This completely misrepresents what the Employee Free Choice Act does. Currently a union can do a "card check" and if 50% of the workers have signed up for a union the management can simply ignore it and then set up a cumbersome procedure for what they call a "secret ballot" election. But during this time the union organizers are all fired and others are harassed and intimidated. This is what is happening today.
The Employee Free Choice Act allows a "card check" to form a union, UNDER SUPERVISION AND REGULATION. If 50% of the employees vote to form a union, then negotiations on a contract begin.
Question: Are you for or against firing people who try to organize unions?
The auto unions HAVE made huge concessions, lower pay, etc.
In Germany and Japan THE GOVERNMENT provides health insurance and generous pensions. Here the auto companies have to pay that, so they are less competitive.
The strength of the machines is helping users and making sure there are no mistakes -- that only one vote is cast for President, etc.
The strength of the paper ballot system is the security and the lasting, verifiable record.
So COMBINE the strengths. Use the machines to print a standardized paper ballot that THE VOTER takes over to a ballot box.
This way it doesn't matter if the machine is secure because the voter looks over the paper ballot bvefore putting it into the ballot box, and makes sure that it reflects what the voter wanted.
You advocate teaching the dogma of ONE minor branch of ONE religion. Why not force kids to learn about "Mother Turtle", too? Why not force teaching of Scientology as well? Or Satanism?
Because Al Gore supposedly flies in private jets (he doesn't) therefore we should all waste energy and give money to oil companies and Middle Eastern oil producers instead of adopting renewable, sustainable energy sources.
If you think someone can "OWN" a radio frequency, let me ask you who they would buy it FROM - if not US? Oh, I guess you didn't think about that part.
I get it, you think there shouldn't be a government. Just some kind of corporate-controlled world. But We, the People think there should be. We HAD a corporate controlled country in the 1700s, and fought back and won. So we set up a governemt of our own and you might just have to move somewhere where there aren't other people if you really think this way.
So you don't think we own our airwaves as a common resource. I suppose you also think We, the People have no right to the air we breath, water, health, etc. We are all just economic units, here to serve the corporate masters. If we have money to pay them for air and water, good. If not, too bad for us.
Before the government (We, the People) stepped in to license airwaves what we had was anyone with a transmitter broadcasting at any power level they wanted on any frequency they wanted. So the radio frequencies were pretty much useless, with those with the most money the only ones able to reach anyone. I suppose that's what you want to have again?
Radio stations receive licenses to use the public's airwaves. At the time this licensing arrangement was set up the public was concerned that big corporations would only present a pro-corporate viewpoint, harmful to democracy. They said if you want to license the airwaves from us, you have to serve democracy by providing educational content, documentaries, news and other information including a VARIETY of opinions -- that serves democracy.
If you didn't like the public's terms, you didn't have to get a license to be a broadcaster. Instead, though, the corporations bought themselves a bunch of politicians and got the rules changed.
This is just silly. The Fairness Doctrine said that if you attack someone by name the have a right to get some air tome to respond.
It also said that should be differing opinions once in a while. Not all the time, but you can't just blast one opinion all the time. When the license was up for renewal people could complain which and the station had to show that it offered differing opinions once in a while, that's all it said.
This was specifically to prevent corporations from only offering pro-corporate propaganda. And in fact this was the reason discussed when it was put in place.
Of course, now you never ever hear reasons why it might benefit you to join a union. That is an example of how the pro-corporate position overwhelms media today.
Well, they are not going out of business, but do you really think that money and corporations should be the only things that decide what opinions and news people get to hear?
That was a different restriction but with similar intent. The Fairness Doctrine was intended to keep corporations from being able to force only pro-corporate viewpoints. But other restrictions prevented single companies from owning too many newspapers and stations, especially in one market.
Anyway ALL these restrictions have been removed by corporate-sponsored politicians.
Not equal time, just SOME time. It was set up to avoid corporations from buying up all the media and only allowing a pro-corporate viewpoint to be expressed.
Like, not ever having union people on TV explaining the benefits of joining a union. WHen was the last time you heard the benefits of joining a union?
Yes, I hear them calling for nationalizing the oil companies every day.
Heh.
I suspect if you encountered the opinions of an ACTUAL lefty your head would explode. Fortunately for you it is not likely on American media. You won't even see anyone from a union on American media anymore.
It doesn't "censor" anything. It says if you attack someone they get a chance to respond. It says you can't just present a corporate viewpoint, you have to have other viewpoints on once in a while. That is not "censorship" itis the opposite.
From the story: The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the companyâ(TM)s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.
BUT it only gives immunity to wiretapping that started after 9/11. The program started before 9/11 - a few weeks after Bush took office, in fact. This was when the Bush people were ignoring terror threats so it was not about terrorists.
It is the POLICY of your company to destroy e-mails because the DOJ - Department of JUSTICE - might want to see them? You destroy e-mails because LAW ENFORCEMENT might be a problem? As a POLICY?
I wonder if you understand that you are describing a criminal conspiracy here? On the face of it, from your description this is a criminal enterprise.
Slashdot Mirror
"If all unions were to disappear tomorrow, we will not return to The Jungle."
We all gotta wonder where YOU work? Where has it not already returned to that?
This completely misrepresents what the Employee Free Choice Act does. Currently a union can do a "card check" and if 50% of the workers have signed up for a union the management can simply ignore it and then set up a cumbersome procedure for what they call a "secret ballot" election. But during this time the union organizers are all fired and others are harassed and intimidated. This is what is happening today.
The Employee Free Choice Act allows a "card check" to form a union, UNDER SUPERVISION AND REGULATION. If 50% of the employees vote to form a union, then negotiations on a contract begin.
Question: Are you for or against firing people who try to organize unions?
The auto unions HAVE made huge concessions, lower pay, etc.
In Germany and Japan THE GOVERNMENT provides health insurance and generous pensions. Here the auto companies have to pay that, so they are less competitive.
The strength of the machines is helping users and making sure there are no mistakes -- that only one vote is cast for President, etc.
The strength of the paper ballot system is the security and the lasting, verifiable record.
So COMBINE the strengths. Use the machines to print a standardized paper ballot that THE VOTER takes over to a ballot box.
This way it doesn't matter if the machine is secure because the voter looks over the paper ballot bvefore putting it into the ballot box, and makes sure that it reflects what the voter wanted.
Why on earth would you cite the MOONIES as a source?
You advocate teaching the dogma of ONE minor branch of ONE religion. Why not force kids to learn about "Mother Turtle", too? Why not force teaching of Scientology as well? Or Satanism?
Being a monopoly has been great for Microsoft.
And a labor monopoly is bad for the workers how?
I think you just said that being in a union would raise your wages, therefore you shouldn't join one.
Let me see if I get your argument:
Because Al Gore supposedly flies in private jets (he doesn't) therefore we should all waste energy and give money to oil companies and Middle Eastern oil producers instead of adopting renewable, sustainable energy sources.
Do I have it right?
If you think someone can "OWN" a radio frequency, let me ask you who they would buy it FROM - if not US? Oh, I guess you didn't think about that part.
I get it, you think there shouldn't be a government. Just some kind of corporate-controlled world. But We, the People think there should be. We HAD a corporate controlled country in the 1700s, and fought back and won. So we set up a governemt of our own and you might just have to move somewhere where there aren't other people if you really think this way.
So you don't think we own our airwaves as a common resource. I suppose you also think We, the People have no right to the air we breath, water, health, etc. We are all just economic units, here to serve the corporate masters. If we have money to pay them for air and water, good. If not, too bad for us.
Before the government (We, the People) stepped in to license airwaves what we had was anyone with a transmitter broadcasting at any power level they wanted on any frequency they wanted. So the radio frequencies were pretty much useless, with those with the most money the only ones able to reach anyone. I suppose that's what you want to have again?
Radio stations receive licenses to use the public's airwaves. At the time this licensing arrangement was set up the public was concerned that big corporations would only present a pro-corporate viewpoint, harmful to democracy. They said if you want to license the airwaves from us, you have to serve democracy by providing educational content, documentaries, news and other information including a VARIETY of opinions -- that serves democracy.
If you didn't like the public's terms, you didn't have to get a license to be a broadcaster. Instead, though, the corporations bought themselves a bunch of politicians and got the rules changed.
Is there a machine somewhere that generates this kind of nutty talk?
When was the last time you heard someone talk on a corporate-owned outlet about the benefits of joining a union?
This is just silly. The Fairness Doctrine said that if you attack someone by name the have a right to get some air tome to respond.
It also said that should be differing opinions once in a while. Not all the time, but you can't just blast one opinion all the time. When the license was up for renewal people could complain which and the station had to show that it offered differing opinions once in a while, that's all it said.
This was specifically to prevent corporations from only offering pro-corporate propaganda. And in fact this was the reason discussed when it was put in place.
Of course, now you never ever hear reasons why it might benefit you to join a union. That is an example of how the pro-corporate position overwhelms media today.
Well, they are not going out of business, but do you really think that money and corporations should be the only things that decide what opinions and news people get to hear?
That was a different restriction but with similar intent. The Fairness Doctrine was intended to keep corporations from being able to force only pro-corporate viewpoints. But other restrictions prevented single companies from owning too many newspapers and stations, especially in one market.
Anyway ALL these restrictions have been removed by corporate-sponsored politicians.
That is the point of the Fairness Doctrine. The free discussion of info essential to democracy is NOT a financial marketplace.
Not equal time, just SOME time. It was set up to avoid corporations from buying up all the media and only allowing a pro-corporate viewpoint to be expressed.
Like, not ever having union people on TV explaining the benefits of joining a union. WHen was the last time you heard the benefits of joining a union?
And of course, money is the only thing of value.
Yes, I hear them calling for nationalizing the oil companies every day.
Heh.
I suspect if you encountered the opinions of an ACTUAL lefty your head would explode. Fortunately for you it is not likely on American media. You won't even see anyone from a union on American media anymore.
Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine was?
It doesn't "censor" anything. It says if you attack someone they get a chance to respond. It says you can't just present a corporate viewpoint, you have to have other viewpoints on once in a while. That is not "censorship" itis the opposite.
Nice try. I know that in Republican ideology everything bad is Clinton's fault. But don't just make stuff up, please.
See "Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11 "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html?fta=y
From the story:
The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the companyâ(TM)s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.
The program started before 9/11 and had nothing to do with terrorism.
BUT it only gives immunity to wiretapping that started after 9/11. The program started before 9/11 - a few weeks after Bush took office, in fact. This was when the Bush people were ignoring terror threats so it was not about terrorists.
It is the POLICY of your company to destroy e-mails because the DOJ - Department of JUSTICE - might want to see them? You destroy e-mails because LAW ENFORCEMENT might be a problem? As a POLICY?
I wonder if you understand that you are describing a criminal conspiracy here? On the face of it, from your description this is a criminal enterprise.