's starting to happen with Christopher Edwards, the convicted ACORN head who's looking to cut a deal on his sentencing in exchange for his testimony against the group.

You'll find some way of discrediting anyone who says something you don't like. Because everyone has biases, everyone has prejudices, everyone has interests.

And, naturally, those who say something you don't like MUST be lying. Because only your side has the purity and integrity to tell the truth.

J.

Mr Tea, I JUST SAID that I would accept the man's account, even on FOX, if he manned up and made specific charges, or confessed that he had engaged in the practices alleged. So please don't try to put words in my mouth, or tell me what I would or wouldn't do in a hypothetical situation.

Eric has posted several videos as "proof" that come from a biased source and do not prove what he says they prove.

I ask again, if I posted several videos from AFL-CIO alleging management intimidation of union activity, would you accept them at face value? Even if they had scary music with minor chords throughout?

And, do you deny that management intimidation of union activity is at least as common, if not more so, than the union activities alleged here?

Bruce, I take it from your comments that while you do not believe them to be true, you still find the examples I gave to be reprehensible behavior.

Would that be accurate?

So, ask yourself this question. Do you know for an absolute fact that I am wrong, or do you just think I'm wrong?

Because, here is the thing. If I'm wrong, then what's the worse case? Nothing. Under current law, before a union can be recognized an employer can request a secret ballot election to confirm the desire of the employees. It is managed by the NLRB and allows the employees to express their desire free from intimidation, coercion or trickery by EITHER side. I repeat by either side, the secret ballot election protects the employee from both sides, the employer and the union.

BUT, please just for a minute assume that I'm not wrong. What is the worse case? Under current law? Nothing. A secret ballot election would still empower the employees to make a choice free from in intimidation, coercion or trickery.

Here is the key language in the EFCA bill:

(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

The key provision of EFCA is to do away with secret ballot elections and for unions to be automatically get recognized simply based on authorization cards. So WHAT IF I am right, then unions can get recognized by reprehensible means.

Are you so sure I'm wrong that you are willing to take that chance? What if you are wrong?

As you may not have noticed from the comments above, I have not taken a position one way or the other on EFCA, Eric.

But it's my understanding that the whole purpose of EFCA is to help alleviate the problem of employer intimidation in the certification process. That, as soon as an employer sniffs out union activity around their workers, they begin the captive audience meetings, veiled threats, rumors of hiring scabs, firing "troublemakers", etc.

But hey, perhaps I'm wrong. I've always lived in right-to-work states, and have never personally been approached by a union organizer, or worked in a union shop. My whole purpose in this thread was to demonstrate to you, and Mr Tea, that the videos you cite DON'T PROVE WHAT YOU SAY THEY PROVE, and not that your case can't be proven. Perhaps it can, but you haven't done so here.

But it's my understanding that the whole purpose of EFCA is to help alleviate the problem of employer intimidation in the certification process. That, as soon as an employer sniffs out union activity around their workers, they begin the captive audience meetings, veiled threats, rumors of hiring scabs, firing "troublemakers", etc.

If EFCA is about protecting the employees then riddle me this caped crusader. Which system protects the employee more?

A system in which there is a secret ballot election, monitored by the government and the only person who knows how each employee votes is the employee himself.

Or

A system in which the employees openly sign cards in which the union, and the employer all know who did and didn't sign the cards.

Which of those systems is more open to intimidation and coercion of the employees?

By the way most of the things you accuse the employer of doing are already illegal under the current NLRA (Clicky for a summary of workplace rights). EFCA doesn't make it any more illegal. Still, shouldn't an employer be allowed to offer a legal and ethical rebuttal to the promises of the unions?

I notice that you are willing to believe that employers will do things that are illegal and unethical in keeping out the unions. But you want a high burden of proof to show that the unions do something that I freely admit is legal.

What that tells me Bruce, is that there is no proof that would satisfy you. Like Steve Green, any evidence I would ever provide about the unions would never be sufficient. Like Steve, you will always move the goalposts. Truth be told you don't want to be conviced because you really don't have an open mind. So this is my last post on the matter, I hope you never find out the hard way that I was right.

Again, Eric, I am not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that the videos you posted don't prove your case. Again, and I repeat, perhaps your case can be proven, but you haven't done so here.

I'm not the one who called you a liar. Indeed, I didn't call you anything, except perhaps "not sceptical enough."

How you get from what I said to concluding that I can't be convinced is beyond me. I even said, explicitly, to Mr Tea, what it would take for the "former union organizer" guy to convince me. Perhaps you are the one so invested in your preconceived notions about unions that YOU, sir, are unpersuadeable. (Is that a word?)

The UAW is not something you join, it is compulsory membership. If you want to work and get paid, you're "caught in a trap." (and UAW members will gather around you and sing this song to you in and out of the workplace.) My impression is, after 7.5 years in their world, that any and all value of American citizenship is abolished when placed in such an organization. I felt like I was stuck in some Eastern Europe Hell where you have no free thinking or independant decision making power of your own without severe backlash and harassment/bullying. These people are sick and evil and their time is over. The state of the world now makes them a fossil. My fathers life was ruined by them too. Hate is far too kind and gentile a word to express how I feel about these: fat, hairy, arrogant, uneducated, drunk, sadistic, insane, weird A-HOLES!