Specter: I Will Not Vote For Cloture On EFCA

[sachaput]

EFCA is just one reason why Spector is going to have to fight a Dem challenge from the left and have a big problem with Labor. It is apparent his bad showings in his own pre-switch polls reflected problems with both Right & Left voters.

[whispers83]

theater

[oldtownkid]

Well, he knows at this point he has nothing to lose and may win some. He had no chances staying with the GOP, and they backstabbed him anyway for being his own person in some issues. But his chances in the Dem primary are only slightly better. He would need the 30% of GOP primary voters who still support him to switch parties and vote for him in the Dems primary, to add to the moderate and conservative Dems in PA. Let's see how the GOP treats Sen Snow now. They better be careful !

[Richardgwm]

That's okay, come 2010 the Republicans will be down to 35 seats in the Senate.

[beejornk]

oh arlen specter, you're so old.

[ForzaInternazionale9]

Shut it little girl, he'll be more powerful than youll ever be.

[micahgee]

as a robotic zombie?!?

[yahoochatter]

want ass raped?

[beejornk]

but i'm a voter, of course i'm as powerful as the senator that presents my (and all his other constituents') interests to the senate with no personal biases

he just talks for us sometimes... we're all equal

[RoseSkye]

Ahahaha Beejornk you think that a single voter is as powerful as a politician? We're pawns, they're rooks.. They are way above us seperated, and way more powerful. However when we are together we can topple the country let alone a few rooks.

It comes down to the seperation of America into parties to keep us diluted and controllable. Which is as it should be. We should have our say as to which direction the government will go but we shouldn't be the absolute law.

[taoofmichael]

Fuck him then. Get a real Democrat to run against Pat Toomey. Any Democrat would beat Toomey handily in Pennsylvania. Specter better get on board with the working people who want the card check bill passed, so they can form unions easier -- or fuck him.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

the card check issue is one Spector is right on, it should be anonymous, if you would have eveyone vote publicly why not do that for your general elections too ?

Whether right or left americans are such hypocrits

[taoofmichael]

Quit repeating Republican talking points. As always, they are just completely wrong.

Card check streamlines the unionizing process for the workers who want to unionize.

Do you deny that if card check passes, THERE WILL BE MORE UNIONS. Workers are better off, if they are organized.

Why else would the Republicans (always reliably anti-union) oppose card check, if it didnt mean more workers in unions?

i AM FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE BEING ORGANIZED AND HAVING A STRONGER VOICE IN THEIR WORKPLACES.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

you call them republicans talking points, I call them the warnings of first, second and third hand experience.

I'm not for banning or stopping unions, but removing mandatory anonymity from union votes in higly undemocratic. Every vote we take should be private and no one elses business. Not everyone wants to work for a union. It depends on your age, field, experience etc.

anything that takes away an individuals safety, which this card check does, I cannot in good faith support it

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I support when the majority of epople want unions, not when a majority can be forced and coerced into a union. Unions make perfect sense when there is an element of danger to your job. Makes perfect sense to have a union. But in certains office locations where your only problem is getting paper cuts, unions hinder more often than help. Trust me I work for one of Canada's largest emlpoyers. As with everything there must be balance, and this card check tips the scales in favour of unions...

[LeGioNoFZioN]

.... and even you must be aware that unions are more often about helping themselves than their members. I'm not even Americans so how the hell could my experience and that of people close to me be a bloody talking point ?

Think rationally, and reject your partisan straight jacket.

[taoofmichael]

Of course unions have problems, like all human institutions. And those problems should be solved. The bottom line is, workers need organizations, in order to balance the power of multi-national corporations. The only balancing factors are government regulations, and unions. I am for both

Yes, make government and unions more cost-efficient, and less corrupt (again, more government regulation,) But in America, the balance has been way over to the right, (anti-union, deregulation,) for a long time

[LeGioNoFZioN]

for me its completely an issue of choice. I would never stop people from forming them, but neither would I want it to become easy without ensuring each worker was aware of their rights and options. I don't think this card check bill accomplishes that, and as such I would reject it and force the folks who wrote the bill to come up with a version more responsible, and fairer to the people.

I prefer to know the steps we take before taking a leap of blind faith. Balance is the key.

[taoofmichael]

The bottom line is: does "card check" mean more people will be in unions, or fewer. From the Republican response to it, it is clear that THEY AT LEAST UNDERSTAND that MORE people would end up in unions.

I think ALL WORKERS should be organized, and have increased bargaining power. As I look at the history of labor, I see that unions, with all their faults, have been good for working people.

True democracy reflects the will of the REGULAR WORKING PEOPLE. Stands to reason. We have the numbers.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I simply prefer the issue of choice to a pro union stance. When people want to, by all means go right ahead, but I don't like the coercive tactics often employed to get enough support. I would prefer education on the options given to the people, and then a true anonymous vote, where the majority is respected. I simply don't trust most unions to honour this kind of idea given the support for this current measure.

[taoofmichael]

I wonder what the rational argument would be for a worker to remain unorganized, and thus have no bargaining power?

[LeGioNoFZioN]

where I work its simple, I work for one of the best companies to work for in Canada. Some segments of the company are unionized and some are not. those is the unionized areas have better protection from job loss, but make less money. Performance based bonuses and increases were rejected by the union, so unionized folks see 2% increase a year, every year but no bonus.....

[LeGioNoFZioN]

....those of us not in the union see performance based bonuses plus increases, so anywhere from 1% to 4% any given year for increase, and bonus depending on company and individual performance, anywhere from 2% to 10%.

so for us we get paid better being non union. to each their own, and we all here to get to choose. I worked for a unionized department for 2 years, but my experiences in non unionized departments make me not want to go back ever.

[taoofmichael]

Okay, good argument. The opposition to performance based pay may need to be re-examined by the unions. But this is a clear cut case of playing one side against the other.

If the union on the other side did not exist, to give management the incentive to play fair with your side, do you think you would be as happy?

Its like the scab saying "Hey, I'm making good money here." Well, of course you are. But when the corporation successfully breaks the union's back -- you'll be fucked.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

this is only true at my workplace, but it is no less indicative of certain problems in general.

Its not really playing sides when the bulk of the company is not unionized, the union just wanted equal payout for all, and the company said no, so the union stuck to their guns instead of accepting what EVERY other emlpoyee in the company gets. emlpoyees loose because of the union. In other workplaces your argument may work, but my company is REALLY progressive without the unions.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

depending on the issue the side fo the debate that serves the people less should acquiesce. In this case the company line was fair for all, in my view, yet the union wouldn't submit (in all honesty they were worried about performance evaluations leading to dismissal but their actions hurt them doubly).

[taoofmichael]

Yes, sometimes it makes sense to sacrifice some immediate rewards to gain stability and job security.

I sincerely doubt that your company would be as progressive as it apparently is, if the organized voice of the workers had not been involved. But your company has been successful in BREAKING WORKER SOLIDARITY -- by playing one side against the other -- the oldest trick in the book.

Workers need to stand together. No institution will look out for us otherwise, not corporations, not government.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

my argument is this; neither will the unions. It looks out for its own best interest first. just like corps and govs. they are more alike than different. for many jobs and companies, I concede your point, but mine, is an entirely different story. this is why I am not a fan of unions for unions sake, only when those involved are educated and want it. But in today's day and age, not every company needs it, least of all in an office.

[taoofmichael]

Okay. I can buy your assertion that your company, and companies like yours, may not need old style unions. Unions, in my view, need to be constantly monitored by their members -- like any human institution, and made more responsive to THE PEOPLE -- which is what all this is about.

But you must admit, that without unions in the past, your company would still be in the dark ages. So unions played a part in achieving what your company has apparently achieved.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I appreciate the work unions have done in the past and the current climate where many companies are responsible is due directly to their influence. I think jobs that involve personal injury risk should have unions, as peoples lives shouldn't be played with. they have done good, but they should only be, at least currently, where they are wanted by a majority of workers who have not been coerced, unless serious personal injury is likely possible in the job...

[taoofmichael]

A refreshingly nuanced opinion!!

It has been fun interacting with you. You have a unique perspective, and I learned a good deal about Canadian TV and business.

I'm going to bail now, and go watch Rachel Maddow. I will look for you later in the TPM vids.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

it truly has been a pleasure to make your brief acquaintance TaoofMichael, I look forward to exchanging ideas in the future.

Cheers and Salut !

[LeGioNoFZioN]

... in our workplace, there is no oversight of unions, I think if there was I would be less apprehensive about them.