- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
House Republicans pushed this year to revert to the old rules, under which workers who did not cast ballots in union elections would be counted as “no” votes. The effort, which came in the form of an amendment to the FAA’s funding bill, led to a protracted fight with Democrats and union groups and to a brief shutdown of the FAA this summer.
You heard it correctly. Republicans have always supported a rule that says if you didn't vote, then you voted, and of course, you voted "our" ideological way too. That rule was changed to say that if you didn't vote, you didn't vote. Of course, this had to go to court. The Court of Appeals ruled on it yesterday. The court made the following earth shattering announcement:
If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote.
Gee, what a surprise. In another move, the court is going to take up the issue on whether the sky is blue, or as Republicans claim, it is purple with yellow polka dots. :mrgreen:
Article is here.
I don't know why it's needs to be so complicated. If a group of people want to form a union, then go for it. And others don't, then they don't join. Why do they need a vote?You heard it correctly. Republicans have always supported a rule that says if you didn't vote, then you voted, and of course, you voted "our" ideological way too. That rule was changed to say that if you didn't vote, you didn't vote. Of course, this had to go to court. The Court of Appeals ruled on it yesterday. The court made the following earth shattering announcement:
If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote.
Gee, what a surprise. In another move, the court is going to take up the issue on whether the sky is blue, or as Republicans claim, it is purple with yellow polka dots. :mrgreen:
Article is here.
This is the first I've heard of this and I can only comment on what is presented. Just based upon what is presented I'd say it was a proper ruling.
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Why should abstention = no? I mean, normal elections don't work like that.
If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote.
Quorum issue. They needed a majority of the total workforce to vote for it. A majority of those voting wasn't enough before. I wonder though, is every worker bound to agreements by the Union and required to pay dues whether they voted for it, against it, or abstained? Im willing to bet they are.
But the lack of a quorum - which, obviously, isn't required in any other elections - would only make the vote null. Non-voters shouldn't count as "no" votes, just as non-votes.
What's in the by-laws?
I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.This isn't about internal union elections, it's about elections to determine whether a union will represent the employees. The rules for those elections are set by the government.
I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.
No, I'm not kidding at all. If workers A, B, and C wish to form a union, what does that have to do with workers D and E who don't.Are you kidding?
No, I'm not kidding at all. If workers A, B, and C wish to form a union, what does that have to do with workers D and E who don't.
Absolutely ridiculous that worker A, B, and C can form a union that automatically includes workers D and E, despite the fact that D and E are not interested. Who cam up with that ridiculous scheme, and why doesn't the government protect workers D and E from this?It doesn't. You see the Union Thugs want to their power and money. Before, they had to get a majority of workers to agree before they could unionize. This made it easier for workers that felt threatened voting to skip out and get their no in. Now all they have to do is hold an election... say middle of Super Bowl sunday when the work place is closed down, have 12 people there and oh, look 10 yes, 2 no! And every worker is now Unionized and paying fees at the work place. This is why states like Texas rock, you can Unionize all you want, but you cannot force me into your Union.
I never understand why a vote is even necessary. Why can't someone simply announce that they wish to form a union and whoever wishes to join can sign up to be a member, and whoever's not interested doesn't sign up to be a member. I don't see how the desire of workers A, B, and C to have a union should in any way effect workers D and E who are not interested.
Absolutely ridiculous that worker A, B, and C can form a union that automatically includes workers D and E, despite the fact that D and E are not interested. Who cam up with that ridiculous scheme, and why doesn't the government protect workers D and E from this?
This is a really stupid ass decision, and I say that on behalf of voting rights in general.
It's stupid because it lets people get away with calling up votes in inconvenient times, and getting away with bull**** just because members of an organization don't say anything.
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Why should abstention = no? I mean, normal elections don't work like that.
It doesn't. You see the Union Thugs want to their power and money. Before, they had to get a majority of workers to agree before they could unionize. This made it easier for workers that felt threatened voting to skip out and get their no in. Now all they have to do is hold an election... say middle of Super Bowl sunday when the work place is closed down, have 12 people there and oh, look 10 yes, 2 no! And every worker is now Unionized and paying fees at the work place. This is why states like Texas rock, you can Unionize all you want, but you cannot force me into your Union.
Abstention =/= "no vote".
Abstention is when you say you're present. A "no vote" indicates you're not.
Well, the courts upheld the decision by the NLRB that non-votes do NOT count as no votes. It's a victory for pro-union forces.
Well, this is about elections on whether to form a union, which are conducted by the government and involve sending in cards over a matter of weeks. It's not union elections, and it's not held in the middle of the night (nor are union elections either).
Wait - a no vote means you're not present? That violates the laws of physics.
Why would workers A, B, and C have the right to negotiation a contract on behalf of workers D and E who are not interested in the union and want to negotiate their own contract? What makes workers A, B, and C think that they are somehow in control of what workers D and E do? And where is the government in all this? Why doesn't the government protect workers D and E?Because the union gets the right to negotiate a contract on behalf of all workers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?