Results matching “card check”

"Voter intimidation" and card checks - PointOfLaw Forum

Dan McLaughlin on Congress's rush to repeal the secret-ballot precondition for compulsory union recognition in the workplace:

Republicans, for some time now, have been pushing for fairly tame measures to prevent voter fraud, most of which revolve around requiring voters to show some form of identification and otherwise leave a record that enables a determination of who, precisely, voted. In response to these common-sense proposals and other efforts to assure the integrity of the ballot, Democrats invariably complain that Republicans are engaging in some form of voter intimidation. Apparently, according to Democrats, even the mere act of having to properly identify yourself is so intimidating as to inhibit the right to vote.

Well. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, they are hard at work on legislation in another election context that will go far beyond mere identification, and eliminate secret ballots entirely, allowing voters to be pressured, even by their co-workers and in their own homes, to vote a specific way....

Remember this: any Democrat who votes in favor of a "card check" system, in which union organizers are looking right over the voter's shoulder, should absolutely never be taken seriously again in arguing that far less intrusive efforts to simply identify voters who cast secret ballots in the privacy of a voting booth is somehow "voter intimidation."

On Wednesday the House Education and Labor Committee approved the card-check bill on a party-line vote. Earlier: Feb. 2.

Update Mar. 18: blog coverage of the issue includes Mickey Kaus and Megan McArdle (critical of bill), Lindsay Beyerstein at Majikthise (all for it, who needs secret ballots anyway?), and Union-Free Employer (picking apart a particularly ill-considered, even for that newspaper, editorial). See also Tresa Baldas's coverage in the NLJ.

Card check for me, but not for thee - PointOfLaw Forum

The mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act" would do away with secret ballot elections in union certifications, instead installing unions as exclusive representatives once they proffer a majority of authorization cards signed by workers individually in settings where a 250-lb. Teamster may be looking over their shoulders ("You got a problem with that?") Comments Larry Lindsey in the W$J:

The final proof that this bill is about union power, and not worker choice, is revealed by its treatment of the flip side of unionization: decertification elections. These are secret ballot elections in which workers get to decide that they have had enough of the union. So under the Employee Free Choice Act can a majority of workers decertify the union by signing a card? Not on your life. Here unions want the chance to engage in a campaign to give workers both sides of the story -- and maybe do a better job of representing them -- before the union's fate is decided, by a secret-ballot vote.

[Apologies if this has already been posted: I just found out about it, and am leaving for the airport for a speaking enagement so cannot check past postings. MK]

A Federal jury has just found for Merck In a post-warning Vioxx Case. [subscription to Lexis required]

The suit against Merck was taken by a 56-year-old Kentucky man, and was the first trial involving Vioxx prescribed after an April 2002 change to the product label to include information about cardiovascular risk. (In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657, Robert Garry Smith v. Merck & Co. Inc., No. 05-4379, E.D. La.; See August 2006, Page 10).

A source told Mealey's Publications that the jury answered "no" to these special verdict questions - whether Merck, by a preponderance of the evidence, failed to adequately warn the plaintiff's treating physician of a risk created by Vioxx; and whether Merck, by clear and convincing evidence, knowingly failed to disclose a material fact to Smith's treating physician in a circumstance in which it was required to do so.

Lawprof blogs proliferate - PointOfLaw Forum

Daniel Solove has an incomplete but useful census of the scores of weblogs out there by law professors, including many new ones. Among those worth checking out: ContractsProf Blog, with several contributors; Federal Civil Practice Bulletin, by Benjamin Spencer of U. Richmond; The Confrontation Blog by Richard Friedman of Michigan, a blog devoted to the Constitutional right to confront one's accusers; PropertyProf Blog by Benjamin Barros of Widener; and Tillers on Evidence by Peter Tillers of Cardozo, who cites a fascinating bit from Green Bag about how courts in Iceland handle the problem of expertise -- they invite the experts in as lay judges rather than as witnesses.

  1 2 3 4 5 6