Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34104)	3/16/2009 12:36:06 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Bob Casey Better Read Card Check Shouldn't a Senator Know What He's Sponsoring? Posted by Brian Faughnan (Profile) Friday, March 13th at 5:08PM EDT 9 Comments If he actually read the bill, he might avoid embarrassing mistakes like this one: Area Democrats in Congress, including moderate “Blue Dog” U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-8th, of Bucks, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties, all support legislation that would eliminate secret-ballot elections for many workforces considering unionization. Every Democratic member of the House of Representatives in the Philadelphia area, as well as U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, support the legislation, known as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or “card-check.” If passed, the bill will replace many secret-ballot votes to decide whether to unionize with a process wherein labor organizers approach employees directly asking them to sign cards indicating they support joining a union… Mr. Casey said the legislation would make a welcome change to current labor policy because card-check would expedite the unionization process. He also said the potential for secret-ballot elections would still exist after EFCA, even if they become less common. “A secret ballot would still be available,” he said. “If workers prefer to use majority sign up, they could do that as well.” Here is the text of the Card Check bill Senator Casey has elected to cosponsor: whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees… 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… 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… the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization Under Casey’s bill, in any instance where a majority of workers signs cards, the union is organized without an election. And note that the individual workers have no say in the process once they have signed their cards; they can’t sign a card and scribble in ‘but I want a secret ballot election.’ That right vanishes once a majority of all workers sign. Therefore, the only way that a given workforce can force a secret ballot election is if a majority of them gets together and decides to withhold their signatures. If a majority does not sign, a vote is required. So Casey is either ignorant or lying when he implies that Card Check offers a route for secret ballots. That would only come if a majority of workers refuses to abide by the process laid out in Card Check. If Casey is genuinely ignorant of this, it may just be because he’s watching too much MSNBC: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZkvNKy0tww[/url] Hopefully he and Rachel Maddo can put their heads together and figure this out. It’s not really all that complex. redstate.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (34104)	4/4/2009 2:04:59 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Barack Obama's Unprecedented Accomplishment a Virtually Guaranteed Media Secret By Tom Blumer (Bio \| Archive) April 3, 2009 - 13:39 ET Barack Obama has done something no other president has done in the five months after his election. He and his pals Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid laid the groundwork for this achievement back in June when they created what I have since last July been calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, so it is fair to say that Obama's accomplishment, spanning November 2008 through March 2009, belongs to him, with a heavy assist from his fellow party members. It took a lot of hard work, perseverance, and persistence, but he and they have done it. That crowning achievement follows the jump. Obama is the first president to have five straight months of decline in real employment following his election. We're not talking about that seasonally adjusted stuff that gets reported every month and misinterpreted as if that is what actually happened. No-no-no. I'm referring to five straight months of decline in the number of Americans actually working, i.e., the not seasonally adjusted figures. Defying any and all seasonal factors that would work against this accomplishment, the economy on the ground has lost jobs in each and every one of the past five months: You start to appreciate just how difficult this achievement was when you look at how large the job additions were during comparable months in 2004 through 2008. It gets "better." The real, on-the-ground job losses represent the only time in 70 years of history available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics that the real, on the ground, not seasonally adjusted economy has lost jobs for five consecutive months. The, only, time (click on graphic to see a full-size version in a separate window): And of course, although I hope I'm wrong, the losing streak may not stop at five. It's conceivable that March's on the ground loss of 58,000 might be changed in subsequent revisions, but that seems highly doubtful. January's original seasonally adjusted -598,000 went to -741,000 after subsequent revisions. February's first seasonally adjusted revision released today had no change from the original -651,000. A March reversal of +59,000 or more in the next two not seasonally adjusted revisions seems pretty unlikely. Even if that happens, no other president has seen the economy lose jobs on the ground for even four consecutive months after his election. Is anyone foolish enough to believe that the applauding establishment media will take note of what has really happened with jobs on the ground since Dear Leader's election? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com. —Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters newsbusters.org