By Larry Marsh, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist 2009
The United States Congress is considering, in effect, denying workers the right to a secret ballot in union certification voting under the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
This legislation reveals real disdain and disrespect for individual workers.
If freedom means anything, it means being able to decide for yourself.
Yes, workers are bombarded by propaganda from both sides. Both sides will try to intimidate and coerce workers into voting the "right" way.
As long as the ballot is secret, a worker can tell each side what it wants to hear, and then just vote as he or she pleases.
Imagine if husbands and wives were required to reveal to one another how they voted. Would this make voting fairer?
This is no doubt good news to Mr. Mugabe in Zimbabwe and General Than Shwe in Myanmar.
Vladimir Putin in Russia will be glad to know that the United States Congress does not consider the secret ballot to be essential to democracy.
The Chinese government will now have a way to get foreigners to stop meddling in its affairs. With "open" "free-choice" voting, it can become a western-style "democracy."
Once the secret ballot is removed, the vote is no longer on the issues. The contest then becomes which side is willing and able to more effectively intimidate the worker.
The worker is then subject to humiliation and harassment until they sign the card.
As each worker caves, more pressure can then be concentrated on any remaining holdouts.
All the EFCA will accomplish is changing workers from being loyal Democratic supporters to becoming Republican voters.
It is a shameful day in America when the United States Congress even considers legislation to take away a worker's right to the secret ballot.
If we let the secret ballot go by the wayside, what will be next -- the Free Speech Choice Act (FSCA)?
Follow Larry on Twitter.
Delicious
Digg
White Ribbon Alliance
White Ribbon Alliance charity is to benefit from Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton Le Radieux
Louis Vuitton Le Radieux
Louis Vuitton Limpetueux
Louis Vuitton Lockit MM
Louis Vuitton Lockit MM
Louis Vuitton Lockit MM
Louis Vuitton Lockit MM
Louis Vuitton Lockit MM
Louis Vuitton Lockit MM
Louis Vuitton Lockit PM bag sales.
Even the Wall Street Journal has admitted this is false
Wall Street Journal editorial page admitted today that one of the key messages in Big Business’s fight against the Employee Free Choice Act is false. “The bill doesn’t remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act,” wrote the WSJ editors today.
Yet another with comprehension problems
Regardless of the law, to state that unions don't give to political parties- or even to the national party is disingenuous. They can and they do- and overwhelmingly to one party.
I didn't state any such thing.
Read it again
I had a relative who worked as a grocery store bagger during the summer while in High School and he HAD to join the union (this was in Ohio) and the union supported political candidates he was not in support of. We talked about how unfair that seemed- not really that they supported political candidates, but that he HAD to join the union to work.
Isn't that an agency shop? How is that fair? You have to pay whether you belong to the union or not?
Unions cannot use membership dues for political donations. Money they use for political donations are VOLUNTARY contributions from their members.
State Political Parties can transfer to national level
The original poster had, I thought, implied that unions can't give to political parties because of the law. The actual law does not prevent them from giving to politicians- they can, and do, give to state politicians.
The law also allows transfer of state money to the national organizations for certain types of expenses. This is how they get around the law- they have transferred money from the state accounts to the national accounts, thus contributing money to national political parties.
Regardless of the law, to state that unions don't give to political parties- or even to the national party is disingenuous. They can and they do- and overwhelmingly to one party.
from your link
"The Democratic Party deposited the labor money into its state account, which is governed by Virginia law. Virginia does not restrict how much money an individual or organization may donate to a state political committee."
state law governs.
Unions can't give money to political parties?
Think again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/01/AR2008110101845.html
I had a relative who worked as a grocery store bagger during the summer while in High School and he HAD to join the union (this was in Ohio) and the union supported political candidates he was not in support of. We talked about how unfair that seemed- not really that they supported political candidates, but that he HAD to join the union to work.
Isn't that an agency shop? How is that fair? You have to pay whether you belong to the union or not?
That's against the law
And you forgot to mention how the union takes $$$ out of each paycheck to put it toward supporting political candidates that the vast majority of workers do not actually vote for. That union corporate bosses take huge bonuses, ride around in private jets and limos in multi-thousand dollar suits all the whole bashing the corporate bosses.
Taft Hartley Act of 1947. Unions cannot use membership dues for political donations, campaigns, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act
KCHUSKEFAN That was a
KCHUSKEFAN
That was a masterful job of portraying the unions as the knights in shining armor who ride in and save the worker from those big bad people who employ them and pay their salary.
You forgot to mention where union organizing workers harass those who refuse to sign the card or who waver. The calls at home, the pestering of family members, the never ending lectures at work. The outright intimidation. You forgot to also mention how the union demands that workers remain silent and NEVER voice their opinion if it is not in lock step with the union.
And you forgot to mention how the union takes $$$ out of each paycheck to put it toward supporting political candidates that the vast majority of workers do not actually vote for. That union corporate bosses take huge bonuses, ride around in private jets and limos in multi-thousand dollar suits all the whole bashing the corporate bosses.
And let's not lose sight of the fact that while you talk of the union being allowed to have free reign over a work place you also advocated that the employer should have no say in who they employ and what kind of work place they have.
As for Walmart...I dont know the worlds most profitable company...I think they are doing pretty well without unions. But I guess Unions lick their lips at the thought of being able to get ahold of some of those billions in profits.
And last point: Why is that some of the most failed industries we have today are rules by unions? airlines, automakers, trucking, construction...etc
And I'm sure
The union, who is trying to take over the workforce, will tell them that if 30% of them ask for a secret ballot they can have it. Of course they will be willing to do that after those union folks have slashed some tires and have made references to knowing where their kids go to school. Just asking for the secret ballot will expose employees to the same risks as the "card check". The only way a fair election of any type can be conducted is by secret ballot. The problem is that the unions know they are losing ground in this country and are looking for ways to force people to join. If they really believed in what they say they do, they would be in favor of a secret ballot. That they do not shows that they know people will not join unless forced into it.