Labor unions find themselves card-che...

Labor unions find themselves card-checkmated

There are 208 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from May 18, 2009, titled Labor unions find themselves card-checkmated. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Reporting from Washington - In the Ozark Mountain town of Rogers, Ark., more than 250 business owners gathered for lunch at a construction company last month to focus on what they saw as a major threat -- a proposal in Congress to make it easier to form labor unions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
Reality

Wayne, IL

#1 May 18, 2009
The filthy DEMOCRAT unions deserved this loss. Card check allows them to target union members who dare vote against what they want to do at a company.

Since when in AMERICA is a secet ballot cast honestly by the union rank and file a bad thing?

The unions are controlled by THUGS working in conjunction with the DNC to line both their pockets at the sweat of the union workers brow.

ROT IN HELL DNC UNIONS!
James

Naperville, IL

#2 May 18, 2009
Since labor unions utilize the National Labor Relations Board, a Federal entity, they are subject to constitutional review. For quite obvious reasons, a "card check" system is undemocratic and would likely create increased harassment/intimidation from union organizers (hopefully a RICO conviction would result, but I won't hold my breath). No matter what silly law congress may pass, a system that removes the right to privacy from workers in a system overseen by the Federal government would be unconstitutional.

After the death of Chrysler and the demise of GM, I don't see a case for increased union activity in the US.
James

Naperville, IL

#3 May 18, 2009
While we are at it, every existing union employee should have the right to choose whether or not his dues are being used for political purposes. Unions are supposed to protect the workers, not influence elections.

I would bet that if unions had to obtain the permission from their members before spending their $, a lot of the support for this law would vanish overnight. Protect ALL workers their rights, including the rights to decide how their union dues are spent.
Rob

Skokie, IL

#4 May 18, 2009
For what it's worth I am an engineer and MBA looking for a job now and one of my biggest criteria is that the company is non-union.

I've worked in both union and non-union production environments before as a manufacturing engineer and seen first hand the negative effect unions have on the productivity and efficiency of a company's production and ultimately its overall climate and atmosphere.

Say what you want, but I'm casting my vote for unions in terms of my actions in terms of who I choose to work for and the environment I choose to be in.
Ed McGuinness

Naperville, IL

#5 May 18, 2009
The animosity toward unions in this country is bizarre to me. Of course abuses exist, but for sure they exist in the boardrooms, right folks? Does not the working man and woman deserve the freedom to organize and empower their own voice in the labor marketplace?

Why should that be viewed as automatically monopolistic? It is'nt.
Blinking Twelve OClock

United States

#6 May 18, 2009
If you want to see what can unions do for you, just look at GM and Chrysler.
Joanie

Chicago, IL

#7 May 18, 2009
James wrote:
While we are at it, every existing union employee should have the right to choose whether or not his dues are being used for political purposes. Unions are supposed to protect the workers, not influence elections.
I would bet that if unions had to obtain the permission from their members before spending their $, a lot of the support for this law would vanish overnight. Protect ALL workers their rights, including the rights to decide how their union dues are spent.
We do have permission to withold PAC donations which are used for political purposes.

I'm a union member, but don't support card check in its present form. I believe in the sanctity of the secret ballot.

However, there need to be deterrents at the NLRB so that union organizers are not summilary dismissed from their jobs. Right now there are no fines that can be levied against businesses that violate the law. The playing field should be leveled.

Coercive tactics from businesses or labor shouldn't be tolerated. Workers should be able to listen to both sides and be given the opportunity to vote whether or not to join a union.
llll

Europe

#8 May 19, 2009
(1) WHAT IS WITH THE MEDIA USING ANONYMOUS SOURCES LATELY! GOOD JOURNALISM MEANS PUTTING A NAME TO A QUOTE... OTHERWISE, IN THE MIND OF THE READER, YOU JUST MADE IT UP!

(2) It's about time we hear some good news. Card check is not American. It doesn't even allow a majority vote. We vote in this country, we do not put paper into suggestion boxes! Companies in the U.S. cannot afford card check. You will see them send whatever they have left to Europe. My company is ready to do it. I bet yours is too!
llll

Europe

#9 May 19, 2009
James wrote:
While we are at it, every existing union employee should have the right to choose whether or not his dues are being used for political purposes. Unions are supposed to protect the workers, not influence elections.
I would bet that if unions had to obtain the permission from their members before spending their $, a lot of the support for this law would vanish overnight. Protect ALL workers their rights, including the rights to decide how their union dues are spent.
I 100% agree. You have my vote.
Joe

Indianapolis, IN

#10 May 19, 2009
Gee, our Senators are being bought and sold. No surprise there. I wonder what Roland Burris charges?
Just Browsing-Chicago

Alsip, IL

#11 May 19, 2009
Thugs and gangsters (read politicians) are champing at the bit to give more power to the unions who have ruined the auto industry, given unqualified individuals access to our schools as "teachers" and have bankrupted us with their pensions. Interesting, that less than 7% of American workers are union members, and most are federal employees and SEIU. Down with unions and the political hacks who buy their votes with our tax dollars with sweetheart contracts when we are hardpressed to support ourselves.
sealbee

Syracuse, NE

#12 May 19, 2009
Rob wrote:
For what it's worth I am an engineer and MBA looking for a job now and one of my biggest criteria is that the company is non-union.
I've worked in both union and non-union production environments before as a manufacturing engineer and seen first hand the negative effect unions have on the productivity and efficiency of a company's production and ultimately its overall climate and atmosphere.
Say what you want, but I'm casting my vote for unions in terms of my actions in terms of who I choose to work for and the environment I choose to be in.
I don't get you, you've seen "first hand the negative effect unions have on the productivity and efficiency of a company's production and ultimately its overall climate and atmosphere."

And you are going to cast your vote for Unions? If you've seen the negative side, why would you vote for them?

Personally, I've worked for a few Unions, all they did was take my money and fight for the jobs of people who were fired that deserved to be fired.
Lester Maddox

United States

#13 May 19, 2009
They ought to investigate the International Association of Machinests and Aerospace Workers (IAM) for theft and corruption.
That lousy Union stole more from me over the years that it is impossible to get a total value.
All of the Officials belong in jail and that Union should be banned in the United States.
All States should be a "RIGHT TO WORK STATE).
They make deals with companies for their officials benefits and steal everything from the Union Members.
DTM1452

Wilmington, NC

#14 May 19, 2009
The proposed bill was about as un-American as you can get. It represented a very thinly veiled opportunity for union goons to target any workers who did not fall in line and vote for the unions. Unions in this country have been the poster child for corruption and greed. Rather than representing workers they morphed into a bunch of greedy, violent and selfish "leaders" who had their hands in the pockets of the workers and the companies for whom they worked. While some workers certainly could use a good representative, the unions did not turn out to be what was needed.
tom

United States

#15 May 19, 2009
Blinking Twelve OClock wrote:
If you want to see what can unions do for you, just look at GM and Chrysler.
Agree to this, now calculate how much the unions cost us in Chicago labor, state and county. So yes my friends we are paying big time for little service. Yes I know "there not all lazy" just most of them
Bobc

Broken Arrow, OK

#16 May 19, 2009
Just think, all this money the Unions spent on getting Obama elected, would be better used to help their members that are now unemployed!

Unions take members dues, and spend that money on whatever and whomever they want, members don't have a say in it, nor know where all the money went.

I told my union Pres., "I''d rather be bullied by the ones signing my paycheck, than the union that takes money from me."
Michael from NE

United States

#17 May 19, 2009
If you want to see just how 'democratic' unions are, offer as a compromise to package card-check with a national right-to-work law, that is, a law that bans union-shop contracts, where a person must be a member of the union in order to have a job at with a company. The unions view right-to-work legislation as pure poison, which is one of the reasons manufacturing has fled the so-called rust-belt states, with such facilities either going to states with right-to-work laws or out of this country altogether. The unions in the US have been the architects of their own marginalization with their insistence on cradle-to-grave benefits for their members. And beyond that, there is also the issue of the involvement of organized crime in so many of them. Altogether, it can be said that if unionization were once again to rise in this country, this country's private enterprise would suffer the same rush to mediocrity that we've seen in this nation's public education systems.
clyde

Muskegon, MI

#18 May 19, 2009
The biggest stupidity of all was allowing PUBLIC employees to unionize, guaranteeing slothful, incompetent workers who suffer no consequences. As a former union man once told me, "There's nothing a union can give a man who's willing to work for a living." The operative word here is WORK.
HOOSIER

Park Forest, IL

#19 May 19, 2009
I suggest that any service industry, i.e. restaurents. etc. that tipping is expected and is unionized be rquired to post notice that their employees are union and be required to wear a union badge and the business owners have the right to post "NO TIPPING" signs because their wage is regulated.
Polk

United States

#20 May 19, 2009
The so-called Employee Free Choice Act is anything BUT free choice. It was the Employee COERCIAN act enabling unions to strong-arm workers into signing cards and taking away the basic American tenet of secret elections. Stalin would be proud.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 4 min GEORGIA 1,927
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 8 min GEORGIA 3,021
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 18 min DimBOcRatssinakshun 1,417,599
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 18 min Sublime1 103,435
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 30 min 2all 222,341
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 56 min Heretic 61,014
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Red_Forman 9,369

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages