So...I bet 'Mr. Dawes' probably doesn't know the first things about the Acts of Congress that enabled unions(and eventually had to restrict them too). So Mr. Dawes are you trying to challenge a document that says unions MUST be voted in by employees and are going to forcably make them? You are going to go up then against an act that in its very wording allowed only changes for constitutionality, but not complete scrapping of it.
If you are so confident in unions, allow employees their current right to vote them in if they want them, but I get a very suspicious feeling he's not realy comfy with how that works now since some elections can be *gasp* lost and unions sent packing.
I'm not totally anti-union either. They do serve their purpose, but I do not think an employee should have to belong to one or that a group of employees should be FORCED to have an exclusive bargaining agent if they don't want one.
As for Sec of Labor, there probably isn't a person on that board that holds a balanced view or any sense of economics that should hold any position of power and influence.
To the guy in the AFL-CIO, one of the AFL's founding beliefs was the belief in capitalism. The last thing they ever wanted to do was bankrupt or hostage a company from being able to grow and prosper, recongnizing that if the company does well, they have more power to bargain for the employees. You have just helped elect with the help of your out of touch leadership a president who is a hindrance to business doing well and a hindrance to small business developing to the point that the union can even have a fighting chance of being voted in. Congrats on shooting yourselves in your collective feet.
For my CC friends, the reason for the union rant was the accredations given in support of their qualifications and the fact that they are both union members and rabid DU-ites which in itself makes their views likely extreme on the issue of unionization.
