Apparently those protections haven’t been adequately enforced, in the opinion of many Congressmen, as previously cited.

> If I were a congressman I’d vote against whistle blowing “regardless of context” which is how the bill phrases it, more or less,

Did you read the context of that statement? The intent is to address concerns that people who first tried to raise the issue through normal work channels (i.e. inform supervisor, suggest process improvement, etc) or deal with it as part of their normal job were not being granted whistleblower protection for later raising the issue higher up the chain. The “prior context” was justification for the board and courts to rule they were not “whistleblowers”. The Democrats and many Republicans disagreed, and said the whole intent of the law was to protect anyone raising the issues, even if they tried to do it through channels first.

> … but I also know that the guys at NASA would be alot better off if congress appropriated some additional funds to them rather than giving them the option to speak in front of congressional sub-committees about possible violations, let the lawyers do that, let the scientists do science.

I certainly agree Congress assigning additional funds (like maybe signing last year’s budget and giving them the money they expected for this year) would be great. And certainly taking scientists away from doing science so they can talk to Congress about problems is a waste. Except for the fact that the big waste is the problems in the first place, and the means to correct the problems is for the people who are having them to directly testify. It’s like court - you don’t interview the lawyers on the stand.

How can a bill that prevents union members from using a secret ballot (and thus protecting them from being bullied into voting a certain way) be good? Or rather, how could _every_ Democrat support this? This bill seems more anti-union to me, so maybe the yeas and nays should have been reversed.

The way I read this and implied by the title “streamlining the process” (not that titles are particularly honest) is that the Labor Board can make the determination the employees want the union representation without the employer’s challenge. It doesn’t say secret ballot is not an option. Also the old wording says 30% of employees and the newer version says “majority”.

Given the Republican track record of opposing any unions, I’m going to trust the Democrats here argued the vote clause was only being used as intimidation and or stalling tactic and not because employees were joining unions out of peer pressure.

Do you know if any such votes ever resulted in uncovering coerced union membership choices?

SharkByte, your hyperbole misrepresents the actual arguments being made. There are several forces at work within the Republican Party to stifle science. One is the religious conservative element resisting the philosophical implications coming from the results of science, and opposed to the liberal moral opinions from those who base their views on science. Another force is the Big Business corporate interests of maximizing profits without regard to other concerns. A third is the NeoCon agenda to promote an agressive, black/white foreign policy stance. These three forces have found a home in the Republican Party leadership, and have made their presence known through issues on abortion and stem cell research, issues on oil and timber industries and questions regarding climate change, and through the “War on Terror” and Iraq, etc.

No one asserts that the Republicans are actively trying to usher in a new Dark Age (hey, let’s set back science and crush our technological advancement!). Rather, the various political agendas all have reasons to be concerned about particular science information becoming public, because it does not support the positions they advocate. So there is a pattern of suppressing the presentation of science results, and the stifling of research into areas that are politically uncomfortable.

And political parties do have back room, front room, side corridor, phone call, etc conversations where they explicitly discuss Party positions on bills. They also play pressure games (within the party and with outsiders they can influence). To suggest that doesn’t happen is completely uninformed on the ways of politics.