|
|
|
When I was a little girl, my father was a boiler operator for Georgia Pacific in Monticello, Ga. There was a housing shortage—it was 1972—so we lived in a trailer park. At that time, an attempt was made to unionize the GP plant. My Dad didn’t want to join the union, so he was singled out for abuse by his pro-union co-workers. There were death threats from union members, so he would load his .45 and take it to work with him when he left at 5 a.m. each morning. It is not at all an exaggeration to say that we lived in fear. The pressure to unionize turned violent. One day in the pre-dawn darkness, union members drove by a mobile home and fired shots into its walls. It was a small town and everyone knew that the man who lived there, who didn’t want to join the union, would already be at work at the plant. He was a newlywed and the doublewide was temporary housing just until the market improved when he and his wife would build a house. The union’s drive-by shooters thought no one was home because there were no cars parked outside. It turned out that the man’s wife’s car was in the shop and she was inside asleep. She was struck in the neck by a bullet and paralyzed. Most unions aren’t violent because they have no opportunity to be, but one of the things that has acted as some small protection for those like my father who simply don’t want to join a union, is the requirement that ballots remain secret in votes on whether to unionize or not. Now, the Democrats want to do away with secret balloting, exposing anti-union employees to harassment and perhaps even violent attacks. As reported in today’s Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fighting to keep union/anti-union votes secret and I encourage you to support the Chamber in that effort. “The centerpiece of the Chamber's fund-raising and advertising initiative is its opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, a labor-backed piece of legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize workers inside companies,” the Journal reports, and continues, “The legislation, supported by Democrats on Capitol Hill, would overturn current requirements that employees cast secret ballots in votes on whether to unionize. Unions say companies can make it difficult for them to hold such formal elections. “The proposed legislation would streamline balloting by letting workers sign union authorization cards. In 2007, it passed in the House of Representatives but was blocked in the Senate by Republican filibuster. If enacted, the Employee Free Choice Act would likely swell the ranks of organized labor. The Chamber and many corporations oppose the measure, saying the end of secret balloting could allow union representatives to identify anti-labor workers and apply pressure to them. On Tuesday, the Chamber released a nationwide television advertisement attacking the Employee Free Choice Act.” If people want to unionize, that’s their business, but I have seen first hand the terrifying pressure that can be exerted by unions on those who don’t want to join. At best, it is anti-American to force people to join a union, at worst it is morally and ethically despicable. At the very least, you should be able to vote your conscience in secret without fear of harassment from co-workers. To learn more, please visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480659803164965.html COMMENTS
i was in middle ga in 1972 and still am. i also know the amount of pressure ga pacific put on the workers. back then, they were the only game in town.
but this has little to do with your condemnation of the democratic party. ga had a right-to-work-for-less law in 1972 and still does. unions weren't a big deal back and still are not big deal now. what does that have to do with voting republican?
David,
Did you not the read the whole article? Under an Obama administration, because the Dems already control the House and Senate, the pro-union legislation would pass without obstacle--no one would veto it-- insuring that secret ballots for-or-against unionizing would be no more. Here, once again, is why:
"Most unions aren’t violent because they have no opportunity to be, but one of the things that has acted as some small protection for those like my father who simply don’t want to join a union, is the requirement that ballots remain secret in votes on whether to unionize or not. Now, the Democrats want to do away with secret balloting, exposing anti-union employees to harassment and perhaps even violent attacks.
As reported in today’s Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fighting to keep union/anti-union votes secret and I encourage you to support the Chamber in that effort.
“The centerpiece of the Chamber's fund-raising and advertising initiative is its opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, a labor-backed piece of legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize workers inside companies,” the Journal reports, and continues, “The legislation, supported by Democrats on Capitol Hill, would overturn current requirements that employees cast secret ballots in votes on whether to unionize. Unions say companies can make it difficult for them to hold such formal elections.
“The proposed legislation would streamline balloting by letting workers sign union authorization cards. In 2007, it passed in the House of Representatives but was blocked in the Senate by Republican filibuster. If enacted, the Employee Free Choice Act would likely swell the ranks of organized labor. The Chamber and many corporations oppose the measure, saying the end of secret balloting could allow union representatives to identify anti-labor workers and apply pressure to them."
Ms. Ramage writes:
"many corporations oppose the measure, saying the end of secret balloting could allow union representatives to identify anti-labor workers and apply pressure to them."
Truth is, and anyone who has ever worked for a company with a pending worker vote on unionizing knows this, corporations openly pressure workers to vote against Unions.
I have seen this myself over the past few decades working. This corporate behavior is not limited to Georgia, either.
Also, I think it is important to remember that back in the early days of Unions in America, Corporations openly used violence against workers favoring Unionization.
Henry Ford brought in the Pinkertons to bust heads, Coal Corps. murdered miners in many states, sparking outright warfare in Pennsylvania and several Western States, and it was the Corps. and the Cops doing the vast majority of head busting and murdering all the way down to today, where such behaviors are performed overseas on the child laborers and sweat shop workers who "rebel" by simply trying to quit or escape their "employers".
You can cherry pick your history all day long - and that is certainly the only "skill" you seem to have - but the truth is out there. In the history books.
Read one.
We're not talking about "the early days of the union," we're talking about the here and now. Ronald Reagan busted the power of the unions, making the US exponentially more competitive than it had been in the 1970s under Carter. Now, the Democrats want to reinstate the unions at a time when that is absolutely the last thing we need. We need to be more competitive than ever. Union labor cost a helluva lot more money and that cost will be tacked onto the price of operating in America. If you want to know which party is going to protect your job, look to business organizations like the nat'l assoc of franchisees and the Tax Foundation. They're screaming bloody murder about Obama's plan because it's going to chase employers out of the US. You may be quite happy to be unemployed and living off the dole, but most Americans want to have jobs and expanding the welfare state versus expanding the job market is the single biggest difference between Obama and McCain respectively. We are talking about secret balloting--something that was originally put in place to protect those who wanted to join unions. So much for your knowledge of history.
As Ralph Malph once said to Potsie:
"Nice Comeback, Potsie."
I commented on your profound ability to cherry pick history, you respond with "I'm not talking about the entire history, just the part after Reagan fixed the world by busting the unions."
I cannot imagine anyone making my point more clearly than you just did.
In your world, the only good Union is a Dead Union? Hmmm. Where have I heard that expression before?
For the record, I didn't say Unions are a good thing, just pointed out that your premise, which can be summarized "Unions extort compliance out of workers and are Evil to boot", is false.
If you look at the History of Unions in this country.
The dishonesty and historical Cherry Picking I mentioned is also blatantly obvious in your choice of title for the piece in question.
Finally, it's funny that you consider Ronald Reagan's Union Busting the catalyst for "making the US exponentially more competitive than it had been in the 1970s under Carter."
So the entire history of the World can be understood by examining the One Term President from Plains, GA?
Typically shallow predictable partisan rhetoric.
There is nothing of truth or value in your "column".
Just more wishful thinking (let's not forget the reality that Reagan's borrow and spend deficit days led to the Savings and Loans crashing just as Bush's Reagan-wannabe borrow and spend deficit days led to the current bank crashes and bail out) from the deluded Right Wing.
If America is so exponentially competitive since Reagan's Union busting, why are GM, Ford and Chrysler, once the Gems of this country's corporate culture, going bankrupt as we speak?
They were the best example we have of Big Unions - the United Auto Workers - interacting with Capitalism.
And busting them dropped GM from "World's Largest Most Powerful Most Profitable Corporation" into the Dust Heap of History?
Is that where your argument is headed?
Hilarious as usual. I'll give you credit for that much. You must be logged in to post a comment. You can log in here. |