LaborPains.org

There’s an interesting post about the Employee Free Choice Act on American Thinker that was just posted today.

In it, we are reminded that “According to Big Labor’s logic, employees can only have a “free choice” when union officials stand over them and pressure them to sign the cards.   Employees who have been subjected to card check union drives have complained they have signed the cards as a result of coercion and deceptive practices.”

Jeff Merkley is running on a platform of supposedly helping the working man but what help is it really going to be when he has promised to help pass this deceptively-named piece of legislation?

How can Jeff Merkley run for office in an election where his supporters will have anonymity and protection of privacy to vote for whomever they choose and yet still support an act that would strip workers of their rights to a private ballot in the workplace?

Jeff Merkley has been wrong about a lot of things this campaign season including the Employee Free Choice Act, his opponent, and the State of Georgia.

What Jeff Merkley really needs apparently, is more time to look into his support for an issue that strips workers of their rights when he supports those same rights for people voting for him. 

In Monday’s Manchester Union Leader, the editorial page has taken note of the Employee Free Choice Act, which they call an “Orwellian-named proposal [that] would actually remove free choice from the unionization decision.“  The writer cuts to the heart of the issue when he writes:

The act would allow shops to unionize by “card check.” That is, it would allow organizers to form unions by collecting signatures of employees face-to-face. Gone would be the protection of secrecy. Employees’ choices would suddenly be public, not private, and therefore subject to retaliation and intimidation.

This is anti-democratic and un-American. And yet, if Democrats gain stronger majorities in Congress, it might become law very soon. The party is pushing this bill at the behest of unions that have funneled money and votes to Democrats precisely for the purpose of getting this kind of anti-employee legislation passed.

As more people hear the truth about the Employee Free Choice Act, editorials like this will probably become much more common.  The supporters of the EFCA hold an untenable position, and now that they are being challenged on it they have no response.

Last week at a huge agriculture get-together in MN known as Farmfest, Al Franken repeatedly ducked and dodged all questions about the Employee Free Choice Act. As recently as three weeks ago, Franken proudly proclaimed his support for EFCA, yet at Farmfest, he ducked the question twice.

Franken had time to chow down on two rather large pork chops on a stick and talk to fellow EFCA supporter, Congressman Tim Walz, but no time to answer questions about EFCA and the devastating impact it would have on the workplace rights of workers in rural Minnesota.

I’m sure Al realizes that the union boss agenda doesn’t play very well in greater Minnesota, so I guess he changes it when he goes on the road. Maybe he’ll have yet another answer next time we catch him in the Twin Cities.

Here is Paul Carmouche’s response when interviewed on his stance toward the Employee Free Choice Act, which he is assumed to support. Carmouche is the Democratic candidate for Louisiana’s 4th Congressional District.

Mr. Carmouche states, “I was taught as a youngster in school that the majority rules, uh, so I’m going to have to look at that and see that uh, when, when uh, uh… and I’m not sure about the ballots, and the secret ballots, but uh, if a majority of workers want to have a union, then the majority probably should rule.”

While repeating that the majority should rule (which hopefully is undisputed in the mind of any candidate), he doesn’t differentiate between whether that rule should be determined by a show of hands or by writing votes on gum wrappers.

The important thing we’d like for our candidates to support is privacy in a voting booth.  The Louisianians for Employee Freedom would prefer a candidate who would simply and resolutely answer “Yes” to that fundamental question.  (“Do you support an employee’s right to a secret ballot vote when unionizing in a workplace?”)

He ends by saying, “I’m going to look at those issues and I think you’re going to find that the decision that I come to is going to be a reasonable decision.”

Don’t be surprised if his “reasonable decision” happens to be perfectly in line with the will of the union bosses who have been funneling so much money into Democratic campaigns.

After seeing activists protest against her sponsorship of the Employee Free Choice Act, Senator Mary Landrieu has interestingly shunned all regular constituents from asking her questions.  Because of her high seat vulnerability, she and her advisers are dodging questions about the controversial card check issue at all costs. She avoids these EFCA activists like Pestilence.

Co-sponsorship usually indicates serious support for and fluency with a bill.  Why do she and her advisors act like she needs to be briefed on it before even beginning to answer questions from harmless constituents?

Perhaps Landrieu, like many other legislators and candidates, is finding that faux-democracy “card check” is an undefendable issue.

Labor union PACs don’t have much to show for the $100,000+ dollars they’ve spent on the Senator’s campaign.  Senator, would you like to elaborate on your EFCA co-sponsorship?

In Stratham, New Hampshire this weekend, Representative Carol Shea-Porter was asked if she believes that workers have the right to a secret ballot on whether or not their workplace is unionized.  Her support for the EFCA and card check voting gives a pretty clear hint that she doesn’t.  Shea-Porter said this:

… it would also be helpful to go to Educational Labor and look up the committee hearings to find out why they asked for those votes. And I’ll also point out that when you go to town halls here in New Hampshire, we stand up and we count our votes, and there’s a reason that we do that. We have this open… this is not the same as the kind of election for a political office, alright, this is a whole different set of rules here. So, I like our town halls and the way that our town governments function, where people discuss issues in public and vote in public, and I support that.

I think after all I heard, about the difficulty that they have had, that men and women who want to form unions have had, and it’s all on record, so that’s why I recommend you look at that, you realize that for their best protection for all of the workers, it’s good for them to be in, to stand together. And that’s the whole concept of the union anyway: gathering together and working together.

Her answer is meandering, confusing, and well, confused.  First of all, a workplace is not a town hall meeting.  At town hall meetings, citizens who have chosen to live in a certain district get together to talk about legislative issues and the town budget.  After a town hall meeting, it’s uncommon for people from out of town – and not just individuals, but powerful organizations, to come around and influence, intimidate, and coerce the people who are voting on a resolution.

Also, most people don’t earn their living at town hall meetings, and the results of town hall meetings rarely change the fundamental relationship between a citizen and his employer.

For some reason, all these differences evade Representative Shea-Porter.  Perhaps the $260,000 dollars her campaign has received from labor leadership PACs and labor unions have made them easier to ignore.

Jeanne Shaheen continues to refuse to answer a very simple question: do workers have the right to a secret ballot when a labor organizer tries to unionize their shop?  It’s no surprise that she’s unable to give a straight answer as her position is, to most Americans, completely untenable.