Union organization has required a majority of employees to vote yes since the days of the labor friendly FDR and Truman administrations Wily. Why the change? Oh, that's right, it's a payback for all the special interest union support received.
And remind me, since I may be incorrect here, but isn't it the president, currently Obama, who nominates the folks who sit on the NMB BoD? Isn't it also the Senate, headed by Reid, whose advice and consent is needed to approve those nominations? The BoD of the NMB is a function of the executive branch of government Wily and, as Truman used to say when he sat behind the desk, the buck stops there.
And remind me, since I may be incorrect here, but isn't it the president, currently Obama, who nominates the folks who sit on the NMB BoD? Isn't it also the Senate, headed by Reid, whose advice and consent is needed to approve those nominations? The BoD of the NMB is a function of the executive branch of government Wily and, as Truman used to say when he sat behind the desk, the buck stops there.
Actually, two of the three board members were put in place by Dubya.
Originally perhaps, but all three members of the BoD have at least been renominated to their posts and reconfirmed by Senate vote since Obama took the oath of office as the nation's 44th president. It's Obama's BoD annie, not Bush's. And it was a policy change that they enacted, a change from the policy that had been in effect since the days of FDR. The GOP members in the House have simply stated their opposition to executive appointees legislating in place of Congress and sought to return control of legislating to the legislative branch of government.
Union authorization in this sector has required a majority of employees, not employees who vote in the election, to institute a union for 75 years. If a union is going to represent a group of employees, shouldn't it have to garner the support of a majority of the employees before being so designated? Are you really of the opinion that if only 10% of a 500 member workforce votes in the election that 26 people should have the power to determine whether or not all 500 are represented by the union?
Are you really of the opinion that if only 10% of a 500 member workforce votes in the election that 26 people should have the power to determine whether or not all 500 are represented by the union?
You betcha. That's how it works in elections - if you don't vote, you've got no cause to bitch.
That presumes that the other 90% have not participated because they are indifferent. Given that for 75 years their lack of participation has been deemed to be indicative of whether or not they desire to have a union represent them, under what pretense should an alteration of that model be made? For 75 years the decision not to vote has been understood to be an indication of their desire to be represented by a union, why should they now be required to show up and cast a vote when they have been casting a vote by staying home for 75 years?
And final point, Harry Reid(D) shut down the Senate this week for recess, not the Republicans.
SS109, you need to read up more......the House went home first, I believe they are still run by the Republicans, but hey.....after this last vote maybe not. With the House gone, there was nothing the Senate could do unless they wanted to pass the ridiculous bill that came out of the house......another example of the new Republican mantra......do what we want or we will take our toys and go home, we don't care who gets hurt by that. The Senate, however, is still in session as far as I know.....apparently some Republicans decided not to allow it to shut down for fear that Obama might exercise his legal and presidential right to fill some appointed positions that have been vacant for years. He can't do that as long as the Senate is still in session......I heard that today.....do you have evidence that Reid actually was able to shut down the Senate?????
The House and Senate are at odds over proposals to cut rural air service subsidies and make it more difficult for airline workers to unionize.
Oh, now that one is just rich. Keeping the rules of unionization that have been in place for going on 80 years is somehow transformed into making it more difficult for airline workers to unionize. No archer, the rules should not be changed to make it easier than it has been to unionize and as long as the Democrats insist upon that rule being changed the FAA will remain shut down. If you want the FAA up and operating, call Reid and tell him to stop insisting the rule be changed from its current form.
Moron America...Not only do they cut thier own throats...They get really angry when you try to stop them from doing it. It's a pie Print Smith. We the people want the biggest piece we can get, we don't want to fight for a smaller piece do we? Wake up retard.
PrintSmith wrote: That presumes that the other 90% have not participated because they are indifferent. Given that for 75 years their lack of participation has been deemed to be indicative of whether or not they desire to have a union represent them, under what pretense should an alteration of that model be made? For 75 years the decision not to vote has been understood to be an indication of their desire to be represented by a union, why should they now be required to show up and cast a vote when they have been casting a vote by staying home for 75 years?
Because the rule changed and they should pay attention.
daisypusher wrote: The rec district people need to somehow get the no show to be a yes vote. Or the school tax increase people. They would benefit too!
Vice Lord wrote: We the people want the biggest piece we can get, we don't want to fight for a smaller piece do we? Wake up retard.
You want a big piece of pie?
Then go ahead and start up a business from scratch, hire a bunch of workers for $50/hr and give them all kinds of benefits. Where is the source for your graph? The Y-axis scales are cleverly magnified.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
