| I actually tried for weeks to argue my way out of thinking this is garbage. I have the same reservations as Kyle, but I would have supported the bill as is if that was all I was worried about. The bill, which I have read, is something to the tune of 90% great. Normally I'd support a bill like that, using the whole principle of not letting perfect being the enemy of good, but that 10% is what happens to hold the real weight of the bill.
I wasn't active, as I was busy with local politicking and school at the time (among other reasons), but I was a member of Lozier's sheet metal workers bargaining unit for a few years. While I didn't always think they were very effective, I'm still of the opinion that unions are an absolutely essential part of our economy.
I've only seen one poll on the issue, which went decidedly against this kind of bill, but I hope to see some real polling on it soon. What I don't get, and what nearly everyone who I know who isn't a hard core partisan also doesn't get when they're given the facts and arguments from both sides, is how requiring a secret ballot isn't the one thing that should be a requirement, if anything is? Its incredibly disingenuous to fight for years to limit the ability of corporations to potentially coerce employees into not starting a union, but then replace it with a system that leaves union promoters open to doing so. |
| This argument is usually followed up with diatribes about the commenter being called a union hater and listing all sorts of good things that unions have done for us. I applaud Kyle for going public with his disagreement with the bill. I also happen to share the view of many people on here, most of whom would probably never have the cahones to come out and say it, that Terry Moore is one of the (if not the) worst figures on the Omaha political scene, but I personally can thank the sheet metal workers bargaining unit for helping me get through the last three years of PT college without debt, not to mention the 40 hour work week, pensions and all those fun things, heheh.
The most honest arguments I've seen for this bill have basically amounted to a power grab, or getting even for years of unequal treatment under law. This bill could be so much more if union think tankers spent a fraction of the time that they are now coming up with spin to convince people this is a good bill, and put that into crafting a law that built a system where the penalties were so severe, and monitoring of the period where union organizing was being considered, that coercion from the managerial side would be made much harder, if not nearly impossible. But no, we're sitting here arguing over whether or not the secret ballot should be required or whether its okay to put into a system where coercion by union supporters is ensured.
Of course its going to happen. This isn't a comment against union supporters, its an observation of human nature. Employers often use coercive tactics to try and stop union organizing because they disagree with the idea and because they think they can get away with it. All employers don't do this, but enough do to warrant laws limiting these actions. Union organizers will do this because they passionately want unions to expand into more workplaces, and because of human nature, many of them will use coercive (in this case, in your face peer pressure) to pressure people into doing what they want... again... because they think they can get away with it.
This bill would already have been passed had it been a revision of the process that attempted to limit potential coercion of any kind, and from any quarter. It may still squeek through... and worse things could happen... my heart is split between my loyalty to unions in general and my belief in democratic principles... (this is an edit... meant to say the following-->) however my my mind is entirely against this. The secret ballot shouldn't be anyone's decision, it should be automatically mandatory.
I knew it was bound to happen sooner rather than later, but in this case, I'm seeing the first bold faced example that matches the hyperpartisan nature of some of the W's greatest hits... that even scare away some moderate D's. If the Democratic majority continues to serve up bills like this, and pork laden omnibus bills, 2010 is going to be a year where it may become even more likely that Dems see themselves farther from that 60 vote majority in the senate than the other way around.
I'm happy that our Senator is a moderating force in Washington. Keep it up sir. |
