Friday, March 2, 2007

Rogers votes against the middle class worker


U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers voted against working men and women and the middle class Thursday by voting against HR 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, that would allow workers to organize a union free of an employer’s intimidation, free from fear of being fired and free from retaliation.

Despite Rogers voting against the average wage earner, the bipartisan bill passed by a vote of 241-185 with 13 Republicans voting for the middle class. However, the fight is not over, and it must go on to the Senate for approval. The powerful and rich U.S. Chamber of Commerce is already retaliating by launching a flight of radio ads today in 51 House districts. “We’re making people feel pain. You cannot cross the Chamber and support big labor at any cost,” Chamber national political director Bill Miller said in an interview. “The price is having thousands of dollars of radio run in your district," according to The National Journal of Feb. 27.

Unfortunately, this is one of the worst anti-union, anti-worker and even anti-U.S. manufacturer White Houses in recent years, and President Bush has pledged to veto the EFCA if it reaches his desk. The pro-worker Democrats only have a one-seat majority in the U.S. Senate, and groups like the Chamber plan to pump plenty of cash and resources into the fight.
“It's going to be even bigger and nastier with the whole kitchen sink,” Miller said in the Feb. 27 interview.

The EFCA will end a system that allows employers to coerce, intimidate, harass and threaten and even fire workers who dare to bargain for a better life. It was key to ending a system that allows corporations to destroy America’s middle class and lower working and living standards for all of us by blocking workers’ free choice.

13 comments:

Sally York said...

this is a test

Sally York said...

Good morning having a problem this a.m. with my sign-in. I wrote to Mr.Roger's I know it is probably a waste of time, but makes me feel good.

I let him know that his continual rejection of the middle class, the military benefits and all those things that big business does not want it being noted by individuals as well as bloggers and the press.

Not only that he always answers in writing so these things can be kept for future candidates to use. He says things in letters he doesn't usually say anywhere else.

Anonymous said...

This bill was nothing more than a partisan payback. It will never get passed the senate because of it is trash. The payback is that the unions would be able to intimidate people into voting for represenation. Is this still America? I can't believe that any true liberal would support this, even if it does score a political victory. The secret ballet and honesty in elections should be something that is non partisan. This does a grave disservice to our freedoms. The leadership should be ashamed!

Communications guru said...

It will get passed the Senate, but the anti-middle class president will veto it. Right, we have all kinds of examples where union members intimidated people. Like the Battle of the Overpass in Dearborn in May of l937, the Flint Sit-Down Strike in 1936 and the bloody battle to organize the Republic Steel plant in Monroe in 1935. No wait, those were instances of company thugs killing and maiming workers for daring to want to collectively bargain for wages and safe working conditions. Yes, this is still America, and the passage of this bill proves that. In many shops, all it takes to certify a barraging unit is for a majority of the employees to sign the cards. The election just gives management a chance to launch an assault on the union. The ballot is still secret if you want it to be. Check out this article.

Lance Compa, a senior lecturer at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601245.html) said even when by a big majority workers join a union to bargain collectively, employers can force a vote run by the NLRB. During the weeks it takes to set up the election, management can launch a devastating campaign to thwart workers' choice. Employers say they are just telling employees the downsides of organizing. But they go way beyond that point, hauling workers into mandatory meetings and threatening to shutter the workplace or to permanently replace workers who exercise the right to strike.

While the employer can use that time to harasses workers in mandatory meetings, firing or threatening organizers and management has unlimited power to hold captive-audience meetings where they can legally "predict" workplace closure, as long as they don't illegally "threaten" it (a Supreme Court decision created the distinction, though many understandably have trouble differentiating between the two). And how can union organizers “threaten’ and intimidate” workers by being relegated to passing out flyers to workers speeding out of parking lots and asking time-stressed employees to attend evening or weekend meetings? I guess that sounds pretty fair to you.

Kyle Taylor said...

Sent to Mike Roger's Office :

Dear Mike,

Thanks for voting against HR 800 (The Employee Free Choice Act). It's plainly obvious that low-income and middle class Americans are making too much money and that the union movement in this country is far to obtrusive. You probably already know, but 14% of US workers are part of the "big" labor conspiracy, demanding things like a living-wage and, yes, even "democracy in the workplace." Can you imagine?! Democracy?!

This communist threat must be stopped. The worker's demand to be treated with dignity on the job hinders the free market. Its obvious, then, that workers hate freedom and are thus anti-American. Because of your commitment to big business and your willingness to vote against HR 800, we can rest assured that companies will continue to beat back workers trying to form unions, or as they put it, "demanding justice at work" and preserve that value most fundamental to the American ideal -- the almighty dollar.

I thank you for your commitment in the fight against "big" labor. They say you're either standing with workers or standing with the boss. I'll remember which side you are on come election day.

-- The Boss

P.S. Check's in the mail

Anonymous said...

That has to be the lamest, dumbest letter I have ever read. You say 14% of workers are organized to demand fair treatment. Does that mean that the 86% of workers are all exploited by "big business." A couple more years of Granholm and you don't have to worry about "big business" anymore. They can take all their jobs and leave, that will show them!! By the way, when they take their jobs out of Michigan, that should fix the 14% number, too. All the "big labor" intimidation in the world will not make people organize workforces that don't exsist. Keep it up Michigan, may the last one left turn out the lights!

Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way... I just saw your picture and web page. Now I understand. Another societal loser. Take a bath and get a hair cut. I'm sorry mommy and daddy didn't love you like they should have, but that is not an excuse to be a blood sucker on society the rest of your life. I won't bother to try to explain the free market to you... you don't have the brain power to understand it!

Communications guru said...

Great letter. The sad part is he will never read it or even care. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their lackeys have lots of money to soothe hurt feelings.
I think the number is higher that 14 percent, but even if that’s correct; yes, a good portion of those 86 percent are being exploited by big business.

Wow. I didn’t know Gov. Granholm controlled the auto industry, controlled monetary policy, controlled fiscal policy or enforced the free trade agreements? That would make her the most powerful governor in the nation, and she could do the job of the guy in the White House, since he’s not doing it. I wish that were true then she would actually enforce the trade agreements we have.

I haven’t heard the “may the last one left turn out the lights” line since the ‘70s and early ‘80s when we had double-digit unemployment in Michigan under a Republican governor.

That’s funny. You don’t have the nerve or courage to post even using a screen name. Let along your real name, because you’re afraid to take ownership of what you write and post, but you’re going to criticize and attract Kyle when he has the courage to post both his name and picture?

You, who-ever-you-are, are the bloodsucker on society.

Thanks for posting, Kyle, and we here at Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood hope to hear from you again.

Anonymous said...

Oh CG, lighten up! I guess if the national economy was tanking like our state economy you would be telling us how it' all Bush's fault. But it's not and our lovely governor continues to fiddle while Michigan burns. There has been two major announcements about business leaving the state in the last couple of months and she claims she was caught off guard both times. She is mad that they make their moves because of the stock holders. How long can you continue to defend the incompetence our governor?? She either does not know what she is doing, is out of touch with the business leaders and their decisions until they are already made, or she is a liar.

Communications guru said...

Can you read, who-ever-you are? Am I talking to the same person who posted those ridiculous comments attacking the poster who had the courage to post his name?

The fact is our national economy is not clicking along because wages are down and are not keeping up with inflation, and we have lost 3 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs under Bush’s watch because he refuses to enforce trade agreements.

How is our “lovely Governor” fiddling while Michigan burns? Again, there is little any state governor can do except set tax rates and determine the amount they want to spend on public goods and services, and they do not enforce trade agreements, set fiscal policy and set monetary policy which is causing the problem in Michigan. Our tax rate is competitive with other states with essential services.

The only “major announcement about business” I recall is Pfiser, and it even caught the Vice-president in charge of its Michigan operations off guard, who said the decision was made because the company had too many research facilities after its recent acquisitions and was looking to cut 10 percent of its worldwide workforce.

“She is mad that they make their moves because of the stock holders.” What the hell does that mean?

I get it; you don’t like her because she’s a Democrat.

Kelster93 said...

Oh, Anonymous... it's "a grave disservice to our freedoms"? Hope you didn't strain anything equating EFCA with warrantless wiretapping and vote fraud.

If you're not too tired from the above, please do remind us how long the state legislature was in GOP hands... and which party booted out the SBT without coming up with a replacement? If businesses make location choices based purely on tax burdens, then Alabama should be booming.

Anonymous said...

Alabama is booming compared to Michigan. They have manufacturing plants, including Mercedes, being built all over the place.

Communications guru said...

Then move there. I have been to Alabama; I’ll take Michigan any day of the week. This country has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs under this President, so manufacturing is not “booming” anywhere in the U.S.