Umm – that would require the Republicans to do something positive and in their best interest on the PR front. I find that highly unlikely. Even if they had a media fawning over them, as the Democrats have, they would probably fail to do the job. History is not kind to Republican efforts to “get the message out”. And when they attempt to do so, a Graham, McCain or Brown (the “Maine sisters” usually just vote against the Republican position) will steal their thunder with the opposite message.

He finds it easy to slither. Let’s make him “go on the record”.

UNIONS have been useless since the 19th century! They have managed to destroy more businessess and cities in the world than one could imagine, especially in America!

Union members…you are being abused by communist thugs who do NOT give a rat’s @$$ about you or whether or NOT you have a job!

The Union gosds thugs maintain a six figure income, limousine and ALL of the other ‘perks’ that you poor slobs PAY FOR WHILE YOU LOSE YOUR HOME, YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR VEHICLES!

I have a “fair” proposition for unionization. It is called “Right to Work” and such laws outlaw the “union shop”. If John Q. Worker wishes to be in the union, and pay union dues, he may elect to do so. If Joe Plumber, who works on the same crew, does not wish to be a member of the union he may decide not to join the union and does not pay union dues. This is fair. Forcing someone who does not affirmatively wish to be a member of a union to pay dues to that union is not “fair”.

Your proposition regarding those who did not vote presumes they were aware of the change in vote counting method. In the last union representation election they did not vote and were counted as a “no” vote. Do you know, for certain, that they were aware that not voting would be counted as a “yes” vote this time? With a scattered workforce, do you even know for sure that all the employees knew of the election? I wouldn’t count on the employer opposing the union these days. They know the government will not be taking a neutral position.

The problem with NMB airline/railroad elections (which are different than other private sector NLRB elections) is that they are national in scope. In many cases (and this is not just for NMB elections), employees are often confused about the ramifications of the voting procedures. What makes NMB elections even more confusing is that, all too often, employees in spoke cities (especially those in Right to Work states) believe they won’t be affected.

* There are no Right to Work provisions under the Railway Labor Act (which is the law that applies here).

As a result, many don’t vote, falsely believing that they will not be impacted.

Frankly, as a practical matter, it all boils down to how much employees understand* about the process which is why I stated above (in bold):

In essence, not voting under the NMB’s new rules is like voting for unionization. Practically speaking, as long as there is less than full participation, the rule change enables unions to win more elections with a minority of employees voting to unionize…

*Having been around these types of elections for many years (as well as responding to e-mails from them), unfortunately, all-too-often, a large percentage of employees do not understand the process.

One could argue that it is caveat emptor. However, there is also the problem that unions are legally allowed to, and often do, mislead employees…which is a subject for another day

it is utterly reprehensible to allow a minority to do so.

…that worked for 75 years.

BHO comes in, his union cronies changed it less than a year ago, and unions are up in arms about changing it back.

Why?

a person who did not vote either way count automatically as a “yes” vote as opposed to the long standing precedent “no” vote? The status quo is that there is NO UNION on the property. A change in the status quo should take action on the part of the worker, not inaction. Inaction means that the status quo, in this case no union, is maintained. Automatically counting a “not voting” as a “yes” vote is absurd because it assumes the not voting employee WANTED and change in he status quo! I’m not buying it. The rule needs to be overturned. Oh, and by the way, I am a member of a union at an airline no less.

…for public employees in the State of Wisconsin. They will have to hold recertification elections every year.

Go get ‘em Scott!