The Employee Free Choice Act: What they warned us about how the Communists did business is coming to America if the Democratic leadership isn't stopped NOW!
In one of the most conspicuous applications of the Orwellian “big lie,” the Obama Administration along with strong support from Nancy Pelosi seeks to impose one of the most insidious government sanctioned attacks on American freedom in the nation’s history. What is commonly called the “Card Check” provision changes the methods for workers electing to join a union from voting by way of a secret ballot where the worker makes his choice following his conscious in total confidence to where union organizers will conduct their organizing campaign by canvassing the work force imploring them to check off their approval to form a union. How can a person not feel coercion when a person representing the cause is soliciting that individual’s support? What limitations could be imposed on the manner and place where workers are asked to vote?
The clear threat is obvious. Intimidation and peer pressure can lead workers to give in to something at heart they strongly disagree with. It’s hard to say no when it’s a two on one situation or requests are made in a public forum where those who don’t support the measure can be instantly ridiculed or worse.
Time after time, much to the chagrin of organized labor, Walmart employees have refused vote after vote to unionize. They realize that for them, there is no benefit and some obvious disadvantages to union membership.
While there is no denying in the early stages of industrialization, trade unions played a crucial roll in protecting the factory workers from almost slave like work conditions at the hands of the all powerful industry management structure, after World War Two, industry has become far more progressive as public companies in which many of the share holders themselves are workers and the American middle class has grown largely outside a union background. Meanwhile, during the economic boom from the 1940’s to the 1960’s, unions were able to negotiate fat contracts which provided substantial wages and benefits for their members including legacy costs for pensions and lifelong health insurance that could only be sustained if businesses grew at the pace they were growing at that time.
The baby boom ended, and the population stabilized. The tonic which fueled the economy, unlimited cheap oil, became a more expensive commodity, and the economy became globalized bringing in cheaper, often higher quality goods, than manufactured by American workers.
By 1980, the union movement became a threat not a benefit to the American economy. In the Baltimore-Washington area, grocery store chains were driven out of business as Pantry Pride/Food Fair evacuated the region eventually to go out of business. Acme markets abandoned the territory. In there place, non union shops paying far less proliferated, mostly local stores providing quality and selection every bit as good as the larger chains they replaced. Later, a huge national chain, Food Lion, a non-union grocer would move into the region and become a major player. A&P trading as Super Fresh scaled back substantially as did Safeway leaving only Giant Food the sole survivor of the old union ways who continued to prosper.
The real turning point was when Air Traffic controllers, Federal employees forbidden by law to strike, staged a union walkout in 1984. President Ronald Reagan would have no part of it promptly firing workers who’d not return to work. The public overwhelmingly supported the President’s action.
Meanwhile during the 1980’s the Japanese automakers continued to gain market share as Detroit made cars suffered from inferior quality while having to compete with substantial legacy costs built into the cost of each vehicle.
The scourge of the union’s power is nowhere more apparent than their political influence on public education where many substantial educational reforms from changes in management structure to providing performance based pay to allow teachers who contribute more and get better results to be paid accordingly. Union regulations also inhibit the ability of schools to provide for flexible staffing. As such, public school systems are primarily a seniority based system where transfers and other considerations are based more on seniority than matching the most qualified teacher to a specific job. The hoops administrators have to jump through to address such concerns can be stifling. Meanwhile, the tenure system can make firing inadequate teachers extremely difficult, time consuming, and subject to layers and layers of grievances.
The decline in union membership shows the growth of society to a new constructive relationship between employees and management in many sectors. Outside of public employees and the manufacturing sector largely physical labor intensive jobs simply do not lend themselves to constructive union efforts.
Still, despite declining numbers, the Democratic party receives tremendous support from organized unions. The nation’s two major teachers’ unions, the AFT and NEA represent millions of teachers and their endorsement of Democratic candidates for national office and for state and local office through their state and local affiliates is one of the party’s most reliable cash cows. Sure the union point that they are restricted by law from giving money directly to campaigns but their PAC’s (political action committees) function to execute their wishes with PAC money raised from membership. Though technically, union dues do not pay candidates, substantial manpower from union staff and the access they provide candidates is enormous. In large suburban populations where voters often are indifferent or poorly informed about candidates for local offices and the state legislature, the ability of teachers’ unions to mobilize behind candidates they support and get them elected is enormous. Local candidates identified as hostile to teacher union issues who are actively fought by teachers unions face a tough fight without some major support that can counter the union’s power.
The American people must express their outrage and let their elected leaders know their elected officials will pay a huge political price for this horrible imposition on American freedom. Being able to vote in private without the threat of coercion is one of our most prized freedoms as Americans. Why those freedoms should not be extended at the work place when individuals are deciding on whether they want union representation must not be an exception.
If anything shows the desperation of the union and how the Democratic party feels it is beyond accountability to the real citizens who they represent is absolutely terrifying. This behavior cannot stand unchallenged. To call this horrendous attack at basic freedom “The Employee Freedom Act” demands every citizen with an ounce of common sense to rise up in anger directed directly at Capitol Hill and the White House.
There are no valid arguments on this issue in favor of this issue. Anyone who proposes otherwise is a liar whose motives must be questioned.
In one of the most conspicuous applications of the Orwellian “big lie,” the Obama Administration along with strong support from Nancy Pelosi seeks to impose one of the most insidious government sanctioned attacks on American freedom in the nation’s history. What is commonly called the “Card Check” provision changes the methods for workers electing to join a union from voting by way of a secret ballot where the worker makes his choice following his conscious in total confidence to where union organizers will conduct their organizing campaign by canvassing the work force imploring them to check off their approval to form a union. How can a person not feel coercion when a person representing the cause is soliciting that individual’s support? What limitations could be imposed on the manner and place where workers are asked to vote?
The clear threat is obvious. Intimidation and peer pressure can lead workers to give in to something at heart they strongly disagree with. It’s hard to say no when it’s a two on one situation or requests are made in a public forum where those who don’t support the measure can be instantly ridiculed or worse.
Time after time, much to the chagrin of organized labor, Walmart employees have refused vote after vote to unionize. They realize that for them, there is no benefit and some obvious disadvantages to union membership.
While there is no denying in the early stages of industrialization, trade unions played a crucial roll in protecting the factory workers from almost slave like work conditions at the hands of the all powerful industry management structure, after World War Two, industry has become far more progressive as public companies in which many of the share holders themselves are workers and the American middle class has grown largely outside a union background. Meanwhile, during the economic boom from the 1940’s to the 1960’s, unions were able to negotiate fat contracts which provided substantial wages and benefits for their members including legacy costs for pensions and lifelong health insurance that could only be sustained if businesses grew at the pace they were growing at that time.
The baby boom ended, and the population stabilized. The tonic which fueled the economy, unlimited cheap oil, became a more expensive commodity, and the economy became globalized bringing in cheaper, often higher quality goods, than manufactured by American workers.
By 1980, the union movement became a threat not a benefit to the American economy. In the Baltimore-Washington area, grocery store chains were driven out of business as Pantry Pride/Food Fair evacuated the region eventually to go out of business. Acme markets abandoned the territory. In there place, non union shops paying far less proliferated, mostly local stores providing quality and selection every bit as good as the larger chains they replaced. Later, a huge national chain, Food Lion, a non-union grocer would move into the region and become a major player. A&P trading as Super Fresh scaled back substantially as did Safeway leaving only Giant Food the sole survivor of the old union ways who continued to prosper.
The real turning point was when Air Traffic controllers, Federal employees forbidden by law to strike, staged a union walkout in 1984. President Ronald Reagan would have no part of it promptly firing workers who’d not return to work. The public overwhelmingly supported the President’s action.
Meanwhile during the 1980’s the Japanese automakers continued to gain market share as Detroit made cars suffered from inferior quality while having to compete with substantial legacy costs built into the cost of each vehicle.
The scourge of the union’s power is nowhere more apparent than their political influence on public education where many substantial educational reforms from changes in management structure to providing performance based pay to allow teachers who contribute more and get better results to be paid accordingly. Union regulations also inhibit the ability of schools to provide for flexible staffing. As such, public school systems are primarily a seniority based system where transfers and other considerations are based more on seniority than matching the most qualified teacher to a specific job. The hoops administrators have to jump through to address such concerns can be stifling. Meanwhile, the tenure system can make firing inadequate teachers extremely difficult, time consuming, and subject to layers and layers of grievances.
The decline in union membership shows the growth of society to a new constructive relationship between employees and management in many sectors. Outside of public employees and the manufacturing sector largely physical labor intensive jobs simply do not lend themselves to constructive union efforts.
Still, despite declining numbers, the Democratic party receives tremendous support from organized unions. The nation’s two major teachers’ unions, the AFT and NEA represent millions of teachers and their endorsement of Democratic candidates for national office and for state and local office through their state and local affiliates is one of the party’s most reliable cash cows. Sure the union point that they are restricted by law from giving money directly to campaigns but their PAC’s (political action committees) function to execute their wishes with PAC money raised from membership. Though technically, union dues do not pay candidates, substantial manpower from union staff and the access they provide candidates is enormous. In large suburban populations where voters often are indifferent or poorly informed about candidates for local offices and the state legislature, the ability of teachers’ unions to mobilize behind candidates they support and get them elected is enormous. Local candidates identified as hostile to teacher union issues who are actively fought by teachers unions face a tough fight without some major support that can counter the union’s power.
The American people must express their outrage and let their elected leaders know their elected officials will pay a huge political price for this horrible imposition on American freedom. Being able to vote in private without the threat of coercion is one of our most prized freedoms as Americans. Why those freedoms should not be extended at the work place when individuals are deciding on whether they want union representation must not be an exception.
If anything shows the desperation of the union and how the Democratic party feels it is beyond accountability to the real citizens who they represent is absolutely terrifying. This behavior cannot stand unchallenged. To call this horrendous attack at basic freedom “The Employee Freedom Act” demands every citizen with an ounce of common sense to rise up in anger directed directly at Capitol Hill and the White House.
There are no valid arguments on this issue in favor of this issue. Anyone who proposes otherwise is a liar whose motives must be questioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment