Union conflict is creative, but shouldn't influence policy
Q: Are unions good for America?
A: The creative conflict that occurs between unions and management is usually a good thing. When unions, I think, get off track is when they start to influence
public policy, especially with regard to allowing illegal immigration into the country, because they want to fill up their ranks. That's why they can be problematic.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007
No "sexual orientation" in Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Q: I own a motion picture film lab that came under fire by the Arlington Human Rights Commission because I refused to duplicate objectionable pro-homosexual material. Would you protect business owners like me from being forced to violate our moral
conscience by vetoing the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" that would add the phrase "sexual orientation" into federal law?
In terms of visas--I don't know whether the president realizes this [when he talks about guest workers], but let's talk about H-2A visas which are the kind that allowed for people to come in and do agricultural work. There are no limits on those visas.
You can have as many as you want. People don't use them because, of course, there are restrictions in terms of pay, in terms of providing some sort of housing, in terms of providing some sort of health care. So they would rather use illegal immigrants.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer
Mar 4, 2007
Americans don't shun jobs; they shun low wages
Americans have voiced concern that that cracking down on illegal immigrants would impact certain industries, such as agriculture, because it would rob those industries of workers who are both willing and able to do the jobs they require--jobs, they say,
Americans don't want.
Let's be clear about what is really going on in terms of jobs "Americas won't do": (1) they aren't shunning those jobs, they are shunning the bottom-of-the-barrel wages those jobs pay; and (2) those jobs are paying
bottom-of-the-barrel wages because they are going to low-skilled illegal workers who are willing to do them for far less than an American worker needs to live.
The right question is not why someone will not take a $6/hour job when he or she needs $10 o
$20/hour to live. The right question is how can they take such a cut in pay & survive? After Americans have, for generations, fought for and won a better standard of living, why should they be expected to give it up so non-citizens can work? It's absurd.
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing.
To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts. Requires investigation that an employer:
discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.
Proponents support voting YES because:
The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize
unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents.
Opponents support voting NO because:
Democracy itself is placed at risk by this bill. The sanctity of the secret ballot is the backbone of our democratic process. Not one voter signed a card to send us here to Congress. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with candidate information & a stack of authorization cards. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. But here we are, poised to advance legislation to kill a secret ballot process.
Let's be clear. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we have codified it and made it possible for workers to do so through a secret ballot.
Reference: The Employee Free Choice Act;
Bill H R 800
; vote number 2007-118
on Mar 1, 2007
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.
Increase the federal minimum wage to:
$5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
$6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
$7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.
Proponents support voting YES because:
We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This bill is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98% of the new businesses in the US. What protection does this bill provide them? None whatsoever.
We can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better.
Voted YES on end offshore tax havens and promote small business.
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004: <0l>
Repeal the tax exclusion for extraterritorial income - Permits foreign corporations to revoke elections to be treated as U.S. corporations Business Tax Incentives - Small Business ExpensingTax Relief for Agriculture and Small Manufacturers
Tax Reform and Simplification for United States Businesses
Deduction of State and Local General Sales Taxes
Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform
Provisions to Reduce Tax Avoidance Through Individual and Corporation Expatriation
Reference: Bill sponsored by Bill Rep Thomas [R, CA-22];
Bill H.R.4520
; vote number 2004-509
on Oct 7, 2004
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports.
Vote to authorize $167 billion over ten years for farm price supports, food aid and rural development. Payments would be made on a countercyclical program, meaning they would increase as prices dropped. Conservation acreage payments would be retained.
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B.
Vote to pass a resolution to give no enforcement authority or power to ergonomics rules submitted by the Labor Department during the Clinton Administration. These rules would force businesses to take steps to prevent work-related repetitive stress disorders.
Reference: Sponsored by Nickles, R-OK;
Bill S J Res 6
; vote number 2001-33
on Mar 7, 2001
Rated 20% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record.
Tancredo scores 20% by the AFL-CIO on union issues
As the federation of America’s unions, the AFL-CIO includes more than 13 million of America’s workers in 60 member unions working in virtually every part of the economy. The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.
The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: AFL-CIO website 03n-AFLCIO on Dec 31, 2003
