So...let me get this straight...you are twisting various passages from the Bible to support unions taking away our ability to vote in private?

What next...going to support the passages in Matthew that say to turn the other cheek in order to support taking away our right to bear arms?

Better yet, lets go back to Genesis and use that to support us having multiple wives!

This issue with the unions is not something in regards to the Bible. The passage you mention in the Bible is in regards to SIN. When you SIN, no matter what, those will be made known when you stand before the Big Guy upstairs. Wanting to keep your vote unknown is NOT a sin.

Christ died for our sins so that us SINNERS could enter Heaven, which was not created for sinners. Its too perfect for us to enter as sinners...so he died. He didn't die so that we could have card check.

Also...if we are going to twist some verses here...why not use the one in Matthew 6 where Christ commands you to, instead of making your prayers known in public like the hypocrites...to go in the closet, shut the door and pray in secret, for what you pray in secret will be rewarded openly!

__________________
"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright. But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands."
Former Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev

Wow with that last paragraph the Zigster(May I call you Zigster) goes up for a two handed slam! Well played sir(Polite golf clap in background).

__________________
Bad spellers of the world...UNTIE!!!

I was involved with a union situation once...a non AFL-CIO recognized union,AMFA, was attempting to get into an airlines that was already organized union...the TWU.

There was a card drive...there was NO MISTAKE as to who was pro AMFA and who was pro TWU. We knew the guy next to you was attempting to throw your union out...and that was certainly his right. At the time, the card drive had to produce 50% plus 1 signed cards to the NLRB. If they did not produce the amount required I believe there was a 2 year waiting period until the next drive could mass.

I guess the point to this rant is that I have no problem with the fact my vote would be public record, available to all.

BTW...the TWU is still the bargaining agent.

__________________

I guess the point others are trying to make is that while you would like your vote being know others may not. There may be those that fear retaliation from either the company or from their coworkers. The only way to assure them of the aninimity they need is to give them the privacy they deserve. Private voting gives them the abilty to agree with whomever is in front of them. This could save their job or prevent them from having a brick tossed through their front window.

__________________
Bad spellers of the world...UNTIE!!!

Or, to put it differently, walk in to a polling station in some gang infested inner city (take your pick) and loudly proclaim that you are voting against Barack Obama.

I'll call 911 for you.

__________________
Support The Special Operations Warrior Foundation

Democrat Values: Jail for People Who Don't Buy Insurance, Citizenship for Border Jumpers

Political Correctness Will Be The Death Of Us All

Pray For Obama, Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office."

This is what Im getting at. This is a huge deal for the unions...gives them alot better chance now that they know who is blocking their way to organizing. If this isn't the case, if they 'arent in it for the money' and all...then why is it going to be a requirement for your name / signature to be put on your voting card when you vote yes or no? Because at the end of the day, instead of knowing there were a few people that voted no that stopped them from getting approved...NOW they know exactly who is in their way.

And Im not trying to say anything here but I mean...at the attitude many of the union backers on here have towards the non-union people....thats a concern if this was something brought to real life. Seeing people who have that attitude and...for lack of a better word, 'hatred' towards their opposition...now they know who is blocking their way. I've seen people make death threats to their supervisors (lol and not get fired), because they were on the top of the call list and didn't get called when help was needed.

__________________
"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright. But we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and realize you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy that you will fall like over ripe fruit into our hands."
Former Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev

How dare anyone faced with the facts suggest that the working man needs to unionize to avoid or get out of poverty. I am almost 46 years old and never needed the unions to keep me out of poverty.

By the way I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who are Union workers and in fact one is a fireman and the other works in a hospital, Neither one works 40 hours a week and both make over 50k a year. Hardly a subsistence living for part time work.

Quote:

.cheap labor did not infest our shores...it was borne from within third party contracting...Three years ago WalMarts did 18 BILLION dollars of trade with China...our daily visits to WallyWorld promote the nations largest employer to continue to thrive.

Well the comment is now out of context since you cut it and spun it. I believe the context of the statement was a comparison of subsidising entitlement driven union jobs with incentivizing illegal workers by discontinuing employee verification.

Yes we all know that Unions have been very frustrated in their efforts to unionize Walmart. But what did you expect? Americans can barely pay all of the taxes and fees they are charged to support Unionized Government workers and have little left over to pay for the lofty salaries and benefits that a all union workforce would demand. But then again Union types don't really care about the non-union "scabs" and what they may have to pay for when you got 2 people doing the job of one under a union labor contract.

The notion that anyone who gets up and shows up for work each day should command a high salary and benefits based on entitlement is just a false one. The higher the pay the less workers you can hire. Then you have products that will cost more and will be less competitive, which means less sales. Then it just mushrooms and you have systemic unemployment which you then subsidize with higher taxes and less vital Gov services to pay for the unemployed. Then the High payed Union workers are paying higher taxes for less services and to subsidize the workers they put on the bread line, which in turn lowers their standard of living and walla you have Europe.

Quote:

So...let me get this straight...you are twisting various passages from the Bible to support unions taking away our ability to vote in private?

I used to watch the Union commercials with the big American flag blowing in the wind behind them while they extolled the virtues of Socialism. So I guess anything is possible when you try to make 2+2 = 5.

OK..I suppose I can understand your reasoning for fear and opposition...it's just that in this day and age most companies have intact what is known as a "Zero Tolerance Program" which means exactly that. Any and all, NO MATTER HOW SMALL OR SEEMINGLY INSIGNIFICANT, instances of unacceptable behavior would be dealt with disciplinary actions up to and including dismissal. It would be your responsibility to report to management.

Ziggy...though I am a union activist, I do not "hate" non union supporters. It helps me to better understand people, in general, when I hear both sides of an issue...peeps must keep an open mind and be able to be somewhat flexible with their views when dealing with so many different walks of life and the issues involving them.

I have organized...I have stood in Lafeyette Park, across from the White House, and held pickets while the "President's Men" keep us "honest". I have been taken to jail for my union activity, to be released as we pulled up in front of the police department, released to find my way back, miles away. I have felt the harrassment first hand...each of us must decide if our desire to be treated fairly in this world is worth dealing with the issues.

I applaud you Ziggy for showing backbone...

__________________

Entitlement driven jobs...command a high salary...hmmmmm.

Realizing that in the 70's the ratio of pay and entitlements between "Johnny Lunchbox" and a CEO was roughly 40 to 1....today you are seeing 400 to 1, yet you show intolerance towards the union fought for wages and benefits? Interesting.

How dare anyone faced with the facts suggest that the working man needs to unionize to avoid or get out of poverty. I am almost 46 years old and never needed the unions to keep me out of poverty.

You'd be hard pressed to show where the unions did not set the standard of wages, your 7 day work week, and other shirt tail benefits you enjoy at the cost of others...I am happy for you and your family that you have been able to stay out of the poverty levels of living...but I bet your ability to spend has decreased...I bet you are not keeping abreast of the cost of living annually. If you are, you might consider the notion that you are overpaid for the service you render...I mean really...isn't that what you see union jobs as...overpaid? If a union receives 13% increase in pay for a 3 year contract, that is less than 5% annually...now go check the COL.

The higher the pay the less workers you can hire.

So if we get rid of the CEOs we can hire 100 more workers...looky there...we agree on issues already...

__________________