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. 

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.

Click here to view the embedded video.

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?

Click here to view the embedded video.