Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:24 am    Post subject: Wal-Mart denies that it told workers how to vote Reply with quote

WalMart suggesting employees vote against the pro-union candidate? Shame, shame. :lol:

Quote:
Wal-Mart denies that it told workers how to vote

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, denied a report Friday that it had pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because of worries that a bill the party supports would make it easier for workers to unionize.

The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labour organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. It was co-sponsored by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, and opposed by John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee....

(full story)

WALMART
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How would that be any different that Buzz hugging Paul Martin?
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Itís ok for unions to have a political say, but not for companies? As long as they donít fire anyone for voting, then I am fine with the suggestion.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't Hillary Clinton on the board of directors for Walmart?
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
Itís ok for unions to have a political say, but not for companies? As long as they donít fire anyone for voting, then I am fine with the suggestion.


And it's also fine for unions to have a clause in their contract making payment of union dues mandatory. And then to use that money for politicking.

As for Buzz running for the Liberals - I thought Dion had enough problems already. :D
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And it's also fine for unions to have a clause in their contract making payment of union dues mandatory. And then to use that money for politicking.


Union dues are a neccessary evil for our contract negotiations but when the union starts sending out their leftists bullshit propaganda I send it back with a message attached saying "stop spending my dues on this leftists crap". :x
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Quote:
And it's also fine for unions to have a clause in their contract making payment of union dues mandatory. And then to use that money for politicking.


Union dues are a neccessary evil for our contract negotiations but when the union starts sending out their leftists bullshit propaganda I send it back with a message attached saying "stop spending my dues on this leftists crap". :x


A symbol of our leftist culture. They see nothing wrong with extracting money from working stiffs and then using it to promote abortion, gay rights and other political causes. If mandatory check-off is to continue then unions should not be permitted to use the money other than for dealing with the employer on legitimate workplace labor relations issues.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm actually rather disturbed by the notion of ending secret ballot voting, a measure that would almost guarantee employee intimidation by union organizers. I don't understand how that gets promoted as a reasonable idea, and the title of bill is rather ironic in that respect.
gebhartj





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 31
Reputation: 31Reputation: 31Reputation: 31

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
I'm actually rather disturbed by the notion of ending secret ballot voting, a measure that would almost guarantee employee intimidation by union organizers. I don't understand how that gets promoted as a reasonable idea, and the title of bill is rather ironic in that respect.


And only "Yes" votes would be permitted in this case...if 50%+1 of employees sign "union cards" then the union would automagically be certified.

Maybe they should have the same rule for decertifying too! Oh, but that would subject workers to undue influence.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Wal-Mart denies that it told workers how to vote

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB