On Tuesday June 26, the republicans in the Senate blocked one of organized labor's top "legislative priority this year", a bill designed to make it easier for unions to organize workers at nonunion workplaces. The vote was split close between the republicans and democrats and resulted in a tallly of 51 - 48 leaving democrats 9 votes short of passing this bill. The union workers believe that this act creates a situation of the rich vs the common man.
I believe that this bill should have been passed in order to help the middle-wage man in the UThe bill would have required employers to recognize unions if more than half of eligible workers signed union cards. Under a law dating back 60 years, employers who are presented with union cards from a majority of their employees may demand an election by secret ballot — a procedure designed to prevent coercion of workers by unions. However I believe it was interesting to read about how close the Senate was in their votes. It was very close displaying the fact that any bill, if not obviously one-sided, could go either way.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-union27jun27,1,1603061.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I do not agree with you on this one. Although it would have helped the some middle-wage men, you have to think of the long term affect of the bill.
I disagree with some of the supports of the bill in the article. The argument of rich vs. poor is a sad truth and sometimes an injustice, but union membership had been dropping for decades. This is not so much because of the the gap between rich and poor, but it is because labor unions were first created when business monopolies were taking extreme advantage of the working man. Even if union bosses are trying to pass this bill to gain new union members, it's not likely to be successful. Workers simply aren't in a crisis great enough that they seek union support.
I agree with kkiri. I believe that if this bill was passed, it would have helped the middle-wage class, but eventually, the bill would have failed due to its unlikeliness to becoming successful. It is really sad how the debate of poor v.s rich is becoming the most widely used form of disrimination.
It's too bad the bill wasn't passed. All this does is widen the gap between the rich and the common worker even more. But I guess that's how voting is - 2/3 of the votes needed to pass a bill.
This bill should have been passed there are too many rich and the rate wil keep getting higher. This bill was designed to help the middle class. If we passed the bill we could getr closer to the rich. The sad part is if the bill was passed the poor would get poorer. So in a way it is good t he bill was not passed.
Post a Comment