Home

Advertisement

Customize

Nov. 13th, 2007

Where did Reagan go away? A call to action:

Where did Reagan go away?
Republicans help Labor unions to a major victory
 
How could these Senate Republicans help labor unions to a major victory?

Call your Senator now to stop S.2123. The misnamed and egregious "Public Safety Employer-Employee cooperation act of 2007" was introduced by Senator Gregg on October 1 with enough Republicans (11 Republicans) to invoke cloture and pass the Bill.

The White House said it wanted flexibility on
responding to Homeland security threats and was able to defeat the TSA screener amendment in the Homeland Security-9/11 Bill. The congress with S. 2123 is deciding that not all parts of NIMS under Homeland security can be flexible to meet a terrorist threat. Some parts of NIMS the Policeman and Fireman will be held to the break time and vacations that eliminate the very word "responder" from the American lexicon of our domestic security. Here is what the Bill says "


State and local public safety officers, as first responders, are a component of our Nation's National Incident Management System, developed by the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate response to and recovery from terrorism, major natural disasters, and other major emergencies. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the National interest."

How can the National Incident Management System even work with one of its most vital
components out there in our local towns with its hands tied behind its back?

The bill S.2123 is an unfunded mandate on the states violating the 10th amendment. There was a man named Reagan who believed that smaller Government came about through devolution of Federal authority to the states not through this sham Bill thats take local power away.

Could it also be about union intimidation of Republicans? What Congressman Lynn Westmoreland saw directed against his own father?

"Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and when I came to the floor today, I didn't come here to speak; but, you know, my father was a fireman for 26 years for the City of Atlanta. In fact, he died in an alarm. I know what it is like for these firefighters to answer the alarms. He suffered a heart attack while turning off an OS&Y valve in a pit. It was 18 degrees that December morning. I know what it is like for those firefighters.

But, you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions. But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that side. I don't know what the majority thinks about the 10th amendment, but I believe very strongly in it. This has something to do with States rights. And I am sorry and I am very disappointed that this House will do this under suspension and there won't be any opportunity for amendments or this thing to be looked at.

I hope that the majority of the Members here will realize what is going on, oppose this suspension and bring it up under regular order."

Instead 98 Republicans voted for H.R. 980 the companion to S.2123 in the House.

It is a minute past midnight and we should not ever reward the Labor lords for their continued string of defeats in our workplace.

This Bill now stands to be passed by Congress and should be opposed by every free American who believes we should use all our resources in fighting the war to protect our homeland. Not one single Fireman or Policeman should be left behind.

Here are the 11 Republicans and 14 Democrats who co-sponsored S.2123 so far:

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN-S2)
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE-S1)
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH-S2)
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY-S2)
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN-S1)
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME-S2)
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT-S1)
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM-S1)
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH-S1)
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA-S2)
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA-S1)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT-S2)
Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL-S2)
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ-S1)
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD-S1)
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK-S2)
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA-S1)
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL-S2)
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR-S2)
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT-S2)
Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR-S2)
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME-S1)
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA-S1)
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI-S2)
Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK-S1)
Senator John Sununu (R-NH-S2)

Again, call your Senator now and say no to S. 2123

This alert is sponsored by the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
http://www.freeworkplace.org
Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted at 10:24 am | | Leave a comment | 3 comments | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Oct. 16th, 2007

How could these Republicans help Labor unions to a major victory?

How could these Republicans help Labor Unions to victory? Legislative Alert:
 
To all who read this Alert:
Copy and paste it and send it along to your family and friends.

Call your Senator now to stop S.2123. The misnamed and egregious "Public Safety Employer-Employee cooperation act of 2007" was introduced by Senator Gregg on October 1 with enough Republicans (nine Republicans) to invoke cloture and pass the Bill.

The White House said it wanted flexibility on
responding to Homeland security threats and was able to defeat the TSA screener amendment in the Homeland Security-9/11 Bill. The congress with S. 2123 is deciding that not all parts of NIMS under Homeland security can be flexible to meet a terrorist threat. Some parts of NIMS the Policeman and Fireman will be held to the break time and vacations that eliminate the very word "responder" from the American lexicon of our domestic security. Here is what the Bill says "

State and local public safety officers, as first responders, are a component of our Nation's National Incident Management System, developed by the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate response to and recovery from terrorism, major natural disasters, and other major emergencies. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the National interest."

How can the National Incident Management System even work with one of its most vital
components out there in our local towns with its hands tied behind its back?

The bill S.2123 is an unfunded mandate on the states violating the 10th amendment. It is also about the union intimidation that Congressman Lynn Westmoreland saw directed against his own father.

"Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and when I came to the floor today, I didn't come here to speak; but, you know, my father was a fireman for 26 years for the City of Atlanta. In fact, he died in an alarm. I know what it is like for these firefighters to answer the alarms. He suffered a heart attack while turning off an OS&Y valve in a pit. It was 18 degrees that December morning. I know what it is like for those firefighters.

But, you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions. But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that side. I don't know what the majority thinks about the 10th amendment, but I believe very strongly in it. This has something to do with States rights. And I am sorry and I am very disappointed that this House will do this under suspension and there won't be any opportunity for amendments or this thing to be looked at.

I hope that the majority of the Members here will realize what is going on, oppose this suspension and bring it up under regular order."

It is a minute past midnight and we should not ever reward the Labor lords for their continued string of defeats in our workplace.

This Bill now stands to be passed by Congress and should be opposed by every free American who believes we should use all our resources in fighting the war to protect our homeland. Not one single Fireman or Policeman should be left behind.

Here are the nine republicans and eleven Democrats who co-sponsored S.2123

Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Pete Domenici [R-NM]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I-VT]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA]
Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]

Again, call your Senator now and say no to S. 2123

This alert is sponsored by the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
http://www.freeworkplace.org
Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted at 03:44 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Sep. 11th, 2007

The summer that shook the American workplace:The new threat and hidden agenda of Labors new Governme

The summer that shook the American workplace

The new threat and hidden agenda of Labors new Government

By Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

This summer has been the summer that shook the foundations of the Employee -Employer relationship as no time has in nearly thirty years. While our national security is being defended overseas, our domestic security has become imperiled by governmental transformation at the hands of Labor Union Central Command that has deployed a  government it can control.   The credibility of Congress is at stake to defend a free workplace. 

The summer began when our National Security and the American People were the victors in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Joseph Lieberman caved into Republican and White House opposition to a provision in S.4. The Homeland Security Bill granting collective bargaining rights to TSA screeners. The Bill, without the provision, moved forward on a unanimous consent agreement. Senate Republicans were on guard against the Labor Unions hidden agenda.

For the Pro-labor Democrats the plan was to tie the hands of the Bush Administration through collective bargaining in two ways: (1) -the labor contract would limit the President's flexible response to national emergencies by establishing certain hours and definitions of who could work the emergency contrary to the Presidents assessment and call up of resources for that emergency; (2)-the labor contract above that of the demands of the crises would prevail.  What about certain vacation and snack breaks that would happen even in times that potential Terrorists might be getting through our defenses? The snack breaks and vacations would continue and could not be changed. Indeed, collective bargaining is nothing but a dangerous risk in the time of national security crises and war.    The defeat of this provision puts the American people first.

Even as the TSA screeners provision defeat was a victory for America's National Security; The House of Representatives votes to imperil states and first responders again.

The House voted with 98 Republicans in tow to reward those who threatened our domestic security by weakening our defenses through the granting of collective bargaining rights to both Firefighters and Police. The House turned its back on the valiant Senate defense of the American people and passed it its own version of the "Pearl Harbor" Bill to support the Labor Lords H.R. 980".  Does this vote suggest the first responders of public safety, -- the Police and Firefighters of America, are unlike the TSA Screeners protectors of our domestic security and not as important to Congress?  Let those who voted for H.R. 980 know that more workers who protect us will now serve under the shadow of the Union's coercive will.

 Nor did the defeat of the TSA screener and Employee Free Choice Act alter the drive of Labor Unions exerting more power to coerce our Government and, through their intimidating version of government, the American People.  Unions are transforming themselves into a new form to offset a historic decline. This new form puts the union on a collision course with our Democracy and National-Domestic Security. The recent debate over EFCA reflected the ill- intent of a union- controlled government through the exclusive lens of an EFCA- like world. Like the Orwellian 1984 party slogan "slavery is freedom," the clear illogic of our government under union's control is both broken and good.  The method of mind control in Orwell's 1984 was never to connect the past with the present day nobody in "1984" could. In fact, the true past was edited everyday so that nobody could tell the difference between truth and falsehood of history.  In the present day of "1984", there is no history at all but the "official" one. The official union history is a long story of how unions "fixed" both a broken and a working government.

Since no one can fix both a broken and good government, today's labor battles clearly show the difference between those who really know the past and those who seek "mind control". Labor Unions have more to loose in their past and far greater desire to control. The greater frequency under this Democratic Congress to improve Labor's position over workers is growing to "1984 proportions by creating an "official" history of those battles that continues to fool even some Republicans into doing the wrong thing.
 
Why would the Union bosses of today,  in turn,  mention to the  rank and  file the continuum of their true  historical defeats both on EFCA in 1978 and H.R. 980, which in a previous political cycles is a variation on  the postal bill battle of the  1960's-70's? Postal battles that began with unionizing postal workers at a Federal level now are mandated at the state level with fire-fighters and police being compelled today to join the union ranks.  Many times have labor unions failed to turn the American workforce into a Gulag of labor bondage. Does this free telling of labor history and conflict not remind the union rank and file of labor's thousand broken promises to them? And that their Labor Boss leadership knows the land of EFCA-- the prelude of Gulag and Socialist Europe-- so well because they already are there.

The Employee Free Choice Act introduced and reiterated the idea that Government ought to perform like an agent for the unions as binding arbitration became synonymous with a rank and file sellout of collective bargaining good faith agreements. If you are a union rank and file member you should be worried that the purpose of binding arbitration and card check is" Big Government"  in the form union controlled elections (card check) and special courts (binding arbitration).  This form of "Big Government" through third party agents is making decisions at odds with the will of the working man.  So why pay dues at all to the unions if the power to make decisions for you are going entirely to the "Big Government" agents themselves?

The establishment of collective bargaining rights for first responders under H.R. 980 is the first advance to a collective government spreading its wings into our lives. As H.R. 980 distorts the time- honored relationship between the state and federal domains by mandating to the states what level collective bargaining rights they should follow. Unmistakably, Labor Unions are doing this to impose TSA collective bargaining amendments and bills to compel government itself into moving their way. This then is the Union's dream of a new form of government. This is labor unions survival, all right, with our American political system in its own image.

If so, what EFCA proved about the new Labor image is that the unions claim the use of "Big Government" in multiple ways with its agents. Their reward for this work, for all of us to see, is paid in forced dues while the government not the unions does for workers what the unions desire. In other words, the unions are getting dues without doing anything for the working man.  The government would not split its revenues and taxes with the union: however, through forced dues workers would be paying twice to the government and to the union or they would loose their jobs. None of the union dues money would go to the Government in the end.

Yet, despite this Union threat to our American way of life, some House Republicans completed the Senate EFCA defeat with a major Union victory on H.R. 980. Members, including those Republicans, inexplicably swept this legislation through committee by a 42-1 margin and passage in the House of Representatives. Indeed, one could argue that Speaker Nancy Pelosi who brought up H.R. 980 under suspension of the rules on 7/17/07 did so because of the Republican capitulation in committee. She recognized this collective bargaining bill, with its Republican consent, as no different than all the other non-controversial bills that are normally debated during suspension of the rules.

Now we see how Republicans on the committee capitulated to Pro- Labor Democrats handing the unions a victory for their brand of collective government.

"I am hopeful that this legislation will be modified during the legislative process to strike a more appropriate balance on behalf of public safety officials and the states and local communities they so ably serve.  With that in mind, I do not plan to oppose the measure today, as it is marginally better than the bill introduced earlier in this Congress.  And should it continue to be improved along the way, I may be able to provide a more vigorous endorsement.  I cannot do so right now, however; but in the interest of moving the process forward and in light of the Chairman's willingness to make thoughtful adjustments to the legislation, I will support the measure advancing for consideration by the full House." Congressman Howard Buck McKeon, Press Release ED & Labor 6/20/07

Republicans on the committee should know better than to put their stock in a hope for a better legislative deal with the Unions and Democrats that never came to be. In the end, they should hear and remember these brave words of a man's real struggle than not to make the pernicious deals which shatter hope:

"I know what it is like for those firefighters. But,
you know, my father never belonged to a firefighters union, and that is
what this is. This is basically a union bill and payback to the unions.
  But, you know, Georgia is a right-to-work State. We have a 10th
amendment to our Constitution. I was very disappointed to hear from the
chairman that this thing passed out of committee 42-1. That breaks my
heart. That really breaks my heart that those Republicans were on that side."

Floor Statement 7/17/07 Congressman Lynn Westmoreland

Going into autumn and beyond, the collective bargaining Bill for so- called Public-Safety goes to Senate where again it will be Republicans who will likely lead both the fight for and against it. H.R. 980 political appeal is nothing less than another Big government-labor agent strategy not unlike the Employee Free Choice Act's outside calling upon Judges as union agents to settle Labors binding arbitration disputes.  Business organizations and other groups who rightly opposed the Employee Free Choice Act with its attack on collective bargaining in favor of EFCA's binding arbitration must ask themselves this question:   Is H.R. 980, if passed upon the public sector,   really about collective bargaining for the unions or about a new vehicle and unchecked precedent for further Congressional violations of the 10th amendment in Labor's name? If H.R. 980  is an "unchecked agent" for the unions in the states,  then  the so- called "crises" of  collective bargaining and its presumed  failure  in the private sector might  become  the next best means  for  public sector increases in Big Labor's over all appeal to Congress  to save the House of Labor  from its own demise.

 

Will Fine is Executive Director of the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted at 11:43 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Jul. 17th, 2007

NAWER's group letter opposing H.R. 980 No unfunded mandate for Labor union tyranny

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 16, 2007

 

 

Honorable Members

United States House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

 

Dear Representative,

 

     You are currently considering H.R. 980, the Public Safety employer-Employee Cooperation Act.  This ill conceived legislation would expand federal power into the area of local labor relations in an unprecedented and dangerous manner.  We, the undersigned organizations, call on you to do everything in your power to defeat this blatant pay-off to organized labor.

 

     H.R. 980, and the Kildee Substitute, fail as positive public policy on a number of counts.  First, and foremost, the legislation would interject the heavy hand of the federal government into one of the most vital public services offered by local governments.  Public safety employees and employers are, today, working in cooperation.  A large portion of public safety employees currently bargain collectively with their employers.  Others, at the discretion and decision of citizens on the local level, do not.  It is a clear violation of the very concept of separation of powers and the concept of local control to now mandate a standard alien to the local desires or needs.

 

     Second, H.R. 980 amounts to an unfunded mandate by Congress on state and local governments.  Inevitably labor policies dictated by federal bureaucrats will increase costs.  These costs, not now deemed relevant or appropriate at the local level, will be bourn by taxes paid at the local level with no financial support from Congress.  It is patently unjust for Congress to impose this burden on local taxpayers, especially when there is no need to do so.

 

     Finally, it is the height of hypocrisy for Congress to dictate local labor policies for public safety employees when it is law that numerous federal public safety employees are

expressly prohibited from engaging in collective bargaining.  Congress has no moral right to impose higher costs, diminished local control, and inflexibility on local governments while it operates in a completely opposition manner.

 

     H.R. 980 is not legislation dealing with public safety or security.  It is a raw, blatant pay-off to union officials.  Failing to attract members on their merits, unions have turned to their allies in Congress to have government impose them on workers. 

 

     We call on you to publicly declare your opposition to this destructive legislation.  If, through whatever circumstance, you are listed as a co-sponsor of H.R. 980, we urge you to remove your name from this travesty and join the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the right of localities and states to determine their own labor policies free of the dictates of union officials or the federal government.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Will Fine

Executive Director

National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

 

Grover Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform

 

Ryan Ellis

Executive Director

Alliance for Worker Freedom

 

Paul M. Weyrich

National Chairman

Coalitions for America

 

Richard Falknor

Executive Vice-President

Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.

 

Jim Martin

President

60+ Association

 

Colin Hanna

President

Let Freedom Ring

 

Dan Tripp

Director of Government Relations

Americans for Limited Government

 

Tim Phillips

President

Americans for Prosperity

 

Chuck Muth

President

Citizens Outreach

 

Mike Chmura*

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

 

Amy Ridenour*

President

The National Center for Public Policy Research

 

*Organizations listed for identification purposes only

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted at 12:25 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Jul. 1st, 2007

NAWER applauds Supreme Court decision on union dues

National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights Applauds Supreme Court Decision in Davenport Vs. Washington Education Association: Strengthens Beck Rights Nationwide

NAWER praises the good work of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and the people of Washington state who worked tirelessly to remove the yoke of Big Labor from the shoulders of hard- working families, wirh the unanimous SCOTUS decision last week.

 

For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON, D.C./EWORLDWIRE/June 19, 2007 --- NAWER praises the good work of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and the people of Washington state who worked tirelessly to remove the yoke of Big Labor from the shoulders of hard- working families. The unanimous SCOTUS decision last week took away Labor's presumed intent to decide for workers who disagree with them where and how their union dues are being spent .

This victory for workplace freedom ensured that Workers have the right to be notified before their union dues are spent on politics, lobbying and non-collective bargaining costs whenever such dues are about to be spent. After the SCOTUS decision, Labor Union Bosses cannot deviate from the consent of the workers or ever try to collect their dues based on and against a workers "Beck" objections. The decision last week by the Supreme Court warns all unions not to go above how a working man wants to spend his own hard-earned money. "Workers consent does not weaken workers as the unions believe; consent defines what all workers want - to make their own choices and be free," said Will Fine, executive director of the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights.

 

   HTML: http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/17174
   PDF: http://www.eworldwire.com/pdf/17174.pdf
   ONLINE NEWSROOM: http://www.eworldwire.com/newsroom/307982.htm
   NEWSROOM RSS FEED: http://newsroom.eworldwire.com/xml/newsrooms/307982.xml
   LOGO: http://www.eworldwire.com/newsroom/307982.htm

CONTACT:
Will Fine
National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
122 c. st. suite 220
washington, DC 20001
PHONE. 202-393-1185
EMAIL: wfine94268@aol.com
'http://www.freeworkplace.org'

 
Tags: , , , , ,

Posted at 11:44 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

May. 3rd, 2007

National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights urges passage of Missouri Right to Work Law

Missouri Right to Work: Thank you Rep. Hunter

By Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights

Courageously, Rep. Hunter (R) and like-minded Missouri Representatives who supported him on March 1 passed the first Right to Work Law (H.B. 439) out of committee in recent Missouri History. Rep. Hunter's RTW Bill is now 54th on the Calendar for a full vote. The people have spoken: with pro-worker and employer majorities in the Senate, House and with Governor Blunt there has never been a better time to pass a right to work law in Missouri and pass it they will. The National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights wishes to thank Rep. Hunter for his vision and leadership to improve the lives of working families in Missouri. The people of Missouri are with you as well.

While Rep. Hunter has introduced his three Bills creating a RTW law, Paycheck Protection (H.R. 441), and greater Union accountability (H.R. 440) ; darker forces try to dim the hopeful promise of Missouri having at last a free and fair workplace. "Big Labor" Bosses are making their threats known against Legislators. With the freedom of your workplace at stake these threats can only be called small in promise, small in purpose, and small in compassion. "Big Labor" Bosses in Missouri can always be counted on for one thing: to try and turn away your working rights while embracing their own agenda. Their agenda against Right to Work in Missouri turns your fair choice on its head. You will get a lot for your "Fair Share," namely, the risk of loosing your job if you choose not to join a union. Where is your "fair choice" in that?

How many good workers will be fired because of labor's radical hidden agenda? As many as it took at the Daimler-Chrysler plant in St. Louis County that just recently had to move out of state. You see under the compulsory dues scheme of the unions non-union members still must their pay dues to the union and are the first to be fired. Why? Because for the simple reason that they do not want to join a union. Now that means Daimler Chrysler had to fire every worker who did not want to join a union-how then after all of those firings could Daimler Chrysler even compete with any other Automobile maker in the five surrounding RTW states? It could not and folded its shop and left. For as long as no RTW law is in place large and small Employers of Missouri have felt this deadly union squeeze against them. It is time the Legislators of Missouri stood up against this injustice and protect employers by embracing fair competition and open labor markets with a Right to Work Law in Missouri.

There are many reasons employers and employees should stay in Missouri. You should be proud of the outstanding economic prosperity of Missouri today. There has never been a better time for job growth in Missouri history. The second highest non-farm payroll of 2,788,700 was on record going into this year.

Yet, what does this say about union rank and file members? They are a lot smarter than their Bosses. While the unions have fought the majority of the Missouri workforce from having a RTW law, their own union membership has voted their disgust with their feet. Walking away from the unions, they know what is in their best interest, as more than 59,000 union members have left unions in Missouri over the last 15 years.

Could this have something to do with unions constant coercion of working families freedom? Yes. All Missourians should have their fair share of prosperity without union intimidation. What makes passing a RTW law a good objective? more than anything it is the choice and right of every worker to enjoy more economic freedoms and a better life for his or her family.

We don't hear so much from workers who try to speak out against unions. The unions don't allow any kind of speaking out about them that they don't like. That's how unions keep their power over workers--either they shut up or they loose their job. Realizing there is no protection against such union intimidation, Mr. Hunter's RTW Bill protects your right to work without fear of retribution from the unions. Union retributions continue to silence the people of Missouri from exercising their better judgment: For who knows your workplace better in the end what makes your life a better one? Does Andy Stern or Hoffa even have a clue?

Call Rep. Steve Hunter's office now at (573)-751-5458 and thank him with your vote for his Right to work Bill for all Missourians.

Sincerely,

Will Fine, Executive Director
National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights



Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted at 01:12 pm | | Leave a comment | 1 comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Apr. 18th, 2007

Senator Hatch at the Heritage Foundation


To: All

Our Friends at Heritage have put together a must see lecture on the Employee Free Choice Act.
Senator Hatch was the Senate Champion who defeated EFCA back in the 1970's
Senator Hatch's advice is essential to today's battle against EFCA--All should attend--

The So-Called Employee Free Choice Act: An Offer We Can Refuse
Date:April 20, 2007
Time:12:00 noon
Speaker(s):

The Honorable Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Member, United States Senate

Host(s):

Michael Franc
Vice President, Government Relations, The Heritage Foundation

Details: 

Location: The Heritage Foundation's Lehrman Auditorium

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will discuss the “Employee Free Choice Act” from a legal, moral and economic perspective.  Hatch views the bill as a boon only to union bosses desperately seeking a way to staunch their declining membership.  But, he warns, the bill poses a major threat to American workers, who would lose their democratic right to vote via private ballot.

go here to sign up

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev042007a.cfm


Tags: , , ,

Posted at 12:16 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Apr. 10th, 2007

Why Employee Free Choice Act must be stopped

Pro-Union Democrats have passed the Employee Free Choice Act in the House of Representatives and now EFCA is in the Senate. What do the American people not get? Employee free choice act ends collective Bargaining as it is know. How many employees will like when Government decides your working contract and you have no say in this?

read more | digg story

Posted at 04:29 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Labor Democrats hold Colorado hostage

Clearly Unions still don't know how to win fair and square. Unions will do anything to coerce you into being a "yes" man, even to go against themselves. In this case, unions had set up the sweetest deal from the state of Colorado that would bring the Democratic convention to Denver in 08. When Labor Driven Democrats say yes to the unions we all pay

read more | digg story

Posted at 11:26 am | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Apr. 9th, 2007

Democrats say "yes to the unions" and we pay the price: private Ballot? Denver held hostage?

location: Washington DC
More Colorado snake oil:
 
Formula for Big Labor coercion to come:
 
By Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
 
Have we not been sold a bill of union goods in Colorado?



Governor Ritter, a Democrat, went against his own big labor bosses by vetoing very prudently a pro-union Bill. Yes, a union intimidation Bill that would have driven many businesses from Colorado making it easier for unions to establish so-called "closed shops". "Closed Shops" that would have forced all workers to pay Union dues in designated unionized businesses. To punish Governor Ritter for his action, Labor threatened to remove the 08 Democratic Presidential convention from Colorado: "Unless we can be assured that the governor will support our values and priorities, we will strongly urge the Democratic Party to relocate the (2008 national) convention."



 Clearly Unions still don't know how to win fair and square. Unions will do anything to coerce you into being a "yes" man,  even to go against themselves. In this case, unions had set up the sweetest deal from the state of Colorado that would bring the Democratic convention to Denver in 08. Howard Dean had worked on the deal with Andy Stern and John Sweeney forcing Colorado to give into more Union demands. The sweet deal the Unions had worked out for themselves was to turn then non-Union Pepsi Center in Denver into a site staffed by the stage hand Union members alone. Even in Howard Dean's words, there is a strong commitment to Denver while he gave up on non-Unionized Coloradoans to close the deal: "Still, Dean said, the choice of Denver reflected his commitment to building the party nationally. It's important, in politics, to put your money where your mouth is, Dean said. I've said consistently we want to have a fifty-state strategy."  Mr. Dean, an important question here for you to answer: Are threats to the Governor of Colorado if he is not a "yes" man for paying back the Unions a part of your fifty state strategy?



Are Unions not entitled to be named the match-coercers of the Democrats?
Sure, when Unions give $65,000,000 to Democrats in the last elections. Of the $65,000,000, $850,000 went to the Colorado delegation alone. Yes,  in terms of desperation according to union density, Unions in Colorado have kept failing to keep their members unionized. For twenty nine years private sector unions have shrunk from 21.7% of employment in 1977 to today's Union density of only 7.4% Clearly, Unions are good matchmakers for a minority of Colorado Democrats out for their own self -survival.

Curiously,when you think Unions threaten cities like Denver with millions of potential victims to get their way you would think the Democrats would come forward to protect Governor Ritter? Maybe they looked back fondly to the 04 Democratic convention in Boston that brought in $154,000,000 and did nothing. The truth is no Democrat came forward to repudiate the lynching that Labor gave to the Governor for not toeing the party line, and isn't this another sad reflection on the kind of "yes" Democrats the Unions have bred nationwide. While the Democrats want their convention in Denver, they also endorsed  a radical Union position that would have  caused so much harm to the city.  Through their undeniable silence they proved they would never stand up for Democratic rights even if their own Democratic Governor went to his end.

Don't these same national Democrats continue to use their silence to not protect your Democratic rights while hiding their own radical Union positions from you?  Does this not hurt all Americans who want to have a say in their future?  Have you heard the report from Congress  that the Union- driven Democrats voted to end secret ballot elections in every workplace through their Employee Free Choice Act?  Yes, when the Union-Democrats, in their vote for EFCA,  had a chance to protect your free rights-- like they never did with Governor Ritter-- did they? As "yes men" what could you hear from them but the silence of your rights taken away.

People of Denver, the truth is Labor thinks you owe them. You owe them for just threatening unmitigated economic harm to your city  by taking the Democratic convention away. Just talk to New Yorkers during Local 100's strike last year. During that strike, which was in  violation of New York's Taylor law,  businesses lost billions during Christmas time while chaos reigned. Isn't it clear that whether its New York or in Denver,  Labor Unions continue to separate themselves from the harm they do to everyman and every woman when they hold hostage entire cities to get what they want?  People of Colorado, ask yourself why should you be the victims of such Union coercion that forces workers to pay these "lords of chaos" for the single purpose and single privilege of having a job.
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted at 06:56 am | | Leave a comment | 1 comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Mar. 23rd, 2007

(no subject)

location: washington,d.c.


Petition against Employee Free Choice Act
March 23, 2007

What do the American people not get? Employee free choice act ends collective Bargaining as it is know. How many employees will like when Government decides your working contract and you have no say in this? How many employers will like the fact that despite their best efforts to discuss unionization of the workplace with their employees nothing they say will matter under binding arbitration.

Big Government with the help of the unions has gotten out of control with this union takeover of employer and employee democracy. It has to stop now. Honor the tradition of good faith collective bargaining where both employer and employee have a say in their own future.  Public Balloting and union intimidation belongs in socialist Europe not in the United States.

Please sign our National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights petition for a free and fair American Workplace now...

 ---> go to

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/EFCA/

The NAWER petition will be delivered to Congress shortly so please sign...
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted at 04:45 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Mar. 19th, 2007

NAWER launches new poll on Employee Free Choice Act

location: washington D.C.
music: Beethoven
Call to action alert:

Please come to the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights website and vote in our new poll on the Employee Free Choice Act...

Http://www.freeworkplace.org


Should workers and Employers have a say in their own future?

Yes, I oppose the Employee Free Choice act. EFCA ends free speech and scares working Familes. I prefer Secret Ballot Elections in the workplace.

No, I support EFCA where union thugs can force me to sign "card checks" in public. Big Brother should decide my employment contract.

Sign our petition against EFCA and write to your Senator now against this nefarious "Big Brother" Bill introduced by Edward Kennedy.The margin against EFCA could be the margin of your Senator and letter so please call or write today...
Tags: , , , , ,

Posted at 05:08 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Mar. 1st, 2007

Vote against the Employee Intimidation Act

location: Washington, DC
Video Against the Employee Intimidation Bill
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:13 PM

A good video against the card check "Voter Intimidation Bill "everyone should watch before the vote.

YouTube URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH18MIF-1oU


Employee Free Choice Vote set for March 1
Monday, February 26, 2007 5:06 PM

Time to call all Congressman to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act: H.R. 800

Full House Vote is set for March 1

Call all RINOS as they are planning to vote for EFCA
and tell them not vote on March 1

Tell your friends we must not let the Democrats and unions win and turn
our country back into socialism...


Petition against Employee Free Choice Act
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:36 PM

Petition against the Employee Free Choice Act H.R. 800

What do the American people not get? Employee free choice act ends collective Bargaining as it is know. How many employees will like when Government decides your working contract and you have no say in this? How many employers will like the fact that despite their best efforts to discuss unionization of the workplace with their employees nothing they say will matter under binding arbitration. Big Government with the help of the unions has gotten out of control with this union takeover of employer and employee democracy. It has to stop now. Honor the tradition of good faith collective bargaining where both employer and employee have a say in their own future. " said Will Fine, Executive Director National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights.Sign our petition. Please sign now

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/EFCA/

e

Democrats-Unions ram through EFCA speeding the loss of Employer- Employee rights
Monday, February 12, 2007 2:54 PM


Legislative Alert:
Democrats ram through Employee Free Choice Act:
All Groups & citizens must call their Congressman now Oppose EFCA now and save Employee and Employer Rights from Liberal and union tyranny
This Wednesday the employee Free Choice Act is going to markup at 1:30pm. This makes it possible for a full house vote on Employee Free Choice the week of Feb. 26
The Employee Free Choice Act has 232 co-sponsors. Here is the List to call.
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 2/5/2007
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 2/5/2007
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Bean, Melissa L. [IL-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 2/5/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 2/5/2007
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] - 2/8/2007
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Boyda, Nancy E. [KS-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Butterfield, G. K. [NC-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 2/5/2007
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. [CA-18] - 2/5/2007
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] - 2/5/2007
Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 2/5/2007
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 2/5/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 2/5/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Clyburn, James E. [SC-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 2/5/2007
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] - 2/5/2007
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Davis, Artur [AL-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 2/5/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 2/5/2007
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - 2/5/2007
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 2/5/2007
Rep Donnelly, Joe [IN-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 2/5/2007
Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17] - 2/5/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Ellsworth, Brad [IN-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 2/5/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 2/5/2007
Rep Etheridge, Bob [NC-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS] - 2/5/2007
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 2/5/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 2/5/2007
Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13] - 2/5/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY-20] - 2/5/2007
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 2/5/2007
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 2/5/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 2/5/2007
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 2/5/2007
Rep Herseth, Stephanie [SD] - 2/5/2007
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hill, Baron P. [IN-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 2/5/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 2/5/2007
Rep Jefferson, William J. [LA-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 2/5/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 2/5/2007
Rep Kagen, Steve, M.D. [WI-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Kanjorski, Paul E. [PA-11] - 2/5/2007
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 2/5/2007
Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] - 2/5/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 2/5/2007
Rep Lampson, Nick [TX-22] - 2/5/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 2/5/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 2/5/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 2/5/2007
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 2/5/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 2/5/2007
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 2/5/2007
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 2/5/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 2/5/2007
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita [CA-37] - 2/5/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 2/5/2007
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. [WV-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 2/5/2007
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 2/5/2007
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 2/5/2007
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 2/5/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 2/5/2007
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Pomeroy, Earl [ND] - 2/5/2007
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 2/5/2007
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 2/5/2007
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 2/5/2007
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 2/5/2007
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 2/5/2007
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 2/5/2007
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 2/5/2007
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 2/5/2007
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 2/5/2007
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 2/5/2007
Rep Scott, Robert C. [VA-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 2/5/2007
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 2/5/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 2/5/2007
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] - 2/5/2007
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 2/5/2007
Rep Skelton, Ike [MO-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 2/5/2007
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 2/6/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 2/5/2007
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] - 2/5/2007
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 2/5/2007
Rep Stupak, Bart [MI-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 2/5/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 2/5/2007
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 2/5/2007
Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] - 2/5/2007
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 2/5/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 2/5/2007
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 2/5/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 2/5/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 2/5/2007
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 2/5/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 2/5/2007
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 2/5/2007
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 2/5/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 2/5/2007
Rep Wilson, Charles A. [OH-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 2/5/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 2/5/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 2/5/2007

H.R. 800 Employee Free Choice Act
Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:41 PM

The Employee path to Serfdom was introduced today in Congress rolling back fifty years of Labor reform.

Today we are one step closer to Big Brother getting into our workplace and telling us how we should be working by defining our contracts. The Democrats with seven Republicans introduced the Employee Free Choice Act. Two hundred and Twenty Three Democrats joined the Republicans.

Please call these Republicans and ask them to take their names off the Employee Free Choice Act now"

Vito Fossella NY-13

Peter King NY-3

Steven LaTourette OH-14

Frank LoBiondo NJ-2

John McHugh NY-23

Chris Shays CT-4

Chris Smith NJ-4
Email It | Print It | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive

Oppose the Employee Free Choice Act now
Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:57 PM

What do the American people not get? Employee Free Choice Act ends collective bargaining as we know it! How many employees like Government deciding their contracts for them? How many employees will like all the union home visits in the middle of night to make them sign "card checks" What this is about is the end of employer free speech and employee democracy--what will it take to wake Business to this? and the workers of America? Please tell your friends to sign this petition now and call your Congressman to oppose EFCA now!

Please sign our petition union and Democratic tyranny in the workplace
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/EFCA/

Thank You


No to Amnesty! No to Guestworker for Illegal Aliens petition!
Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:55 PM

National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights petition against any Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill including Amnesty and Guest Worker programs for Illegals in the United States of America

Whereas, The United States has more open borders without local law enforcement allowing greater illegal immigration, and
Whereas, unions target newly legalized immigrants and unfairly win union elections without a secret ballot, and
Whereas, Unions and Liberal Democracts have added and expanded Davis Bacon prevailing wages to the private sector which would burden many small business with costs they cannot pay; now, therefore be it,

Resolved, increase Border control to include a full fence, more border patrol and allow Local law enforcement to arrest illegals where ever they maybe
Resolved, allow full secret ballot protections in the workplace for the "newly legalized" that make elections for a union fair and balanced
Resolved, Repeal any Davis-Bacon provisions or Bills in Congress relating to future immigration Bills --Protect Small Business from union Tyranny!
Please sign now->
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/amnestysend/
Email It | Print It | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive

Reasons to oppose Employee Free Choice Now
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:12 PM

Reasons to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act now--Call your Congressman--

The Employee Free Choice Act

TOP PRIORITY FOR NEW DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS: END SECRET BALLOT ELECTIONS TO DECIDE UNION REPRESENTATION AND FORCE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ON EMPLOYERS

With Democrats in control of both Houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, a top priority will be to eliminate the right of employees to vote for or against unionization in secret ballot elections and to dictate contract terms to employers.

Background

In the last Congress, unions and their legislative allies, pushed a brazenly misnamed bill, “The Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA), whose perverse goal is to deprive employees of free choice about union representation and to intimidate employers. Amazingly, in a Republican-controlled Congress, Big Labor found 215 sponsors for this legislation (including 14 Republicans) in the House, just short of the 218 needed for passage; in the Senate, they signed up 44 sponsors, just 7 short of a majority. New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has promised to place a newly introduced EFCA bill on the floor this spring calling it a “High priority” for Democrats.

What EFCA Would Do

There are three main components of EFCA. The central feature of the bill would outlaw secret ballot elections by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) among employees to decide whether to be represented by a union. Instead, the EFCA would permit unions to inveigle employees to sign “authorization cards” agreeing to labor representation in front of union agents. Second, the bill would give unions the power to invoke outside arbitration to gain a first contract, abandoning the American tradition of letting the parties settle their differences through good faith collective-bargaining. In other words, Business owners would suddenly have no one to negotiate on “first contracts” they would be removed from the Bargaining process and forced to accept due to EFCA an outside arbitration process without their input and the one sided and unfair employment contracts with the unions that this would imply. Third, the bill would increase penalties against employers for certain labor law violations, requiring reimbursement three times the amount of wages lost by an employee and imposing civil fines of as much as $20,000 per incident, yet would not levy harsher sanctions for union misconduct.

Why Authorization Cards Cannot Substitute for a Secret Ballot Election

* Authorization cards are inherently far less reliable because they require employees to make a public rather than a confidential decision about unionization, thus subjecting them to peer pressure, harassment, coercion, and misrepresentation. One study showed 18% of employees who sign cards don’t want the union.
* Unions can obtain commitments from employees without the employer’s knowledge and thus gain representative status before the employer is able to make a case as to why unionization is not in the workers’ best interest.

Key Union Arguments in Favor of EFCA and Why They are False

NLRB election processes are too slow. According to NLRB statistics, in FY 2005, the median time between a union’s petition for a representation election and the holding of the election was only 38 days, and 94.2% of all elections were conducted within 56 days of a petition.

Employers engage in massive illegal conduct to defeat unions, discriminating against 20,000 employees per year, and the NLRB is too slow respond. In FY 2005, the NLRB reports that it issued complaints of unlawful conduct against employers in only 1,160 cases – a ten year low - and ordered only 2,842 employees reinstated. In FY 2005, 97.2% of cases having merit were promptly settled; the median length of time to issue complaints in other cases was only 95 days.

It is too hard for unions to get initial contracts with employers. Employers are already required, under penalty of law, to bargain with unions in good faith. Employers should not be forced to submit to onerous terms imposed by a third party that may jeopardize jobs and profitability.
Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted at 09:26 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Jan. 19th, 2007

(no subject)

Poll #909898 End Card Check now Poll
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 2

Should unions and Democrats take away secet ballot elections in the American workplace?

View Answers

yes
0 (0.0%)

No
2 (100.0%)

Dont know
0 (0.0%)

Posted at 12:52 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

End union tyranny now! oppose the employee free choice act

What do the American people not get? Employee Free Choice Act ends collective bargaining as we know it! How many employees like Government deciding their contracts for them? How many employees will like all the union home visits in the middle of night to make them sign "card checks" What this is about is the end of employer free speech and employee democracy--what will it take to wake Business to this? and the workers of America? Please tell your friends to sign this petition now and call your Congressman to oppose EFCA now!

Please sign our petition union and Democratic tyranny in the workplace
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/EFCA/

Thank You
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted at 12:45 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Oppose Employee Free Choice Act now

Reasons to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act now--Call your Congressman--



The Employee Free Choice Act
TOP PRIORITY FOR NEW DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS: END SECRET BALLOT ELECTIONS TO DECIDE UNION REPRESENTATION AND FORCE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ON EMPLOYERS

With Democrats in control of both Houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, a top priority will be to eliminate the right of employees to vote for or against unionization in secret ballot elections and to dictate contract terms to employers.

Background

In the last Congress, unions and their legislative allies, pushed a brazenly misnamed bill, “The Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA), whose perverse goal is to deprive employees of free choice about union representation and to intimidate employers. Amazingly, in a Republican-controlled Congress, Big Labor found 215 sponsors for this legislation (including 14 Republicans) in the House, just short of the 218 needed for passage; in the Senate, they signed up 44 sponsors, just 7 short of a majority. New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has promised to place a newly introduced EFCA bill on the floor this spring calling it a “High priority” for Democrats.

What EFCA Would Do

There are three main components of EFCA. The central feature of the bill would outlaw secret ballot elections by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) among employees to decide whether to be represented by a union. Instead, the EFCA would permit unions to inveigle employees to sign “authorization cards” agreeing to labor representation in front of union agents. Second, the bill would give unions the power to invoke outside arbitration to gain a first contract, abandoning the American tradition of letting the parties settle their differences through good faith collective-bargaining. In other words, Business owners would suddenly have no one to negotiate on “first contracts” they would be removed from the Bargaining process and forced to accept due to EFCA an outside arbitration process without their input and the one sided and unfair employment contracts with the unions that this would imply. Third, the bill would increase penalties against employers for certain labor law violations, requiring reimbursement three times the amount of wages lost by an employee and imposing civil fines of as much as $20,000 per incident, yet would not levy harsher sanctions for union misconduct.

Why Authorization Cards Cannot Substitute for a Secret Ballot Election

Authorization cards are inherently far less reliable because they require employees to make a public rather than a confidential decision about unionization, thus subjecting them to peer pressure, harassment, coercion, and misrepresentation. One study showed 18% of employees who sign cards don’t want the union.
Unions can obtain commitments from employees without the employer’s knowledge and thus gain representative status before the employer is able to make a case as to why unionization is not in the workers’ best interest.
Key Union Arguments in Favor of EFCA and Why They are False

NLRB election processes are too slow. According to NLRB statistics, in FY 2005, the median time between a union’s petition for a representation election and the holding of the election was only 38 days, and 94.2% of all elections were conducted within 56 days of a petition.

Employers engage in massive illegal conduct to defeat unions, discriminating against 20,000 employees per year, and the NLRB is too slow respond. In FY 2005, the NLRB reports that it issued complaints of unlawful conduct against employers in only 1,160 cases – a ten year low - and ordered only 2,842 employees reinstated. In FY 2005, 97.2% of cases having merit were promptly settled; the median length of time to issue complaints in other cases was only 95 days.

It is too hard for unions to get initial contracts with employers. Employers are already required, under penalty of law, to bargain with unions in good faith. Employers should not be forced to submit to onerous terms imposed by a third party that may jeopardize jobs and profitability.
Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted at 12:02 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Advertisement

Customize