Obama's New Gift To Special Interests

[Patranus]

The Obama administration may have given America's labor unions a big break in their attempt to organize flight attendants, including about 20.000 at Delta, now the world's largest airline and, historically, the least unionized of major U.S. carriers.

What's changed is a 75-year-old rule that required a "yes" vote from the majority of an airline or railroad's entire work force within a "class" or "craft" (such as pilots or flight attendants) in order to unionize. On Monday, the National Mediation Board announced new rules that would only require "yes" votes from the majority of employees who actually cast ballots.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...dly-rules-could-affect-delta/?test=latestnews

With everything going on in Greece, this guy must be joking.
An unelected bureaucrat who was the president of a union is no making pro union regulations on the "National Mediation Board".
I thought government was suppose to level the playing field not pander to special interests.

 

[StageLeft]

So then attendants could trump the wishes of pilots, interesting. Kind of like the country as a whole actually.

 

[DaveSimmons]

the National Mediation Board announced new rules that would only require "yes" votes from the majority of employees who actually cast ballots.

So if people are too lazy to vote, they might get unionized against whatever their lazy, slacker, lacking-in-personal responsibility wishes happen to be?

Sounds like the lazy non-voters will get what they deserve. If they care, they should vote.

 

[halik]

So if people are too lazy to vote, they might get unionized against whatever their lazy, slacker, lacking-in-personal responsibility wishes happen to be?

Sounds like the lazy non-voters will get what they deserve. If they care, they should vote.

No, essentially it's saying that if janitors decide they want to unionize, the other employees have to follow suit. Instead of unionizing the janitors, you get to unionize all the employees of the company.

Nothing but a lobbied power grab from big labor.

 

[Patranus]

The real question is why should the government be forcing anyone to join a union if they don't want to join a union.

The government shouldn't be dictating my participation in a union.

If a group wants to unionize let them but that should have no bearing on my employment.

 

[spidey07]

Is this going to be tied in with the union card check where they can openly force you to vote for them because of intimidation tactics?

 

[Hacp]

The real question is why should the government be forcing anyone to join a union if they don't want to join a union.

The government shouldn't be dictating my participation in a union.

If a group wants to unionize let them but that should have no bearing on my employment.

Exactly! If you group of people want to unionize, I have no problem with that. However, companies should not be forced to hire only union employees. Companies should be able to hire anyone it so wishes to hire.

 

[Patranus]

Is this going to be tied in with the union card check where they can openly force you to vote for them because of intimidation tactics?

No, it was done by unelected bureaucrats on the National Mediation Board.

I am sure card check is next in line for Obama to implement without congress.

 

[cubby1223]

This sounds a lot like the story up in Michigan of parents who ran independent day-care operations out of their houses for the neighborhoods, suddenly getting an envelope in the mail saying they owe union dues.

 

[cubby1223]

So if people are too lazy to vote, they might get unionized against whatever their lazy, slacker, lacking-in-personal responsibility wishes happen to be?

Sounds like the lazy non-voters will get what they deserve. If they care, they should vote.

Or more likely, union bosses could "mysteriously" misplace no votes and the workforce is unionized.

 

[cubby1223]

To quote the article:

"The National Mediation Board (NMB) has taken an important and essential step towards ensuring a more democratic process for airline and rail workers seeking representation in the workplace," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a press release following the board's decision.

Yea, Hugo Chavez was democratically elected. Saddam Hussein was democratically elected. Kim Jon-Il was democratically elected. The Soviet regime in the former U.S.S.R. was democratically elected.

Guess this just fits in with the whole new culture in Washington, if the people stand in the way of your plans, instead of listening to or persuading people, change the rules of the game and go around the people.

 

[DaveSimmons]

No, essentially it's saying that if janitors decide they want to unionize, the other employees have to follow suit. Instead of unionizing the janitors, you get to unionize all the employees of the company.

Nothing but a lobbied power grab from big labor.

Are you sure? I don't read it as taking away the separation by "class or craft", just that the rule changes from:
- a majority is needed for all in the craft, whether they vote or not
to
- a majority is needed for those in the craft who bothered to vote

So before if there were 10,000 workers and only 4,999 voted (yes or no), the outcome was automatically no, even if 100% of the voters said they wanted a union.

Now with 10,000 workers and 4,999 voting only 2,500 must vote yes and all 10,000 will be unionized.

 

[Patranus]

Are you sure? I don't read it as taking away the separation by "class or craft", just that the rule changes from:
- a majority is needed for all in the craft, whether they vote or not
to
- a majority is needed for those in the craft who bothered to vote

So before if there were 10,000 workers and only 4,999 voted (yes or no), the outcome was automatically no, even if 100% of the voters said they wanted a union.

Now with 10,000 workers and 4,999 voting only 2,500 must vote yes and all 10,000 will be unionized.

Why should you be defaulted to be in a union?

If I want nothing to do with a union why should I be forced to go out of my way to vote no?

If that 4999 want to be in a union let them but that shouldn't effect the other 5001 people.

 

[jacc1234]

Are you sure? I don't read it as taking away the separation by "class or craft", just that the rule changes from:
- a majority is needed for all in the craft, whether they vote or not
to
- a majority is needed for those in the craft who bothered to vote

So before if there were 10,000 workers and only 4,999 voted (yes or no), the outcome was automatically no, even if 100% of the voters said they wanted a union.

Now with 10,000 workers and 4,999 voting only 2,500 must vote yes and all 10,000 will be unionized.

I agree, it does not sound like they got rid of the "classes". It just seems like people that don't vote are not automatically counted as a "NO".

 

[Pulsar]

Back when I was a kid, I interviewed at Meijers (the supermarket chain).

They offered me a position. Then they laid out my paycheck for me because I asked them to so I could know how much I would make.

They told me I had to pay a certain amount for union dues. I told them I had no interest in being in a union. I was a kid in high school and I wanted to take home the money that I had worked to earn.

They told me I had no choice. I would be in the union whether I liked it or not if I worked there. I told them to take a hike and then I hired in to program training programs for AT&T.

Screw these assholes who think they can take my pay without my say so.

One of my primary motivations for getting a college education was so that I would never be told that someone else was going to take my money again without my say so (barring, of course, the government).

 

[theflyingpig]

lol. This administration is a joke. A bad joke. It's too bad so many fools in this country had put their hopes and dreams into it. I can't wait to see what kind of silly acts this circus brings in it's final years. I can't wait.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you sure? I don't read it as taking away the separation by "class or craft", just that the rule changes from:
- a majority is needed for all in the craft, whether they vote or not
to
- a majority is needed for those in the craft who bothered to vote

So before if there were 10,000 workers and only 4,999 voted (yes or no), the outcome was automatically no, even if 100% of the voters said they wanted a union.

Now with 10,000 workers and 4,999 voting only 2,500 must vote yes and all 10,000 will be unionized.

I think that's correct. Previously, management automatically benefitted from the apathy vote- not voting was a vote in their favor, sorta like giving the incumbent all the votes of people who didn't vote in an election...

Now they need to at least motivate the people who don't want a union to actually vote, and non-voters get the voice they deserve- no voice at all.