FAA

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The old voting scheme was designed to give an unfair disadvantage to workers. That rule rigged any union election against the workers by counting non-votes as no votes. The new rule which is used in every other industry would simply require the votes counted to be the official tally which I believe is the American way, and the very foundation of our country. Just because it is old does not make it right.

Typical Dog droppings. The rules were set in place during the FDR era and represented a means of making sure that the majority of the workers, not a majority of the union organizers, wanted to be represented by the union. Those that wanted a union would show up and vote to be represented by them, those that didn't could express their preference by simply not showing up. Votes cast in favor of unionization represent the members of the workforce that the union has convinced. If they haven't convinced the majority, then the union hasn't convinced the workers that they should represent them. Simple as that.

Typical BS, not answering the issue, but ducking and weaving. The American way in every election is that a majority of those who voted decide, and those who can not be bothered to vote are not automatically counted. Why should those who do not take 2 minutes to vote in an election, who are so indifferent to the outcome, be automatically counted as a negative vote?

So it is your contention that if a workforce numbers 500 people and only 10% of them show up to vote for an election on whether to unionize that as few as 26 people should be able to decide the issue for the other 474 members of the workforce? Is that a majority of the workers saying that they wish to be represented by the union? That is what the vote is being called to decide, isn't it? Whether or not the workers want to change the current situation and be represented by the union in the future? If the majority of them do not indicate that this is what they desire, how can it be said that they have voted in favor of being represented by the union?

And, as noted, the law does not require that workers be represented by a union in the same way that it does that a government has an executive and representatives of the people in the Congress. If the union wants to be chosen to represent the workers, it should have to demonstrate that a majority of the workers, not a majority of the union organizers within the workforce, desire that it should do so.

PrintSmith wrote: So it is your contention that if a workforce numbers 500 people and only 10% of them show up to vote for an election on whether to unionize that as few as 26 people should be able to decide the issue for the other 474 members of the workforce? Is that a majority of the workers saying that they wish to be represented by the union? That is what the vote is being called to decide, isn't it? Whether or not the workers want to change the current situation and be represented by the union in the future? If the majority of them do not indicate that this is what they desire, how can it be said that they have voted in favor of being represented by the union?

And, as noted, the law does not require that workers be represented by a union in the same way that it does that a government has an executive and representatives of the people in the Congress. If the union wants to be chosen to represent the workers, it should have to demonstrate that a majority of the workers, not a majority of the union organizers within the workforce, desire that it should do so.

Absolutely, that if the 474 members are so indifferent to the outcome that they do not bother to vote, then they shall enjoy the outcome decided by those who were motivated to vote. So are you saying that George W. Bush should not have been elected president, since a majority of Americans did not vote for him? If a majority of them do not indicate that this what they desire, how can it be said that he should have held office?

You guys a terrified that someone might make $2/hour more than they currently are making? Because thats what were talking about here. A $2.65/hour difference from union and non union shops. With all the problems in this world they got you sheep to be angry about you friends and nieghbors having just a few more dollars to spend?


You are: Corporate America usefull idiots, thats all you are.


And Losers that I find hard to believe anybody would want to be around. You're haters..You hate your fellow man and thats gotta come from some kind of abuse as a child. I bet everyone of you tea baggers were beat as children, and the straight up old fashion Republicans were just ignored.

Haters. Get a real problem

To bad we (U.S.) didn't have balls like RR did, and fire the lot of them!

TPP wrote: To bad we (U.S.) didn't have balls like RR did, and fire the lot of them!

Yeah that was great for you and me....Wages have been stagnant ever since

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart ... 50-years-6
and
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart ... one-else-5

Something the Dog Said wrote: Absolutely, that if the 474 members are so indifferent to the outcome that they do not bother to vote, then they shall enjoy the outcome decided by those who were motivated to vote. So are you saying that George W. Bush should not have been elected president, since a majority of Americans did not vote for him? If a majority of them do not indicate that this what they desire, how can it be said that he should have held office?

Who says they are indifferent when the rules for the last 75 years have been such that they could vote by simply not showing up? Why should they have to change their behavior to enable the Democrats to reward their special interest union groups?

The states could have rejected the Constitution simply by deciding not to hold a ratification vote. A vote for ratification by 9 of the 13 states was necessary, was it not? That same principle applies here. A majority of the existing members must vote in favor of the change for a change to take place in order to firmly establish that the majority wish for there to be a change from that which is existing. The lack of a yes vote is indicative that no change is desired.

Now, if you could establish without question that the folks who stayed home in the past did so out if indifference in every instance you might have some firm ground underneath your premise upon which to rest it. Given that the rules of unionization for the past 75 years have allowed those opposed to the union to express their desire to not have the union represent them simply by not voting at all I see no ability for you to sustain your flawed premise that those that stayed home did so out of indifference.

Are you able to prove with certitude that your premise is valid Dog? Are you able to prove that those who didn't cast votes for the last 75 years failed to do so out of indifference? Of course not, which is why your premise that they did is flawed right out of the gate. An argument constructed on a flawed premise is a flawed argument Dog - you know that.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Absolutely, that if the 474 members are so indifferent to the outcome that they do not bother to vote, then they shall enjoy the outcome decided by those who were motivated to vote. So are you saying that George W. Bush should not have been elected president, since a majority of Americans did not vote for him? If a majority of them do not indicate that this what they desire, how can it be said that he should have held office?

Who says they are indifferent when the rules for the last 75 years have been such that they could vote by simply not showing up? Why should they have to change their behavior to enable the Democrats to reward their special interest union groups?

The states could have rejected the Constitution simply by deciding not to hold a ratification vote. A vote for ratification by 9 of the 13 states was necessary, was it not? That same principle applies here. A majority of the existing members must vote in favor of the change for a change to take place in order to firmly establish that the majority wish for there to be a change from that which is existing. The lack of a yes vote is indicative that no change is desired.

Now, if you could establish without question that the folks who stayed home in the past did so out if indifference in every instance you might have some firm ground underneath your premise upon which to rest it. Given that the rules of unionization for the past 75 years have allowed those opposed to the union to express their desire to not have the union represent them simply by not voting at all I see no ability for you to sustain your flawed premise that those that stayed home did so out of indifference.

Are you able to prove with certitude that your premise is valid Dog? Are you able to prove that those who didn't cast votes for the last 75 years failed to do so out of indifference? Of course not, which is why your premise that they did is flawed right out of the gate. An argument constructed on a flawed premise is a flawed argument Dog - you know that.

Can you prove with certitude that they did not? It is more likely than not that it was due to indifference, since they had the opportunity to vote, and chose not to do so. And just because you chose an extreme unlikely example, it is more likely that 60 to 80 percent of the workforce would vote, not ten percent.

In every other elective process, the majority of those who voted control the outcome. This singular, archaic instance simply does not meet the American ideal of the elective process. According to your logic, George W. Bush was improperly seated as president, since he did not receive a majority of votes of all Americans, and in fact, according to your logic, no modern president should have been seated since none of them received a majority of all American votes.


And regardless, Congress passed the authorization without changing the rule back to the old archaic elective process.

That is a flawed argument Dog, and you know it. The Constitution, once ratified, called for the election of an executive and outlined the method by which the executive would be decided. Where does it say there must be a union representing these workers? Nowhere. The election is held to see if the majority of the workers wish to be represented by the union and thus a majority of the workers must decide in favor of having the union represent them. For 75 years they have been able to vote against having the union represent them simply by not voting at all. That is reality. That reality was established 75 years ago by a very labor friendly administration and was put into place to ensure that before a union was established as the representative of the workers that a majority of the workers wished to have the union represent them. This is an undisputed fact. It is the reason that for the last 75 years a majority of workers, not vote casters, was required to institute union representation.

What you have contributed is not fact, it is conjecture. It presupposes that what you envision exists without any documentation in support of it. You have nothing to support your premise that those that do not vote are indifferent other than your statement that this is the case.

The rules were established to allow someone to express their desire that the union not represent them simply by staying home. That is a fact, not a supposition. That is not the way the election of the president was organized which is why your argument is so deeply flawed. The people accepted the manner in which the president was to be elected when they ratified the Constitution. There was nothing in the Constitution that required a state to vote on its ratification, only a statement that before it could take effect as the law of the land that 9 of the states must ratify it.

Something the Dog Said wrote: And regardless, Congress passed the authorization without changing the rule back to the old archaic elective process.

A temporary authorization, correct? The decision is not final yet Dog, Congress may yet decide that it, and not an executive department, is the entity that legislates on this matter.