Wonder if he grew his ‘working man’s mustache back?
Opponents of card check legislation want to protect their wallets, not anyone’s right to vote on union elections, said union officials in Rapid City on Thursday.
“They’re dead set against it, because it takes money out of their pocket, it’s that simple,” said Mark Anderson, president and financial secretary of the South Dakota State Federation of Labor AFL-CIO. “It’s simply an issue of money — who gets it, who keeps it.”
Mark, Mark, Mark. Really. Are you saying some South Dakota business owners are money hungry greedy bastards that don’t want to pay their workers a fair wage? Where would you get an idea like that? It’s not like we rate dead last in wages in this country or that South Dakotans have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Obviously this has nothing to do with it.
Anderson said opponents often latch onto the secret ballot issue to claim the card check method is undemocratic.
“So when you hear all the hoopla, from the employers’ side and the opponents, I think that’s a bald-faced lie,”
Are you calling South Dakota Neo-cons liars? Get out. Now go get your magic markers and help me make a Tea Party sign that says, “Kill Socialism – Buy Guns.”
One petition organizer, former U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dykstra of Canton, told The Associated Press that the South Dakota ballot proposal is the same as efforts in other states and is affiliated with the national Save Our Secret Ballot organization.
“We’re not anti-union. We just believe employees should have the right to select their representation by secret ballot,” Dykstra said.
Yeah Joel, I believe you, because if anyone has credibility in the business and political realm, it’s you . . .
It’s important to increase union membership, because unions are responsible for the creation of the middle class, Anderson said. As unions have weakened over the last several decades, the gap between the rich and poor in the country has grown larger, he said, and the middle class has disappeared.
And that’s just the way they like it.
I was worried that this effort might go somewhere until I heard Joel is in charge. I hope he runs it like his campaigne!
Probably.
Made me laugh when he said, “We are not Anti-Union.”
Okay. Neocon.
We should build a statue for people like Mark Anderson who stand up for the working people of our state!
You didn’t get the statue policy rules manual for South Dakota?
Acceptable statues:
– Wildlife (mostly waterfowl)
– Children playing on swings
– Soldiers
– Billionaire Philantropists
Everything else in unacceptable.
At least spell his name right when you tag the post.
I might not agree with much of what Dykstra stands for, but I do agree with this one. The concept of a private ballot must be preserved at all costs as it is the one and only way to ensure there is no threat of intimidation from either side.
Everything else in unacceptable.
Unless it kind of looks like a golf ball and sits in front of the office of an insurance company – you know, to remind them of their afternoon tee time.
You have to wonder what the unions are afraid of, if they don’t want a secret ballot.
Poor Costner.Could you at least do some orginal thinking? It’s booring to hear the same talking points from the chamber.
Besides you would find something else to be opposed to if the ballot stuff was removed from the bill. You’re not a friend of labor. So stop acting like it.
If you want T Denny to be richer, while abusing those in his cube hell just admit it!
So John, I guess you can’t defend the removal of the secret ballot so you decide to resort to an ad hominem attack instead?
Sorry, but I don’t get my talking points from the Chamber or anyone else. I am more than able to think for myself, and as we have discussed on this board several times when you remove a secret ballot option from people and move to a “sign this out in the open” concept, there is room for intimidation.
Don’t tell me what I am and don’t imply this is anti-union or pro-“T Denny” because as I’ve said many times intimidation can come from both sides.
Think of that guy who signs his card only to find that the union can’t get enough members. Now his employer knows he wants a union and when they find themselves needing to have a few layoffs who do you think will find their name at the top of the list?
Thanks – but I’d rather keep union ballots just like we have elections for politicians… in secret.
Now if you want to act like an adult and debate the merits of a secret ballot vs. forcing people to allow others to see their intentions then please by all means offer some points and I’ll consider it. Otherwise your assumptions are as valuable as used chewing gum.
Costner, we know how you feel about this issue. I think the bigger point of the article is the irony of one of the biggest neocons in the state heading up the effort, Dykstra. Yes, he is a neocon, and a whiny one at that. I don’t think Johnson should have ran again, I even went and read all of Joel’s materials and website to see how he measured up, I could not find one shred of moderacy. He is a neocon. Whether you are for or against this measure, really doesn’t matter, the other side picked the wrong person to head it up – but no surprise. I find it laughable that the people that are against card check can’t recruit any actual workers or at least moderate Republicans to help their cause. That speaks volumes to me.
Lewis – the problem is there is no organization behind the “opposition” to this issue other than pro-business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, and when they speak out they are immediately called “anti-worker” or some other clever label.
It tends to be a lot easier to find people willing to show force in support of the bill considering they are backed by millions of union members.
As for Dykstra, I can’t say I know much about the guy because all he ever did during his campaign is whine that Johnson wouldn’t debate him. Try as I might I never did figure out what he actually stood for, and if wasn’t willing to tell me I wasn’t about to support him.