I have my doubts about most of the Dem pols but when Republicans feign concern for the plight of the proletariat they should be tarred and feathered on their way to the pillory. They consistently manage to dupe a significant percentage of the electorate though and a large chunk of the media.

OK, here’s the thing. I support the EFCA, think Vitter ought not be let out without his diaper (better punishment than an ankle bracelet) and love your website.

BUT

I just read the EFCA, H.R. 800, as passed by the House and sent to the Senate and it pretty clearly says this “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”

The bolded section pretty clearly says “shall” not “may” and pretty clearly directs the company to certify the union without an election. Absent actually sitting down with all the referenced laws that this bill supersedes with specific language (the usual “therefore” replacing a “thus” and crap like that) I don’t know how this specifically changes existing laws, which it is clearly designed to do, it also pretty clearly and unequivocally makes the statement than the company “shall” do something without an election being necessary.

My question is this: why are we fighting this on the basis that it doesn’t circumvent an election? There are a myriad of reasons why this is a good bill and fighting this fight on that basis alone, which seems rather myopic, could conceivably backfire.

Help me out on this one Jane.

Vitter and the Blue Dogs. Rock band.

Very fancy and helpful letter setup at the last link.

Thanks Jane!

Dave, Dave, Dave…

Turn and face the strange ch-ch-changes.

I haven’t spent a lot of time on the details of this, but early on I characterized it as “why vote twice.” IOW, after a majority sign cards, what’s the point of holding a “secret” ballot. But that clearly omits subtleties, so let me know what the counterarguement is.

still don’t know why so many working class people support the republicans
make no sense to me !

why are we fighting this on the basis that it doesn’t circumvent an election?

Why are you fighting it based on that assumption?

I don’t see it as an election process (more like a petition which decides to begin bargaining).. nor do I see the claims from the chamber of commerce as credible in any way when they espouse… voting booths are private/sacred when up to 30 percent of the people who want to vote get fired long before election day.

Fear and ignorance with an occasional dose of bigotry thrown in for good measure.

Vitter, our spy said, gave the airline worker an earful, employing the timeworn “do-you-know-who-I-am” tirade

Best response to this I’ve read so far was “Hmm…Depends.”

Person Asks: “excuse me…”
Vitter Snarls: “What do you want?”
Person “Well…”
Vitter: “Speak up you idiot!”
Person: “Would you like fries with that?”

Teh Google is your friend.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/01…..ee-choice/

I’d go with misinformed many of the people I talk to seem to be totally clueless and can do little more than spew out talking points
This EFCA vote is a good example!

So when are Ds gonna catch onto the talking points thingy? Is it any more difficult to get people to spew D talking points than R ones? Problem is in the D court.

Not really misinformed when one is willingly deceived. They support candidates who pander to their prejudice.

better to dump the talking points all together

Naaah. Easy to outcompete them in their own game. Much easier than being nuanced. And doesn’t cede any ground. Any program, good as well as bad, can be communicated in talking points. I was an instant analyst on cable bus channels after govt econ stats were reported, and I got the message 25 words or less, in a context that was appropriate and meaningful. If you notice, I try to do the same thing with my comments here. (78 words, but 3 concepts.)

Clear as can be. Armed with this comprehensive summary, flacks for the Good Guys could actually do battle with the Chamber flacks.

Andy needs to brief his people about how to describe the process, because they are doing themselves harm by using just the overview talking points.

Why does anyone believe the republics are for families or working people.

So what do we call this with Vitter? Diaper rage?

Oh that is good, Hugh.

Andy needs to brief his people about how to describe the process, because they are doing themselves harm by using just the overview talking points.

Agreed!

He’s gone round Depend!

He’s gone round the Depend!

LOL

talking points may be a good way to frame an idea I just feel that overuse of talking points can make us all sound like parrots
Also people may be able to recite the talking points but ask them about the meaning of what they are saying and they are lost
sometimes nuance is good

Really just name me one thing they ahve ever that truly helped families or people. Of if they are rich the list would compete with Hugh’s list of Bush crimkes!!

I don’t think folks like Dave wear standard issue adult incontinence devices. It’s all about the fantasy, cloth diapers with oversized safety pins and other giant props, pacifiers, rattles and such, used for purposes and in places outside the original intent.

Or off the Depend!

Thanks Jane. I still don’t think it’s necessarily as clear as you do and I do understand there is nothing at all equitable about the present system. It may be a failure of explanation in the general responses than in the specifics of the bill. The battle, after all, will be between the arguments, not the actual language of the bill as it sadly is ever thus.

Here is another quick crib sheet for EFCA/ card check.

some unwanted imagery there!!

I think he should be asked at every opportunity. Since he’s a hypocrite.

Vitter in happier times..

When he subsequently attempted to explain his way out of the airline contretemps by saying that he didn’t realize what the door was, I could only think:

1: He’s lying
or
2: He’s too stupid to hold public office.

Either way, he needs to go.

And Jane: “Sorry sir, I didn’t recognize you without the diaper and the whore,” said the airline worker.

Too funny. I just about fell out of my chair on that one…

Perfect.

It’s Baby Huie!! AKA Senator David Vitter! Defender of the worker!! My ASS!

“Sorry sir, I didn’t recognize you without the diaper and the whore,” said the airline worker.

Bears repeating

It is Thersday, upstairs!
Stewart/Cramer: The Confrontining