This has to be one of the biggest ironies of the whole bailout. You've driven the economy into the bedrock, stop trying to save us.

Then you must also be in favor of welfare recipients having their voting rights suspended.

You choose to vilify it's opponents. BTW I don't recall seeing Home Depot on the list of bailout recipients.

I you have a case to make in re to the Labor Bill, make it. Attacking it's opponents is typical partisan Zin, and adds nothing to the debate.

And I didn't say all of them were bailout recipients, or that only the bailout recipients were opposed to it.

I also wouldn't give a lot of weight to welfare recipients macro-economic suggestions. These guys still consider themselves experts.

in suggesting that any group shouldn’t lobby a certain political position.

When you say "stop trying to save us", is that a polite request or a suggestion that they shouldn't be allowed to try?

About welfare recipients. . . We are approaching a tipping point where more than 50% of voters don’t pay any income tax. Most of that group do pay SSIC/Medicare tax but given the all low income tax credits available today (and on the rise), this voting block is in a position to do a lot of damage.

As a 20 year member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union, (yep, they do have an airline division), the very last thing you would want as a worker in any business is to eliminate the secret ballot. That is the only guarantee workers have of not getting the shit beat out of them for voting 'no' in a public forum, card signing, etc. Even then, with a secret ballot, if word gets out, your vehicle in the pilots' long term parking lot, may not look the same when you return, as when you left it. Or, someone shits in your flight pubs case in the baggage room while you are busy elsewhere. Not done to me, but I've seen it happen. Believe it or not, someone in the Local sent a package, (overnight express, LOL), full of dog turds to the airline CEO's wife. Seems a few individuals were unhappy with ongoing contract negotiations. The package was sent to the FBI for fingerprints and DNA testing, but results were inconclusive. Lucky them. But I digress........This Bill should be defeated.

To them the ends justify the means. And they classify us as the Neanderthals?

Isn't your post like the "pot calling the kettle black"

Companies employ strong-arm tactics and harassment, too, and will do more of it if this bill passes. They are also in a much better position to perform very effective harassment. One thing that I notice is that when contract negotiations come up, companies suddenly hire a slew of new workers, who of course vote for the first contract proposed. They then they lay them off after the bad contract passes.  

McDonald's has been known to close stores when workers there are about to unionize.

It's hard to tell just how much labor harassment is really the result of unions and how much is just the result of personal vendettas over union issues. I was harassed in a union work-place before because I talked about my vote on contract. Harassment can be redressed in much the way harassment is redressed against companies. That will encourage stewards and union officials to step in and squelch it.  

With card checks, it seems to me that other protections can be put in place. To me, they seem extremely necessary to prevent companies from taking counter-measures to union ballots. When it comes to working conditions, there are other issues of fairness to keep in mind besides the secret ballot-- when you have your boss fighting tooth and nail against unionization.

So I flip them the finger. And on the other hand, they are employed and able to carry on their campaign only because their companies are being rescued.

All the low-income tax credits? I only know of one, and that's the earned income tax credit, which is so pathetic it could be spent on necessities in one month, two tops.

If we're close to 50 percent of people who don't make enough to pay income taxes, then the supply-side economy has been a serious failure all along, and those people should have cast their "damaging" votes about it all along. They would be justified in it years ago. You shouldn't turn around and blame the populace for not making the de-regulated, supply-side economy work.