« Why Panetta for CIA? | Main | Pass the pork and praise the senator »

January 13, 2009

Employee Free Choice Act helps workers

John Loudon’s proposed amendment to Missouri’s state Constitution isn’t about protecting the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot (1/12, Opinion, “As I See It”). He wants to protect the growing divide between rich and poor.

Wages and benefits for working-class Americans continue to fall. The Employee Free Choice Act is an attempt to establish a level playing field for workers and union organizers in their struggle against employers and contractors who exploit and intimidate their employees. We have to restore our working middle-class in order to have a healthy economy.

Obscene CEO wages, Ponzi schemes and shareholder greed have put the American worker in the backseat for too long. People have voted for hope and change in this last election. The Employee Free Choice Act is in the interest of hope and change.

Bob Kanatzar



I am speaking about your daily comments on your fear of our socialist President elect and his "plans" to give all of our money to the deadbeats(non-taxpayers).

Just having a little fun here, my friend.

Pub 17

The 40% figure is "fact," in the sense that it's a fact that 60% of us pay ALL of the taxes for our streets and roads. The other 40% are freeloaders, pure and simple. (Make up your own percentage; I just did).

Except that includes, at one end of the scale, bicyclists, pedestrians, and Italians with pushcarts. At the other end, we're not counting, of course, all the commerical traffic: any truckers out there? You guys pay any taxes last year?

EXACTLY the same thing. That 40% figure is based on 1040s, and includes every kid who works for McDonald's in the summer, every (honest) day care provider, and every 1099 worker in the country who makes over $200 a year (or whatever, look it up youself: Pub 17). AND it doesn't count corporate taxpayers.



Please elucidate on "Engineer is afraid of the boogeymen and women". Just on what is this comment based? Scared of women? I would probably have starved to death if I haven't have had women to feed me when the army wasn't. The 40% figure is fact. Bob K, as well as many of those of like opinions, is very likely in the 40% group. I don't know what Pub 17's excuse is.


Engineer is afraid of the boogeymen and women. That is why he goes back to that figure.

As we've seen already from Obama, reality once having been elected is different than reality while he was running.(just like everyone else ever elected) Let's see how this all works out.

Pub 17

Engineer, I believe the matter of that silly 40% figure has been beaten to death. Why return to it?


I'm sure no one will accuse Bob Kanatzar
of being a deep thinker on economic subjects. However opinions like his make me wonder about the future of the Nation. Ben Franklin supposedly said that we have a Republic and can keep it until the voters learn they can lute the treasury. With 40% paying no Federal income tax and thinking like that demonstrated by Bob K perhaps we are getting to that point.


Protection for the workers, really. Like when management decides that the work force become members of a union, with no vote from the workers? This done with the blessings of the unions, so protective of the workers.
Now they want to make sure everyone knows who is voting for the union, and more importantly who is not.
The letter writer failed to discuss the obscene pay that union heads receive, the gross lobbying, the contemptible support of candidates and organizations that members may have serious moral or other reasons for not personally supporting. All this done by forced union dues (remember, you don't actually have to be a union member to be forced to pay dues).
Protection for the worker, more like another way to rape a pay check.


"Obscene CEO wages, Ponzi schemes and shareholder greed have put the American worker in the backseat for too long."

Good point, T. I'd also wonder where this guy was going with the "shareholder greed" angle. I get the feeling he threw in every "catch word" he's heard in the last few months, hoping that something would stick.

I'd love for someone to please explain to me why secret-ballot elections are a bad thing? Yeah, I get that the union wants to make it as easy as possible to gain members, especially when membership is on the decline, but how can a measure that obviously encourages strong-arming gain so much traction?

T. Hanson

The Ponzi scheme really did not target the "Average Worker" unless of course you were lucky enough to earn over 1.5 million a year. In which case I doubt you would be part of a union.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright