This site seems unwilling to seek either.

My bet is that it goes right down to the wire. But Tommy will win by a Cheeto

When you are right, you are right. When 51 percent of workers vote publicly to unionize, the union is formed, and the secret ballot is no longer an option.

Similarly, when George Bush was elected president four years ago, he stripped me of the opportunity to vote AGAIN on the matter, and just pretended like getting the majority of the vote was enough of a reason for him to stay in office. But I wanted to vote every month until I got the outcome I desired. George Bush took away that right.

It seems George Bush is ALSO against the secret ballot.

Interestingly, the public card check opens up employees to intimidation not just from the union thugs who will intimidate them, but it does also make their preference public… creating MORE opportunity for employers to do the same — if you really believe that happens.

Quit lying Leroy.

The only “open process” is the private ballot. It protects workers from intimidation from anyone.

But Al Franken and his pals in the unions and organized crime don’t care for voting rights.

You’re right, the law does eliminate the private ballot and replaces it with the public check card.

Where your wrong is in the idea that it creates any “additional” means to unionize.

The current law does not mandate a private ballot, but it presents that option. EFCA removes that option.

If they want to use a secret ballot, under EFCA, they CANNOT, after the public cards are signed.

Quit lying Leroy.

Hey, lefties, keep nominating these insane people.It costs less to defeat them!

Since the law will only change the secret ballot when a public card check is initiated, why are Norm Coleman and Wal Mart worried about giving workers an ADDITIONAL way to indicate their support for unionization? If they want to use the secret ballot, they can still use the secret ballot. And since you claim employers don’t harass, threaten and intimidate, then there should be no problem with allowing it to stay as the primary option, and allow card check in cases where threats and intimidation from the employer require a more open process.

There is no defense against Franken not carrying required worker’s comp insurance; just as there is no defense when Ramstad, Kline, Kennedy, Moe, Tim Penny, and yes, even the dearly departed Paul Wellstone’s organizations failed to carry the required coverage.

The hypocrisy is the venom you bootlickers direct at Franken, while giving a pass to Rammer, Kline, and little Markie.

You (cheney)ers are hypocrites – and your hypocrisy is one more reason GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples.

And it was so effective at preventing you from finding it. Damn you Michael…

LOL!

Well, let’s look at one word in this statement…I wonder what that word could mean…

ansel Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
back to my question, how can employers threaten and intimidate workers when they do not know which workers are voting or not voting for a union?

Yeah, notice how he deflects any kind of pathetic answer to an EDITORIAL from THE STAR TRIBUNE??

Is that true that you boy Al didn’t carry workers comp for his employees? Sounds like the typical hypocrite Democrat to me.

You rail against hypocrites, would like to hear you defend this one.

Oh, that’s right, you don’t defend, you deflect and lie about pretty much everything.

You are good humor though, I have to give you that. You are much funnier than rape and bestialty jokes from Franken. It is a bit disturbing though that you that you have a fixation on men and boys.

second, budd’s primary argument is that the current system allows employers to “barrage” workers with anti-union info at work. this statement, in itself, shows his bias. he assumes that employees always want to be unionized, that there is no benefit in not being unionized. i have two clients (relatively small) where the unions have been thrown out because workers finally figured out the union dues they were paying were not worth the benefits.

since you believe that workers should be able to sign a card to unionize, would you agree that they could sign a card to de-unionize?

Here’s the link: StarTribune

Now, if Michael is claiming this editorial is accurate for the points he wants to make, then one can assume the whole editorial is accurate.

And here’s part of what that editorial has to say:

***
That pitched national battle is why the issue is at the forefront of Minnesota’s Senate race. The Senate holds the key to EFCA’s future. Democratic contender Al Franken supports EFCA; Republican Norm Coleman does not. Both labor and business have pledged millions for their cause, with some of that well-funded battle resulting in the local ads. So what should Minnesota voters make of all of this? Seeking an opinion from outside the immediate fray, we asked University of Minnesota labor economist John Budd for his perspective. His response: “Frankly, I think it’s long overdue.” In Budd’s view, EFCA helps remedy an imbalance of power between workers and bosses, with the proposed bill giving labor a way to offset employers’ powerful influence — such as barraging staffers with antiunion info at work.
***

regarding being anti-worker, i suggest you look at franken’s refusal to carry workers compensation for his employees. that would seem like a much bigger anti-worker issue than advocating secret elections. secret elections are not anti-worker, they are pro-worker because each person can make a decision in private without the influence of either union or employer.

There is nothing wrong with him taking that stance. He is simply saying that he will allow business to keep buying him his seat, even if it means he can no longer represent the interests of the people of Minnesota.

“Faggetaboudit”

At least you finally admit that it only removes the secret ballot “under certain circumstances” as opposed to eliminates the secret ballot period which is Coleman’s stance.

And, “misleading” and “incomplete” is not my language, that’s the ALJ interpreting the anti-EFCA ads.

EFCA forces employees to state their preference in a public forum, and opens them up to greater intimidation.

It’s bad law, bad policy… and it’s wholly unnecessary.

“but as evidence adds up to the contrary”

What the hell evidence has emerged that supports the bill takes away the right to a secret ballot? The only thing the PR cites is an editorial in the star tribune. An EDITORIAL?

We already know this has been labeled as an “incomplete” and “misleading” reading of the statute.

The well has run dry; union bosses are desperate so it’s time to call in the markers from their trained monkey’s in office.

This issue is poison to any candidate that touches it. That’s why Madia runs away when it is brought up and why Porn-O-Rama has nothin’ to say either.

It’s only you idiots in the Sorosphere that are touting this loser, because you have nothing to lose.

It’s disgusting, really.

I wonder if that’s because Coleman is on record of bein’ “FOR” the Employee Free Choice deal?

You guys will go to any length to stop workers from unionizing.

Do that belly dance for us, boy!

HAHA!

Man, you really keep a tight leash on your two favorite beotches don’t ya, Mike?

Dance, fat boy…dance. You too, Aairhead!

HAHAHA!

Speakin’ o’ stealin’, did Team Smokescreen ever give copies of Coleman’s utility bills to the media?

Mark Drake promised a coupla weeks ago, that he’d check.

I wonder if he did?

If he didn’t check, wouldn’t that make a Team Coleman spokesman a liar?