It’s not that no one noticed it, it’s that the entities that we get info from (Bush Administration, MSM, etc.) didn’t care.

Darn it, I forgot the link to Solis lobbying herself: the source for my article was this one:

J.

The same Weekly Standard that published articles about how the Clintons had Vince Foster killed off for no reason whatsoever? The pendulum swings both ways, Jay Tea.

Exaclty. It also needs to be said that all this hand-wringing about doing away with secret ballots doesn’t seem to count when it comes DECERTIFYING a union:

Under the National Labor Relations Act, if 30% or more of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a Decertification Petition, the National Labor Relations Board will conduct a secret ballot election to determine if a majority of the employees wish to decertify the union and stop it from any further “exclusive representation.” If the petitioning employees win that election, then the company becomes nonunion and all employees are free to bargain on their own, and negotiate their own terms and conditions of employment. Moreover, if 50% or more of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a petition that they no longer want to be represented by the union, the employer can withdraw recognition without an election if it wishes to do so.
http://www.nrtw.org/decertification-election

So the same people decrying how “unAmerican” and “anti-democratic” the EFCA is when it comes to certifying a union, have absolutely no problem skipping the secret ballot process when it comes to decertifying a union.

Jay Tea, you wanna explain that odd sense of principles to us?

And in 91% of cases now, the employers use illegal intimidation.

91% of cases now.

It’s funny how you concentrate on the past and ignore the present.

Also, I keep hearing, from the same people who view McCain-Feingold and hate speech laws as unconstitutional and unconscionable infringements on free speech, that card check is just wrong because it allows for the possibility of intimidation of holdouts. Then again, economic libertarianism means never having to be logically self-consistent.

I await patiently for you to explain how that actually addresses any argument I made aside from, once again, anecdotally vilifying something without any facts.

And while you’re doing that, ask him how his father, a previous Teamsters president, is enjoying his retirement. I hear he’s become quite a football fan, and a real supporter of the New York Giants. Especially in home games.

So the follow-up to your ad hominem babble is to cite an urban legend as some profound support of your argument? Jesus Christ.

God, I wish I could think like Jay. Then I could just say that the EFCA is great because people who hate unions all drink the blood of orphan children, and if you don’t believe me, just remember that Pop Rocks and soda killed the kid who played Mikey in the Life commercials, and be totally convinced I don’t look like a complete idiot.

So let’s get rid of it now!

J.

And while you’re doing that, ask him how his father, a previous Teamsters president, is enjoying his retirement. I hear he’s become quite a football fan, and a real supporter of the New York Giants. Especially in home games.

J.

Umm… good?

Of course card check is easier to form a union than a controlled secret ballot election monitored by the employer. That’s why most employers choose secret elections following a condensed threat campaign. Or, in Jay-speak: “employers have an alternative that they can control a lot better than card check, then it’s no great surprise that they will take advantage of that.”

The EFCA allows the workers to choose their voting method, not the employer. This, apparently, is what you consider “destroying worker’s rights.”

I didn’t realize that your argument against EFCA was to scream VERY LOUDLY about… what it does. Yes, it stops the “secret ballot” from being the only option workers have to form a union. That’s, well, ah… the point of the bill. What part of “Employee Free Choice Act” was ambiguous in having an objective of giving employees… a… free… choice?

Sorry, I really thought there was some kind of argument you were making here beyond “UNIONS! BOOGADABOOGADA!” Yes, the EFCA widens the options for workers forming a union. That will make it easier to form a union. That’s the point of the bill.

Next up: “don’t eat that! It’s DELICIOUS!”

J.

So you are fucking wrong about that as well.

No, you frothing loon, I said that the MANDATORY secret ballot would be gone. Yes, it would still be an “option.” The less convenient one for unions.

The secret ballot is the great leveler, the playing field where neither side has an advantage. I can see why you would want to undercut it — the union thugs have been grossly underemployed for too long.

Oh, and it’s nice to see you finding an alternative to your incessant bleating about “Southern Strategy.” Calling your adversaries Klansmen is more of a variation on a theme over real change, but in your case even the slightest sign of rationality is to be encouraged.

J.

Dennis the Bigot: “To a T, Jay.
He prides himself on it.”

You might want to save this conversation till you get to your Klan meeting. Otherwise you won’t have anything to talk about while you are wearing those white hoods.

Who gives a fuck? For weeks you’ve been saying the secret ballot would be gone. It isn’t. It is still an option.

By the way, it was always an option. It was just the employer who have the choice. Not the employees.

So you are fucking wrong about that as well.

And when someone is lied to over and over again, they also get angry.

J.G.Thayer has been claiming the EFCA does away with the secret vote. This has been the bullshit talking point about the bill. Now that he’s finally willing to admit that’s a lie, he’s switching the emphasis to ‘mandatory.’

You two might be stupid enough to fall for that. I’m not.

To a T, Jay.

He prides himself on it.

Seriously, though, that quote does seem to capture the quintessential Strowbridge, doesn’t it?

J.