Saturday, February 7, 2009
Don't Divorce us!
"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
Don't be a Gaycist. It's people what we are dealing with here!!
Friday, February 6, 2009
This is what the 2008 Electoral Map would look like if the Election were decided by 18-29 year olds
Courtesy of Orange County Young Democrats, OCYD
This just shows the reasons why Republicans have fought so hard to cut additional funding for Schools and Higher Education away from the Stimulus Bill. Education is the enemy of conservative ideology.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
What California and the United States have both in common?
What California and the United States both have in common?
1) Both are world economies: The USA is the #1 economy in the world while California is the 5th largest economy of the world.
2) Both hold huge budget deficits: The USA holds over a trillion dollar deficit while California holds a 42 billion dollar deficit.
3) The top executives who managed the state economies in the last 8 yrs are republicans.
4) Both, the USA and CA, were in much better financial shape before the republican executives took over.
Just coincidence and bad luck or is this another example of how incompetent are republicans in managing the taxpayers resources?
1) Both are world economies: The USA is the #1 economy in the world while California is the 5th largest economy of the world.
2) Both hold huge budget deficits: The USA holds over a trillion dollar deficit while California holds a 42 billion dollar deficit.
3) The top executives who managed the state economies in the last 8 yrs are republicans.
4) Both, the USA and CA, were in much better financial shape before the republican executives took over.
Just coincidence and bad luck or is this another example of how incompetent are republicans in managing the taxpayers resources?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Gallup: Dems lead in party ID in 44 states
http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/gallup-dems-lead-party-id-44-states
Call it the Obama effect or call it the George Bush effect. Whatever you call it, its name is "bad news" for the Republican Party.
Gallup:
The political landscape of the United States has clearly shifted in the Democratic direction, and in most states, a greater proportion of state residents identified as Democrats or said they leaned to the Democratic Party in 2008 than identified as Republicans or leaned Republican.
As recently as 2002, a majority of states were Republican in orientation. By 2005, movement in the Democratic direction was becoming apparent, and this continued in 2006. That dramatic turnaround is clearly an outgrowth of Americans' dissatisfaction with the way the Republicans (in particular, President George W. Bush) governed the country.
With Democratic support at the national level the highest in more than two decades and growing each of the last five years, Republican prospects for significant gains in power in the near term do not appear great. But the recent data do show that party support can change rather dramatically in a relatively short period of time.
America a "center-right" nation? Give me a break.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Truth About EFCA and Secret Ballot Elections
The Truth About EFCA and Secret Ballot Elections
Posted on January 29, 2009 by dsalaborblogmoderator
http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/the-truth-about-efca-and-secret-ballot-elections/
by Dmitri Iglitzin
dmitriThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce has promised to spend $10 million opposing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the proposed federal law that would allow workers to form unions based on a showing of majority support, sometimes referred to as a “card check” election. Other big bucks are being spent by faux-grassroots organizations with misleading names such as the “Coalition for a Democratic Workplace” and the “Center for Union Facts.” President Barack Obama was not exaggerating when he said, recently, that the business community considers EFCA “the devil incarnate.”
The focal point of opposition to EFCA is the provisions that make it easier for workers to form unions without going through a secret ballot election. Opponents contend that without secret ballot elections, workers will be coerced by union organizers into signing cards or petitions. As one opponent, Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), put it, “It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone – your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers – knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee ‘free choice.’”
But fatally undermining this argument is a dirty little secret known as “Wurtland Nursing.”
Wurtland Nursing provides rehabilitative, hospice, and long-term care to residents in Wurtland, KY. A local affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing unions, has represented the maintenance and service employees at this facility since 1997.
In 2003 a Wurtland Nursing employee presented the company a petition signed by over 50 percent of the workers asking for a vote to remove the union. Wurtland Nursing immediately repudiated its relationship with SEIU and declared itself a non-union company.
The union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the nation’s chief arbiter of labor disputes, contending that Wurtland Nursing had no right to reject the union without a secret ballot election having occurred. Four years later, the NLRB decided in favor of the company, saying that it didn’t matter that there had not been an actual vote. The petition was all the proof the company needed to conclude that the workers no longer wanted to be represented by the union.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did not denounce this decision. Neither the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace nor the Center for Union Facts raised a stink. Despite the fact that Wurtland Nursing had stripped its employees of their union on the basis of signatures on a petition, rather than after a secret ballot election, no prominent critic of EFCA has ever criticized the outcome of that case.
Yet the principle supposedly being violated by EFCA, the need for a secret ballot, is violated as much by the Wurtland Nursing rule, which allows employers to repudiate unions based on petition signatures, as it would be by EFCA, which would allow workers to obtain union representation in the same manner.
The truth is that neither business nor labor genuinely doubts that signatures on a petition or on cards are a legitimate and appropriate basis for determining what the majority of workers want. It is high time for employers to acknowledge that truth, along with the fact there is nothing wrong with permitting workers to ask openly to be represented by a union, and for their employers to thereby become obligated to honor that request.
A December 2006 Peter D. Hart Research Associates survey found that 60 million Americans would like to join a union, but are discouraged from doing so by employer intimidation. An April, 2007 Institute for America’s Future study estimates that passage of the EFCA would increase union membership by 10 percent, providing an additional 3,537,625 people with health insurance and 2,773,045 more people with pensions.
In this time of economic crisis those numbers are a compelling argument for EFCA. In contrast, the argument that EFCA will undermine secret ballot elections falls apart in light of the Wurtland Nursing rule. And no amount of employer rhetoric can put that argument back together again.
Dmitri Iglitzin is a partner in the law firm, Schwerin Campbell Barnard & Iglitzin. His practice is centered on labor and employment law. Advising and representing labor unions in local, state, and federal proceedings,
Posted on January 29, 2009 by dsalaborblogmoderator
http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/the-truth-about-efca-and-secret-ballot-elections/
by Dmitri Iglitzin
dmitriThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce has promised to spend $10 million opposing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the proposed federal law that would allow workers to form unions based on a showing of majority support, sometimes referred to as a “card check” election. Other big bucks are being spent by faux-grassroots organizations with misleading names such as the “Coalition for a Democratic Workplace” and the “Center for Union Facts.” President Barack Obama was not exaggerating when he said, recently, that the business community considers EFCA “the devil incarnate.”
The focal point of opposition to EFCA is the provisions that make it easier for workers to form unions without going through a secret ballot election. Opponents contend that without secret ballot elections, workers will be coerced by union organizers into signing cards or petitions. As one opponent, Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), put it, “It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone – your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers – knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee ‘free choice.’”
But fatally undermining this argument is a dirty little secret known as “Wurtland Nursing.”
Wurtland Nursing provides rehabilitative, hospice, and long-term care to residents in Wurtland, KY. A local affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing unions, has represented the maintenance and service employees at this facility since 1997.
In 2003 a Wurtland Nursing employee presented the company a petition signed by over 50 percent of the workers asking for a vote to remove the union. Wurtland Nursing immediately repudiated its relationship with SEIU and declared itself a non-union company.
The union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the nation’s chief arbiter of labor disputes, contending that Wurtland Nursing had no right to reject the union without a secret ballot election having occurred. Four years later, the NLRB decided in favor of the company, saying that it didn’t matter that there had not been an actual vote. The petition was all the proof the company needed to conclude that the workers no longer wanted to be represented by the union.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did not denounce this decision. Neither the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace nor the Center for Union Facts raised a stink. Despite the fact that Wurtland Nursing had stripped its employees of their union on the basis of signatures on a petition, rather than after a secret ballot election, no prominent critic of EFCA has ever criticized the outcome of that case.
Yet the principle supposedly being violated by EFCA, the need for a secret ballot, is violated as much by the Wurtland Nursing rule, which allows employers to repudiate unions based on petition signatures, as it would be by EFCA, which would allow workers to obtain union representation in the same manner.
The truth is that neither business nor labor genuinely doubts that signatures on a petition or on cards are a legitimate and appropriate basis for determining what the majority of workers want. It is high time for employers to acknowledge that truth, along with the fact there is nothing wrong with permitting workers to ask openly to be represented by a union, and for their employers to thereby become obligated to honor that request.
A December 2006 Peter D. Hart Research Associates survey found that 60 million Americans would like to join a union, but are discouraged from doing so by employer intimidation. An April, 2007 Institute for America’s Future study estimates that passage of the EFCA would increase union membership by 10 percent, providing an additional 3,537,625 people with health insurance and 2,773,045 more people with pensions.
In this time of economic crisis those numbers are a compelling argument for EFCA. In contrast, the argument that EFCA will undermine secret ballot elections falls apart in light of the Wurtland Nursing rule. And no amount of employer rhetoric can put that argument back together again.
Dmitri Iglitzin is a partner in the law firm, Schwerin Campbell Barnard & Iglitzin. His practice is centered on labor and employment law. Advising and representing labor unions in local, state, and federal proceedings,
Obama’s Statement on the House’s Vote
January 28, 2009, 7:36 pm
Obama’s Statement on the House’s Vote
“Last year, America lost 2.6 million jobs. On Monday alone, we learned that some of our biggest employers plan to cut another 55,000. This is a wakeup call to Washington that the American people need us to act and act immediately.
That is why I am grateful to the House of Representatives for moving the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan forward today. There are many numbers in this plan. It will double our capacity to generate renewable energy. It will lower the cost of health care by billions and improve its quality. It will modernize thousands of classrooms and send more kids to college. And it will put billions of dollars in immediate tax relief into the pockets of working families.
But out of all these numbers, there is one that matters most to me: this recovery plan will save or create more than three million new jobs over the next few years.
I can also promise that my administration will administer this recovery plan with a level of transparency and accountability never before seen in Washington. Once it is passed, every American will be able to go the website recovery.gov and see how and where their money is being spent.
The plan now moves to the Senate, and I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk. But what we can’t do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way. We must move swiftly and boldly to put Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this plan begins to do.”
Obama’s Statement on the House’s Vote
“Last year, America lost 2.6 million jobs. On Monday alone, we learned that some of our biggest employers plan to cut another 55,000. This is a wakeup call to Washington that the American people need us to act and act immediately.
That is why I am grateful to the House of Representatives for moving the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan forward today. There are many numbers in this plan. It will double our capacity to generate renewable energy. It will lower the cost of health care by billions and improve its quality. It will modernize thousands of classrooms and send more kids to college. And it will put billions of dollars in immediate tax relief into the pockets of working families.
But out of all these numbers, there is one that matters most to me: this recovery plan will save or create more than three million new jobs over the next few years.
I can also promise that my administration will administer this recovery plan with a level of transparency and accountability never before seen in Washington. Once it is passed, every American will be able to go the website recovery.gov and see how and where their money is being spent.
The plan now moves to the Senate, and I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk. But what we can’t do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way. We must move swiftly and boldly to put Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this plan begins to do.”
Democrats who voted against the Obama stimulus plan
http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/1/28/184535/230/514/497
Allen Boyd (D-FL-02)
Bobby Bright (D-AL-02)
Jim Cooper (D-TN-05)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN-08)
Parker Griffith (D-AL-05)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA-11)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD-01)
Walt Minnick (D-ID-01)
Colliin Peterson (D-MN-07)
Heath Shuler (D-NC-11)
Gene Taylor (D-MS-04)
Allen Boyd (D-FL-02)
Bobby Bright (D-AL-02)
Jim Cooper (D-TN-05)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN-08)
Parker Griffith (D-AL-05)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA-11)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD-01)
Walt Minnick (D-ID-01)
Colliin Peterson (D-MN-07)
Heath Shuler (D-NC-11)
Gene Taylor (D-MS-04)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)