Democrats Try To End Secret Ballots For Union Elections
No one can accuse Democrats of reneging on this pledge. Senate Democrats plan to have a showdown with the GOP over a bill that would force workers to cast unionization votes without a secret ballot. They're trying to keep a campaign promise to union bosses who funded their campaigns:
Senate Democratic leaders moved Tuesday to force a vote on organized labor’s top legislative priority, a bill that would make it far easier to organize workers. But Republican leaders vowed to kill the measure, voicing confidence that they could defeat a motion cutting off debate and bringing it to a vote this week.The bill, already approved by the House but facing the threat of a veto by the Bush administration, would give employees at a workplace the right to unionize as soon as a majority signed cards saying they wanted to do so. Under current law, an employer can insist on a secret-ballot election, even after a majority sign.
Union leaders see enactment of the bill as the single most important step toward reversing labor’s long-term loss of membership and might. Virtually all Democrats in Congress are backing the legislation, partly because they recognize that a stronger labor movement, providing campaign contributions and volunteers, could translate into a stronger Democratic Party.
How will it restore labor's position? Through intimidation and fear. Rather than conducting elections by secret ballot, the workers would be forced to fill out union cards instead, identifying them and their vote on unionization It doesn't take a genius to understand that people opposed to unionizing their workplace might feel a little intimidated if they knew that the union could identify everyone who voted against them. The unions aren't exactly known for a history of milquetoast tactics, and putting that kind of information into their hands will win them elections just from fear of retaliation.
In fact, that's the reason America uses secret ballots for elections. We have seen the results of elections where voters have to identify their ballots, rather than just their registration. People like Saddam Hussein win 99.8% of votes in elections under those conditions. Secret ballots allow voters in any kind of election to vote without fear of retribution -- and we should treat demands to eliminate the secret-ballot system with great skepticism.
So why do Democrats want to force workers into a position where they can be easily intimidated? Perhaps this information explains it best:
Senator........Total Labor Contributions.......Total Labor Contributions 2007
Landrieu............$919,300.00............................$46,000.00
Pryor................$436,000.00............................$50,500.00
Baucus..........$1,062,402.00............................$30,500.00
Harkin............$1,680,086.00............................$36,500.00
Biden................$479,677.00..............................$5,000.00
Durbin...............$882,225.00............................$63,500.00
Kerry..................$51,556.00............................$42,000.00
Lautenberg.....$1,253,764.00............................$33,500.00
Levin..............$1,257,276.00............................$51,500.00
Reed.................$718,900.00...........................$44,100.00
Rockefeller........$983,728.00............................$55,000.00
It looks like the unions have paid at least a half-million to these Senators to get this legislation passed. It's a small investment, considering the payoff they'll get from all the dues they expect to collect from workers intimidated into paying them.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 20, 2007 9:34 AM | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (3)
Comments (24)
Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) | June 20, 2007 10:34 AM
There's a rich irony in the Democrats' doing something so anti-democratic.
Not surprising, however, when you consider Nancy Pelosi's hero-worship of a Stalinist trade-union leader:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/783zfoqh.asp
Posted by Brian in Calgary | June 20, 2007 10:57 AM
If there's one piece of legislation the President SHOULD veto, it's this one.
Posted by Dennis | June 20, 2007 11:10 AM
Skipper,
The problem I have is that the MSM will not add the list of contributions to this horror. (That is why I get my news from the blog world.) How can we grow the awairness of this news?
Today in the Washington Times "Inside Politics", that the big money flowing into politicians comes from 5 zip codes on the East side of Manhatten. The sixth is Hollywood. Seven and eight the West Side Manhatten.
Ever wonder why the rest of the country is not on everyones list of Who, What and Where.
Posted by JEM | June 20, 2007 11:32 AM
Re Pelosi and Bridges - Harry Bridges has long been one of those revered names out here in San Francisco; a Feinstein might be more cautious in embracing his legacy (might be illustrative to see what she had to say when she was mayor) than a Pelosi but he's still an iconic Blarney stone that all the machine Democrats have to kiss sooner or later.
Posted by Curtis | June 20, 2007 11:45 AM
What is particularly frustrating about this situation is that, were a Republican (or for that matter, anyone remotely conservative) to suggest a measure of the same kind, it would no doubt be added to the list of reasons why Republicans are Fascist-- but when Democrats do it with the help of Unions, its Empowering the People(TM).
Really, really sickening.
Posted by Joe Blow | June 20, 2007 11:47 AM
well I see that you are equating campaign contributions with BUYING votes on particlular issues.
Seems like the republicans in control of Congress for the last 8 years or so was bought and paid for many times over. Guess that's why Thuggish connected companies have stolen a $$ Trillion Dollars from the public while the republicans were in power.
Posted by Lightwave | June 20, 2007 12:04 PM
That's how bad the unions are in 2007. The free market and globalization has all but eliminated the need for unions, since people seem to forget that as at-will employees, quitting a job you don't like works both ways. You vote with your feet, and under this President we've had record low unemployment. People aren't getting trapped in jobs they hate, and those that do hate their jobs can do something about it.
Look what unions did to the American auto industry. It wasn't bad designs or lousy quality that turned the Big Three into the Big Joke. It was the cost of years of expensive UAW union labor that allowed Japanese companies to walk in and win. The biggest expense in manufacturing is labor costs. Unions increase labor costs. Period. More flexible companies not wedded to unions can cut costs and earn better wages and benefits through productivity, not forced contracts.
And now the unions are scared. They know they won't exist in ten years unless this bill gets passed. The workplace has out-evolved the need for them. They know that they only thing they do now is take power and wages away from workers.
They evolved from armbreakers. In the end, they revert to armbreakers. We need to put an end to the unions once and for all...especially if America's going to compete financially for labor in the 21st century.
Posted by Realist | June 20, 2007 12:31 PM
Will those signup cards be printed in Spanish and Arabic? Will licensed interpreters accompany the union legbreakers? Will the union thugs receive sensitivity training?
Posted by kingronjo | June 20, 2007 12:56 PM
The new saying is that Ford is a Health Care provider that happens to make cars.
Perhaps the Senate Republicans should allow this bill to pass. That would put those Dems in the Senate on record as endorsing such an un-American provision. I am positive Pres Bush will trot out the veto and it will never, ever pass an override. Save the filibuster for, G-d forbid, Hillary as President. If she isn't looking to start a 'workers Paradise' I'll be a chimpy's Uncle.
O, lest I forget, this bill is not the America I grew up in. Along with the attempted silencing of talk radio the Dems are truly becoming scary to any fair minded American. They are able to do this because of the requisitioning of other peoples wealth to their constituencies.
Posted by NoDonkey | June 20, 2007 1:29 PM
I'm always surprised about how naive people are about the Democrat Party.
The entire party is rotten, top to bottom. 98% of them are ALL corrupt, incompetent puppets, while the other 1% run the show.
Posted by Tom_Holsinger | June 20, 2007 1:29 PM
Ed,
This one is tailor-made for us. Once the Democrats in Congress vote for this, we can claim that Democrats are opposed to democracy, and that this is only the first step in them abolishing ALL secret ballots in every public office.
Then use that as proof that the Democratic Party is the enemy of freedom.
Posted by gab | June 20, 2007 1:29 PM
Another point of view.
"When employees want to form a union, they have to go through a process that looks more like the discredited practices of rogue regimes abroad than like anything we would call American.
For an election to be “free and fair,” both sides must have equal access to media and the voters. But not under labor law. Anti-union managers are free to campaign to every employee, every day, throughout the day; but pro-union employees can campaign only on break time. Furthermore, management can post anti-union propaganda on bulletin boards and walls — while prohibiting pro-union employees from doing the same. By law, employers can force workers to attend mass anti-union propaganda events. Not only are pro-union employees not given equal time, but they can be forced to attend on condition that they not ask any questions. Recent data show that workers are forced to attend between five and 10 such one-sided meetings. If, during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democrats could have forced every voter in America to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (or if the Republicans could have forced everyone to watch the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth video), with no opportunity for response from the other side, none of us would have called this “democracy.”
The Founding Fathers understood that workers are particularly vulnerable to the economic coercion, and therefore we have a host of laws designed to protect voters from the economic influence of their employers. For instance, in elections for Congress or the president, it is illegal for a private corporation to tell its employees anything that favors one candidate or the other. But in workplace elections, it is standard practice for supervisors to hold repeated one-on-one conversations with the individuals they oversee. Here, the person who has the most direct control over hiring and firing, promotion, raises, hours and duties tells their subordinates in no uncertain terms why a union would be bad for them. The message is clear: If you ever want a raise, or a day off to take your kid to a doctor, you better not support the union.
Many of the tactics used to intimidate employees are legal. However, because federal labor law contains no possibility of punitive fines, prison or any other type of sanction, employers break the law at will. Last year, approximately 15,000 Americans were illegally fired, suspended or otherwise financially punished for trying to form a union in their workplace.
An election where one party controls the media, requires voters to attend its rallies, enforces a gag order on opponents and fires voters for backing the opposition is undemocratic and un-American. The Employee Free Choice Act would reform the current system to guarantee that Americans who want to form a union are able to do so in part by ending the charade that we call a Labor Board election by giving workers a second option: the choice to form a union by a majority sign-up process."
Posted by MarkW | June 20, 2007 1:42 PM
gab,
Do you really believe that the only information the employees get is from the company?
Do you honestly believe that the only time people are capable of hearing and understanding information on unionization is during working hours and that union organizers aren't canvassing neighborhoods after hours to drum up more support?
Or are you just another union goon trying to pass yourself off as someone reasonable?
Posted by Realist | June 20, 2007 2:12 PM
I am positive Pres Bush will trot out the veto and it will never, ever pass an override.
Posted by: kingronjo at June 20, 2007 12:56 PM
I have one (hyphenated) word for you, Kingronjo:
McCain-Fingold
Posted by JEM | June 20, 2007 2:35 PM
Lightwave -
Not by a long shot. Labor costs were only one factor - bad designs and lousy quality were (and to some degree are) big parts of why Detroit's lost such a huge chunk of their market share. Seen a Pontiac Aztek lately?
The UAW is certainly a factor, both directly and indirectly (why tool a more flexible plant when reassigning workers means a six-month negotiation process?) but far from the only one.
I like to think that unions have the potential to be a good thing, but when I look around at those areas of economic activity where they are most involved it's a mixed bag, and in some cases - notably government employees - the results are clearly damaging to the country.
Posted by NoDonkey | June 20, 2007 2:40 PM
Unions have already destroyed domestic steel, practically destroyed our auto industry and are on the way to destroying our public "schools". Now the Democrats want them to destroy successful industry.
"Collective bargaining" is exactly that - a collectivized racket whereas employees are shaken down by union "leadership"/organized crime.
Banning unions would greatly expand our economy. This nation was built by individuals, not by mobs of violent, lazy thugs.
If pro-union employees don't like the terms of employment, they are free to start their own competing shop.
Bring back the Pinkertons.
Posted by hermie | June 20, 2007 2:49 PM
So according to gab, secret ballots are no longer necessary...only a 'majority' of those who are vocal enough and organized enough should determine an entire group's fate.
Hey...worked in 1930's Germany and Russia
Posted by hermie | June 20, 2007 2:51 PM
So according to gab, secret ballots are no longer necessary...only a 'majority' of those who are vocal enough and organized enough should determine an entire group's fate.
Hey...worked in 1930's Germany and Russia...and today with Hamas.
Posted by Rose | June 20, 2007 6:29 PM
Did anyone else get to see the clip of Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy having himself a sweet little hissy fit over it, this afternoon, when he was reading anewspaper article about Bush's opposition to removing employee 's SECRET BALLOT VOTES to a crowd and declared, HERE WAS HIS ANSWER TO THAT and ripped the newspaper to pieces?
I saw it on Fox News, not long after they showed Hillary's sour puss reaction to Bush's veto of embryonic stem cell research funding, as she began to rant about what he was doing to "OUR FAMILIES" with his [POV ].
Are these folks totally CLUELESS as to what they look like in their Stalinism, when they do this baloney???? Allowing themselves to be actually FILMED FOR TV behaving like that???
Like little Hugo Chavez 's and Jimmy Carters'.
Posted by Rose | June 20, 2007 6:36 PM
Ed,
This one is tailor-made for us. Once the Democrats in Congress vote for this, we can claim that Democrats are opposed to democracy, and that this is only the first step in them abolishing ALL secret ballots in every public office.
Then use that as proof that the Democratic Party is the enemy of freedom.
Posted by: Tom_Holsinger at June 20, 2007 1:29 PM
**************
IF the American people were THAT bright - or as is clearly indicated is the WORSE condition - THAT PURE MINDED - the Democrat Party would have perished as it was born, in the mid-1800's.
Unfortunately, it seems they are too stupid to realize that folks who use that sweet a carrot as the $10's of thousands to Congressmen for BRIBES, are equally if not more so, very very willing to use STICKS on the lowly "peons".
Posted by Rose | June 20, 2007 6:47 PM
They evolved from armbreakers. In the end, they revert to armbreakers. We need to put an end to the unions once and for all...especially if America's going to compete financially for labor in the 21st century.
Posted by: Lightwave at June 20, 2007 12:04 PM
***************
"...THEY REVERT TO ARMBREAKERS..." implies they ever left off armbreaking, in between! SO LOL! I'm sure you didn't mean to imply THAT!
Old Biblical proverb, you cannot get good fruit from a bad tree.
And a tree with BAD ROOTS is a BAD TREE and it will have bad fruit, too!
Posted by SoldiersMom | June 20, 2007 6:48 PM
I work in the Chemical Industry (glass is a hobby). Our plant operators are Union. Their avg. pay is $25/hr. When we have seasonal plant outages, (6 months @ times), the contract doesn't allow the Company to move these operators to other areas during downtimes. Those areas that are running that require extra manning, bring in operators assigned to that area and they're paid overtime.
A few years ago when we were hearing about all "our" jobs are going overseas, they were reminded that THEY work for a foreign owned company. Yes, like many chemical industries in the US, ours is foreign owned.
What makes salaried employees so angry is that the Company bends over every three years, makes tremendous concessions to the Union and a contract gets signed. It's the salaried who spend 6 months prior to the signing doing mandatory training for Union jobs that end up getting the shaft. We know it's going to happen, but it leaves a bitter taste nevertheless.
Posted by Rose | June 20, 2007 7:08 PM
Posted by: gab at June 20, 2007 1:29 PM
------------
You are talking to GRASSROOTS here, so who is it you think you are fooling?
You think maybe there are some 5 yr olds here?
SO LOL!!!
Posted by SoldiersMom | June 20, 2007 7:32 PM
BTW, There are 4 shifts per Operation Unit. There are 6 men per shift. They operate 24/7. Salaries are $25/hr. Unit down for 6 months and all paid workers are idle. You do the math.
What amazes me is that there are any Union Industries left in the US. BTW, I didn't add in all the Fed. Regulations and Bureaucracies industry has to answer to (DEQ / OSHA, etc).