Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitter
WASHINGTON -- Even though the Employee Free Choice Act in its current form seems doomed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today talks continue on a compromise bill.
Reid conceded that the legislation had stalled. The bill, which would make it easier for workers to organize unions, is widely supported by labor but opposed by business.
“We originally thought we would have something done by now,” Reid told Nevada reporters during a conference call with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. “That’s not the way it’s going to be.”
Reid said talks continue, however, with a core group of senators and companies that have expressed an interest in alternative proposals, including Whole Foods and Costco. Those companies, along with Starbucks, suggested areas for compromise earlier this year, but the proposal was rejected by labor.
“We have a number of people talking right now, trying to come up with a bill that will get 60 votes,” Reid said, referring to the Senate votes needed to pass a key hurdle in the chamber.
Solis added, “We support the continuation of discussions.”
Reid's support for this bill, coupled with his ripping e-Verify out of the stimulus package, more than justifies voting him out of office. Now if only the GOP can find a reasonable opponent to him. (I'm not holding my breath on this).
harry Reid will do anything to keep the union coffers full. He and the other democrats view this as a campaign finance issue. Require workers to be in unions, pay dues, and receive donations from the union hacks for his support.
The total destruction of America as long as harry gets more money for reelection and favorable treatment in land deals for himself. The Reid dynasty will leave its scars across this state.
Reid has no backbone...The Democrats would be better off with someone else as the Majority Leader...
The EFCA is good for the American worker which is why corporations have spent million on lobbyists and attack ads which are all LIES to stop it from ever being passed...
80 billion to private sector unions (UAW). May Harry's children live long enough to pay off our debts. Did he declare the war lost in Afghanistan yet?
The right to organize is a basic right. Right now, management has the upper hand and frequently engages in illegal activities to stop unions from forming, such as threatening to fire workers for even talking about it. Some kind of legislation to even the playing field is needed. If not, there will be no more middle class--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
rayy - In the Marxist styled socialism that BHO is directing us toward, personal wealth will be a moot point.
Even if he doesn't succeed, he's already mortgaged our childrens' futures with his out of control spending and most of them will never know what we enjoy as middle class.
Live in a place where there are no unions, like Florida, and you will see how hard it is for a blue-collar middle class worker to make a living. The Republicans tried to destroy the unions to defund the Democrats. Nevadans, being the dupes to the GOP that they are, don't understand how much they get screwed.
labdaddy & rusty-
Sure, because George W. Bush never, ever pushed unnecessary wars and tax cuts for the ultra-rich that we couldn't afford... </snark>
rayy & CactusJack-
Yes, thank you. The aristocrats have already had their bailouts. What about us? When will workers see a level playing field? This is why we need EFCA.
atdleft: EFCA is just another example of Dinosaurs mating.
atdleft - I've noticed the dimocrats are more and more frequently using the argument:
"yeah...but...but...Bush did it too!"
Even I didn't vote for someone who is just another Bush.
Labdaddy...
you need to understand there is a cause & effect to what happened under W. The argument is NOT
"yeah, but...but...Bush did it too!"
The point being made is that WE ARE HERE TODAY because of WHAT HAPPENED THEN.
Now, how to accomplish putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. Obviously, the Obama administration is spending a LOT of money trying to put some glue on the thing. The right has already declared it a disaster and blames Obama personally for the whole darn mess, years in the making.
Whatever your inclination is, a plan from the left or the right was/is going to take TIME. Humpty was a HUGE boy who suffered massive injuries. Never gonna look the same.
p.s. As to the ORIGINAL POINT of the article, I am all for the employee's right to organize. It is not universally the right thing to do, but in many instances, it is the only thing to do. America owes union organizers past a huge debt of gratitude. As for those who say unions have outlived their purpose, I say it should NEVER go out of style to protect worker's rights and their ability to negotiate fair wages & benefits.
We live in dynamic economy. I don't know why we need unions any longer. Employees already have a choice--to work for a company or move to another company.
Unions, as with liberalism in general, are about class warfare, division, and FORCE.
-------------------
Free markets help everyone.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-d...
gmag39 - So I guess the reason poor Humpty Dumpty hasn't seen any of that transparency he was promised is because of the wool that's been pulled over his eyes.
maybe the whole thing was just to much for humpty to bear to see, so he covered his eyes.
Heck, if I were Humpty, I'd probably poke my own eyes out!
Let's play my new favorite game.. Rhetoric vs. Reality.
First up, labdaddy!
Rhetoric: In the Marxist styled socialism that BHO is directing us toward, personal wealth will be a moot point!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reality: http://img44.imageshack.us/i/socialismch...
ksand99 - Hate to spoil your game but let's see the graph again in 90 days...and 180...and a year from now. I did say "directing us toward", after all.
But hey, thanks for playing anyway. We have some lovely parting gifts for you including the home version of "Goodbye To America".
Why not legislate that the unions have to have a secret ballot on the amount of union dues?
It was very interesting to be bombarded with public union media ads (which are expensive) about saving the pay of public servants and not an offer to reduce union expenses thereby the dues so the workers would have more take home pay. What is the difference to the worker if they receive less gross pay but have less taken out resulting in the same net pay?
Of course there would be less PAC money if union dues reduced......
The talk-radio zombies throw-up their Cato institute talking points, but the Unions are responsible for the middle class.