Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Will The Truth Set Kay Free?

Per usual, I have been having a disagreement with Kay at Kay's Blue Racine. The difference this time is that our disagreement concerns a matter of fact, not opinion. I contended that the Employee Free Choice Act, which I called the Union Coercion Act, would end the secret ballot for unionization if enough (50%+) pro-union signatures were collected. Kay disagrees.

One of us is wrong. On the line for both of us is the trustworthiness of our news sources. I trusted among others Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. I don't know where she gets her misinformation.

So I went to the text of the legislation, HR 1409 and found:


(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)

Pretty much a slam dunk for me but I am not sharing this to gloat. OK, maybe a little. It will be interesting to watch Kay's reaction. She has said that secret ballots are un-American etc... and she obviously has been mislead by her sources of news. Will the truth open Kay's eyes or will she dig in her heals and go on the attack to protect her discredited notions/ideology? I'm guessing the latter.


Nemo said...

Will the truth open Kay's eyes? If the past is any indicator, I would have to say no. It is very entertaining to watch however. Here is another source that simplifies the legalese and shows Denis to be correct..

Denis Navratil said...

Thanks Nemo!

Caledonia Unplugged said...

Denis, in a nutshell - you're right, she's wrong - it's not rocket science.

Husband's company is non-union and they've been watching this very closely since most in that industry are union, yet his company survived the recession, while many similar union operations did not...mostly because of flexibility with employees.

Urban Pioneer said...

Kay will do what Dem's always do.. rather than fight on the merits Kay will choose to Cheat.. or just make things up.

Anonymous said...

О! Très bon post.

Anonymous said...

Hi, i just want to say hello to the community

Sean Cranley said...

Unions are one of the best things that ever happened in this country. I love how Nemo cites an anti-union website that effectively argues that since there are instances of corruption in unions (and there are) then unions shouldn't exist. Interesting logic.

Now what type of institution totally dwarfs unions in the scope, breadth and degree of corruption? Corporations of course. Yet no one ever suggests that corporations be banned. That would be ridiculous. Once again we see the hypocrisy and immensely flawed nature of con logic.

Denis Navratil said...

Sean, read the following from Nemo's link:

Are you against unions?
No. We are against union officials' abuse of power, often at the expense of their own rank-and-file members. We are against corruption, violence, and intimidation. We are against the misuse of union dues. We support employees who elect to join a union, as well as the right of employees to remain non-union without intimidation.

How do you then conclude that they think unions shouldn't exist?

Sean Cranley said...

I conclude that because they are liars and a front group for anti-union activists:


Sean Cranley said...


Sean Cranley said...

Sorry, I mean this link reagarding federal workers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303160.html