Redstate

It's a startlingly bad idea.

And unionist folks who think they might favor such a thing ought also to consider that it may not only be unions that put pressure on people to act in a certain way, employers would almost certainly counter the effort to gain organizing votes.

That would likely get truly ugly.

Considering the history we have in this country over such things -- they've turned violent more than one time -- I can't believe that there are lawmakers that are seriously considering this.

sluice their money and resources toward this rotten little twerp. The androgynous Dingy Harry truly represents the appeasement wing of the defeatist Democratic Party on Iraq, no matter how he may vote on the issue of funding the war.

Meanwhile, this corrupt clown has three sons and a son-in-law busy lobbying in his DC home basement—and he has the nerve, [not the huevos], to call a patriot and hero like Peter Pace incompetent!! And take money from unions to deprive the American people of the principle of democracy just to support rotten unions who can't get the support of laborers unless the government helps them cheat in the elections!

I wish Reid were merely incompetent, which he is, instead of a complete corrupt eunuch-whore who takes it where the sun doesn’t shine from every crooked DC lobbyist! I guess his approval rating will be in single digits within a month or so.

This is one of those gifts from heaven as far as campaign commercials go. Every single Senator and Representative that votes for this heap of dung deserves a commercial highlighting said fact all next summer and fall.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

designed to increase voter security.
After what they did in Texas, it is no longer possible to beleive the democrats are operating in good faith on these issues.
They know exactly what they are up to: the imposition of their will by means other than ethical or intellectually honest or equitable.
The democrats are after the destruction of our most basic civil liberty: honest, fair and private voting.
The democrats are clearly only after the power to be achieved by ballot stuffing, voter fraud and intimidation.

and avoid the NLRB election process. The real target is employers with transient/high turnover workforces, e.g, residential constrution, entry level health care, agriculture/food processing, and retail - read WalMart. Now I'm a liberal, kind-hearted guy, so I'd never do stuff like this, but some labor relations types might:

Put up ironclad No Solicitation policies to keep organizers off the property.

If the union gets the 30% showing of interest challenge the unit composition, e.g., assert that some classifications are supervisory, assert that some interested employees are supervisors or temporary employees, assert that there is no community of interest between the night stockers and the sales staff or cashiers or front office employees - I can keep going for a while; long enough to tie up the union's petition for many months or even years and force one or more formal hearings, the result of which I can appeal to the courts.

Challenge the location, time, and form of the election.

Challenge the list of eligible employees so that it takes forever to develop the "Excelsior List," the formal list of eligible employees.

Magically arrange that some employees find the resources to form an independent employee association that campaigns against the petitioning union. As a part of that campaign, word gets out that the petitioning union has refused to represent some employees or failed to protect them, or some such; they're easy to find - malcontents attack unions just as much, often more, as they attack employers.

Start a strictly factual (and legal) campaign about how good the employees have it, especially in take-home pay v. unionized employees - usually true because of benefit costs and dues.

Arrange somehow that word gets out about how other businesses that unionized have either relocated or closed.

Find a sudden downturn in business so that some employees have to be laid off (this one is risky because done pretextually, it is an unfair labor practice)

I can go on for a while with other strategems, but the point is that by the time you get to the election, a large percentage of the people originally interested are no longer employed and the eligible employee list is unreliable so that there is a basis for challenging the election result.

But I wouldn't do stuff like that - unless somebody was paying me real well.

In Vino Veritas

The organization that I previously worked for in California has specific classes of staff who are represented by various unions. One of those unions tried to have my job classification unionized. Although all the ballots were secret (at least they were at that time), the union had the names and contact information for everyone in my job classification. And, they called all of us to recruit our support. I made the mistake of telling the union rep that I was not interested in organizing other staff. After that, I had a big red(state) X painted on my back. Staff who supported the union (including staff represented by different unions) came after me with a vengeance. Several employees started a "boycott" of me: making sure I didn't get help on projects, some stopped talking to me completely, and one woman even tried to get me fired. In the end, the employees voted 3:1 NOT to unionize, but my position in the organization was never the same and the "boycott" continued after the election. I eventually found a job elsewhere. This did nothing to improve my opinion of unions. In fact, it only solidified my disrespect for them.

Given his bizarre behavior how can anyone be sure Bush would actually veto it?
Maybe he'll trade for some of the remaining Dem votes for his amnesty bill.