Thune wants to put the cement shoes on EFCA

hoffa

Passing the EFCA would bring back guys like this – or Senator Thune would like you to think that.

Thune was at it again, spreading BS lies about labor Unions;

Thune said the bill “is a bad policy” while the current system has worked fairly well since it was put in place in the mid-1930s.

Because what Thune isn’t telling you is that before the 1930’s card check existed until business owners started crying to lawmakers about it. One of the main reasons to bring it back is because we have CEO’s making 400-500 times more then their average worker. I think that is ‘bad policy’.

“We’ve got a process that I think works, but it preserves the right to a secret ballot vote for workers in the workplace, which I think is very pro-worker,” he said. “I don’t view this as being anti-union. I think this is about protecting the rights of workers to cast a secret ballot when it comes to union elections.”

Yeah, because if you can trust anybody’s word, it’s Ironic Johnny who says one thing in SD and another in DC.

An AFL-CIO Federation member was having no part of John’s bologna;

“He’s putting a fear in front of them, and it’s like red meat to some of these folks,” he said. “It’s just putting the red meat in front of them to make them more afraid of working people.”

Nordstrom said the argument over the secret ballot misses the point of the legislation, and the fears of unions are simply unfounded and unfair in this part of the country.

“Like we’re going to come out and kneecap you or something like that? That’s not something that would happen with the morality of South Dakota,” said Nordstrom, an industrial waste technician with the City of Rapid City. “There’s more to the issue than what the senator’s putting out there.”

Of course our pro-worker (ha-ha) governor is against the EFCA to. So predictable;

“It’s not acceptable, not good policy and not anything the federal government should have their nose into,” Rounds said.

But you are okay with taking stimulus money from them? Hypocrite.

Then there is this stupid argument;

Dan Michael of Action Mechanical said the legislation would only hurt the economy just when it needs all the help it can get.

How do you figure? If your employees make more money, they buy more. That’s called stimulating the economy.

Charles Hart, chief executive of Rapid City Regional Healthcare, said he was concerned the legislation would force government-imposed contracts that would hurt the healthcare system’s flexibility in tough economic times.

If you dumbasses would streamline your records system, which was suggested by Al Gore all the way back in 1999, you would save millions a year in healthcare costs.

As for pressuring Johnson, who supports the legislation, Thune said:

“There are people on the Democrat side that are looking at this and listening and might be persuaded.’

Good luck with that. Obama has vowed to sign the legislation if it makes to his desk. I expect it will happen very soon.



11 comments ↓

#1 Costner on 04.08.09 at 8:13 am

One of the main reasons to bring it back is because we have CEO’s making 400-500 times more then their average worker. I think that is ‘bad policy’.

That happens just as often in union shops as it does in non-union shops. What did the CEOs of GM or Ford make the last 10 years versus what did the average worker make during the same period?

Shareholders of the company are the ones who should have the say in the matter – and if they continue to buy the stock of the company they are sending the message that they approve. If they refuse to buy the stock and the share price falls, the salary of the CEO will return to a balance (most likely because he will be forced out and replaced).

#2 Costner on 04.08.09 at 8:17 am

If your employees make more money, they buy more. That’s called stimulating the economy.

In theory, but there is a point where the balance is out of whack and the company cannot continue to pay more. This results in layoffs, and layoffs tend to snowball because one person out of work doesn’t tend to buy anything, and that leads to decreased demand which can lead to more layoffs. Sort of like what is happening right now.

It might sound like a great solution to pay employees more, but real business doesn’t work like that. If labor costs are more, the cost of the product and/or service is raised to compensate. Other companies follow suit, and suddenly the purchasing power of these increases wages no longer have a positive impact and they are right back where they started.

There is a natural balance of worker pay. Pay them too little and quality will suffer as good workers go elsewhere. Pay them too much and you can’t compete and lose market share to the competition which leads to layoffs or bankruptcy. When you attempt to artificially control wages in either direction, you are destined for failure.

#3 l3wis on 04.08.09 at 9:08 am

Costner – we both know that SD is the land of cheap labor, just like Nordstrom says in the article,
“Like we’re going to come out and kneecap you or something like that? That’s not something that would happen with the morality of South Dakota,”

I don’t think South Dakotans will be asking to be paid extravagant amounts, just fairly. I have found that most working class South Dakotans are not greedy and are hard workers. I don’t think those virtues would change if they get paid more, in fact they would probably work harder. Business owners assume that their workers are greedy like them, and it’s just not the case, especially in SD.

#4 Ghost of Dude on 04.08.09 at 9:20 am

Assuming business owners are greedy isn’t any better. They’re trying to maintain their shop as a going concern. That means not promising in good times what can’t be done in bad times.

#5 Costner on 04.08.09 at 10:31 am

I have found that most working class South Dakotans are not greedy and are hard workers. I don’t think those virtues would change if they get paid more, in fact they would probably work harder.

I agree most are not greedy and work hard, but I don’t agree that if you pay someone more they will automatically work harder either.

It might work for a short time, but unless pay is tied directly to performance via quotas or mandates, or unless employees are granted a large percentage of their compensation via shares of company stock or via bonuses that are only paid if specific goals are met – paying people more rarely produces the expected result.

Rest assured if employers find themselves being forced to negotiate with unions and are forced to raise wages, there will be layoffs and business closings as a direct result. That isn’t fear-mongering… it is just a fact.

#6 l3wis on 04.08.09 at 10:46 am

“Rest assured if employers find themselves being forced to negotiate with unions and are forced to raise wages, there will be layoffs and business closings as a direct result. ”

I agree, but that won’t be the case 100% of the time. I think the amount of unions that form in SD because of EFCA will be minimal. I think they are making mountains out of molehills over this. Thune doesn’t care about the average SD small business or worker, this is about pleasing his party and being a good soldier.

#7 Costner on 04.08.09 at 2:58 pm

I can’t say as I disagree with any of that. I actually tend to agree with Thune on the issue for reasons we have discussed in the past, but I think he is making an issue out of it for the wrong reasons. He is following the party line as is expected, so when he makes statements about this being about the workers it is clear he is just hoping a few people will take his word for it.

#8 l3wis on 04.09.09 at 6:03 am

I may hammer Munson on this blog more then any other politician, but I will admit, that Thune is the biggest snake in the grass. At least Munson isn’t on KELO every other day lying his ass off.

#9 l3wis on 04.09.09 at 6:03 am

. . . just misleading.

#10 Randall on 04.09.09 at 8:15 am

This goes directly to the problem with nearly ALL of conservative’s arguments today:

If Republicans have a valid point, then why do they have to lie?

#11 l3wis on 04.09.09 at 8:35 am

Hard habit to break, I guess.

Leave a Comment