Two Thoughts Today
Later they decided I needed to sign one and I refused. I was informed that as soon as the union was in I was out because they wanted only loyal union people in "our plant".
The union lost that vote rather overwhelmingly and curiously enough there were fewer "yes" votes than there were signatures requesting an election. A few years later, due to some idiotic decisions by management, there was another vote, but the union won that one; and was much politer with dissidents than the previous time.
In the voting booth one is totally alone with his own mind, thoughts and beliefs. In the unsigned ballot one tells what they truly believe. Neither the company nor the union (nor the GOP nor the Donks) can intimidate or coerce you. That is why the secret ballot will always be needed.
That's not good enough for the unions. Or the Democratic Party.
They want to make it so that simply signatures will do it and if a majority signs then no vote is needed. Professor Brody's reasons for eliminating the secret ballot are purely bogus and the history he brings up is irrelevant. If the unions could consistently win a secret ballot they would be happy with it, but they lose a lot of elections today. If they could do away with the secret vote they could threaten, intimidate, and coerce workers until they got what they wanted. It DOES happen. I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced it on my own job. They want this because they cannot win without threatening their co-workers. The union leadership wants it so they can terrify workers into the joining their unions. The Democrats want it because a lot of union dollars wind up in their pockets. Organized Crime wants it because a lot of union dollars wind up in their pockets.
I also notice that he complains that "Republican minority" was able to block this which was totally unfair in his mind. Did he feel that the minority blocking a vote was unfair when the Donks were doing it a couple of years ago?
ON A ANOTHER NOTE
Several news organizations say that the Senate defeated the President's immigration plan and that's true as far as it goes, but it fails to note a very important point. The bulk of the opposition came from the GOP while a lot of support came from the Democrats. It was an issue in which there were more Democrats standing with the president than Republicans. If it was a defeat for the GOP, than why are Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy disappointed?
You would never know from the headlines that the body of the article contained this statement:
The death of the compromise also reflected the failure of a strategy hatched by the early this year to start with an immigration framework that could command substantial conservative support, and then work with Democrats to push it through. The conservative backing never fully materialized, and the concessions made to obtain it alienated some Democrats and liberal groups
This is an issue that divides both parties and both party's leadership is at odds with the rank and file. This could lead to a re-alignment of American politics in which President Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Madam Hillary, Obama, Harry Reid, Trent Lott and Ted Kennedy would all be losers.