Employee_Free_Choice_Act

[blazespinnaker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

I'm sorry, maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who thinks the Employee Free Choice Act has to be about the stupidest, most communistic idea ever? Note, I'm a big Obama fan, but this law has to be the worst thing imaginable.

I fully agree, employers abuse employees, but getting rid of the ability for employees to decide in a secret ballot is *NOT* the answer.

All they're doing is creating a system whereby instead of being abused by your employer, you're now also going to be abused by fellow employees!

What a nightmare in the making.

If Obama wants to improve things for middle class americans, he needs to enforce environmental / labor standards as a part of trade relations. That's the real problem. Who cares about unionizing in the US if you can just outsource and get cheap labor elsewhere.

[flintlock]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

My brother in law is an employment lawyer for a major corporation. He recently attended a conference in DC to learn more about this Act. He said he learned it has a good chance of passing and he described it as being seen as "financial armageddon" for US corporations. He's a Obama supporter too.

[KGW]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

My brother in law is an employment lawyer for a major corporation. He recently attended a conference in DC to learn more about this Act. He said he learned it has a good chance of passing and he described it as being seen as "financial armageddon" for US corporations. He's a Obama supporter too.

As opposed to the current environment? Somehow the phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

[flintlock]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

More like throwing gas on a raging inferno I guess.

[Scot]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

I'm sorry, maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who thinks the Employee Free Choice Act has to be about the stupidest, most communistic idea ever? Note, I'm a big Obama fan, but this law has to be the worst thing imaginable.

Maybe, but Directive 1404.10, combined with Obama's desire to establish a new "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military -- is a bit more frightening.

Directive 1404.10 cancels a prior 1992 directive. The 1992 directive deals with overseas deployments of civilian personnel. Directive 1404.10 removes all use of "overseas" in the body of the directive.

From the directive:

"Members of the DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce shall be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations of the Department of Defense in accordance with DoDD 3000.05..."

Remember, this used to apply only to overseas operations. Why would a president desire to remove that limit?

[Slimprofits]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Maybe, but Directive 1404.10, combined with Obama's desire to establish a new "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military -- is a bit more frightening.

[..]

Remember, this used to apply only to overseas operations. Why would a president desire to remove that limit?

It is not clear to me that limit has been removed.

From the definitions section of the document:

DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce: A subset of the DoD civilian workforce that is to be organized, trained, cleared and ready in a manner that facilitates the use of their capabilities either in a temporary reassignment, and/or duty status or to stay in a place overseas to support the DoD mission.

What is the orgin of "just as strong, just as well funded as our military?

The DoD accounts for almost half of the FedGov budget does it not? That sounds more like a euphemism from a political speech than anything else.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=52840

Certain duty positions may be designated by the various Defense Department components to participate in the program. If a position is designated, the employee will be asked to sign an agreement that they will deploy if called upon to do so. If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position.

The directive emphasizes, however, that volunteers be sought first for any expeditionary requirements, before requiring anyone to serve involuntarily or on short notice. Overseas duty tours shall not exceed two years.

Employees in deployable-designated positions will be trained, equipped and prepared to serve overseas in support of humanitarian, reconstruction and, if absolutely necessary, combat-support missions.

http://www.cpms.osd.mil/expeditionary/

If you are right about the limit on overseas being removed, this could be an attempt at an end around of Posse Comitatus similar to what was attempted by Pres. Bush in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Civilian support for the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team?

[Slimprofits]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

My brother in law is an employment lawyer for a major corporation. He recently attended a conference in DC to learn more about this Act. He said he learned it has a good chance of passing and he described it as being seen as "financial armageddon" for US corporations. He's a Obama supporter too.

They'll need every Democrat Senator and three Republicans to pass it.

So Senators Snowe, Collins, Gregg and/or Specter, and/or Voinovich are in the bag?

Snowe during a debate in '08, said she was strongly against it. I've read that Specter is in the union bag on this one.

[metalman]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

As opposed to the current environment? Somehow the phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

if the bill passes will there be more unions?

[Digidiver]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Big business has launched a no-holds-barred propaganda blitz against the Employee Free Choice Act. Their goal is to scare people into believing that if the bill passes it will trigger higher unemployment and a deeper recession.
Article:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/0...ck-hullabaloo/

[Scot]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

It is not clear to me that limit has been removed.

From the definitions section of the document:

DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce: A subset of the DoD civilian workforce that is to be organized, trained, cleared and ready in a manner that facilitates the use of their capabilities either in a temporary reassignment, and/or duty status or to stay in a place overseas to support the DoD mission.

And that definition doesn't do much to clear it up. How is that supposed to be parsed? Looks like it might be read to mean that the CEW can be used either in a temporary reassignment or duty status, or to stay in a place overseas to support the DoD mission.

The intentional removal the word "overseas" in the body of the directive suggests something about which way any ambiguity will be treated.

What is the orgin of "just as strong, just as well funded as our military?

Obama himself is the origin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Of course, such a force would make the 2nd amendment redundant. That was the whole point of the 2nd amendment, wasn't it? The civilian security force was supposed to be the people themselves.

[Scot]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Big business has launched a no-holds-barred propaganda blitz against the Employee Free Choice Act. Their goal is to scare people into believing that if the bill passes it will trigger higher unemployment and a deeper recession.
Article:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/0...ck-hullabaloo/

And your post isn't itself propaganda?

Business has legitimate concerns with the EFCA. Most thoughtful people will acknowledge that they at least have a point.

Those that promote class conflict don't care, though. They want a fight. They want to stick it to business. Their interests aren't class cooperation and harmony. Their goal is to fatten their own wallets and to inflate their own egos -- all by punishing the the "other" class.

The very name "dissidentvoice" exudes hostility and class conflict.

[FRED]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

I'm sorry, maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who thinks the Employee Free Choice Act has to be about the stupidest, most communistic idea ever? Note, I'm a big Obama fan, but this law has to be the worst thing imaginable.

I fully agree, employers abuse employees, but getting rid of the ability for employees to decide in a secret ballot is *NOT* the answer.

All they're doing is creating a system whereby instead of being abused by your employer, you're now also going to be abused by fellow employees!

What a nightmare in the making.

If Obama wants to improve things for middle class americans, he needs to enforce environmental / labor standards as a part of trade relations. That's the real problem. Who cares about unionizing in the US if you can just outsource and get cheap labor elsewhere.

Rename it the "Wage Inflation Production Act" that reverses Reagan era anti-union, anti-wage inflation policies. On the surface, not very pro-FIRE Economy, but the demon of the FIRE Economy in 1980 was inflation, whereas today it is debt deflation.

[WDCRob]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

It doesn't eliminate the secret ballot.

It gives unions and employees the decision about whether the ballot should be secret or not. Instead of management.

[Blackhawk]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

I thought they had to show 51% of the cards in a bargainng unit signed to eliminate the election. And for the 49% who don't get to vote, I assume they call it the "No Choice Act?" Isn't there something democratic and fair about having a secret ballot election? It appears to be more political favor than anything else.

[Digidiver]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

“Those that promote class conflict don't care, though. They want a fight. They want to stick it to business. Their interests aren't class cooperation and harmony. Their goal is to fatten their own wallets and to inflate their own egos -- all by punishing the the "other" class.”fficeffice" />

Now who has been waging class warfare for the past few decades against the poor and middle class? I really think that paragraph sums up the rich in this world quite accurately except who they want to stick it to.

“The very name "dissidentvoice" exudes hostility and class conflict.”

Just bringing another view of the situation to the forum.