English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Could democrats please explain with any intellectual honesty why they are encouraging a law that would make it known if you voted for a union or not by eliminating the secret ballots, therefore sucessfully intimidating the average worker to vote pro union is this the kind of thugery that represent the democratic party.

2007-03-20 07:43:01 · 5 answers · asked by Ynot! 6 in Politics & Government Elections

5 answers

The requirement for secret voting in politics arises from the constitutional protections regarding voting.

As far as voting for a union, that would be a private (not govt) matter, and thus outside the scope of constitutional protection.

The idea for making such votes non-secret is that a union has certain collective bargaining power, and acts on behalf of the union members as an advocate. The union would not have the legal authority to do so, unless the majority of the union members actually agreed to such representation. And there is no way to determine if the majority agreed if the union was allowed to keep the ballot results secret.

So, as a matter of law, if a union member challenges the legal authority of the union reps to act as their agent, they need to be able to prove one way or another whether the rep was acting with legal authority. That requires the results of the union vote be non-secret. It's simple contract-agency law.

2007-03-20 07:46:49 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2 2

This is indeed the thugery represented by Unions and the Democratic party. Unions, when first instituted were wonderful organizations that fought for workers safety and better pay. They have evolved into nothing more than a wing of the Democratic party who cares nothing for the workers but only for their narrow ideological agenda.

2007-03-20 14:48:31 · answer #2 · answered by Frednok 1 · 2 2

Coyragryph, legal issues aside, can you not at least see the potential for intimidation here? Unions aren't known for soft stances on dissent, so shouldn't an employee have the right to vote secretly?

2007-03-20 14:58:49 · answer #3 · answered by desotobrave 6 · 1 0

the union is siding with reb's now. the union is like a ships sail. The people in the union well thats a diffrent story.

2007-03-20 15:32:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

IF IT WILL LINE THEIR POCKETS THEN THEY WILL DO IT. THE UNION LOBBIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE TYPES OF LEGISLATION. THE DEMOCRATS JUST TAKE THE MONEY AND VOTE AGAINST THE BLUE COLLAR GUY. THE UNION WILL THEN KNOW WHO VOTED FOR OR AGAINST. IF THEY WIN THEY FIND A WAY TO CHOKE OUT THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED AGAINST. UNIONS ARE STILL IN LEAGUE WITH THE MAFIA AND DEMOCRATS ARE IN LEAGUE WITH UNIONS. THEN THEY WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

2007-03-20 14:51:52 · answer #5 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers