McGovern says pro-union bill undemocratic
8/8/2008 - 3:49pm
With the Employee Free Choice Act increasingly becoming an election issue in key Senate races across the country - including Colorado's - the fact that liberal icon and former presidential candidate George McGovern came out strongly against the proposal in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today is likely to cause some consternation for its Democratic supporters.
Republicans and pro-business groups are bitterly opposed to the bill, which could significantly strengthen the hand for labor unions who have been losing membership for decades. Among its most important provisions, the proposal would eliminate the current requirement that union elections be held through a secret ballot, forcing business owners to recognize a union if half its employees sign a union card -- a process known as card check. Unions say as it stands now, the secret ballot process is rife with loopholes and can be so manipulated by companies as to make the right to unionize practically non-existent. Business groups say that not only is eliminating the secret ballot undemocratic, it also suddenly makes thousands of small businesses tempting targets for organizers who could create a union shop in a weekend's worth of work.
Standing on the argument about process, McGovern came down on the opposite side of many in his party. He called EFCA "a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor." One of the country's great liberal icons, McGovern would certainly support more robust unions and greater protection of workers' rights. But he is effectively saying that none of that is worth the cost of tainted elections or potential intimidation. "We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed," McGovern wrote.
Democracy is hard, he seems to be saying, but worth the price, even if it's fewer unions.
Taylor West, campaign spokeswoman for Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall, said her boss isn't backing down from his support for EFCA, and reiterated his pledge to vote for the bill next year regardless of who's in the White House.
"This administration has turned its back on working people," West said. "This isn't a perfect piece of legislation, but it is a way to make sure workers can join together and negotiate for the health care and benefits they deserve."
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Employee Free Choice Act
Jeff is right on. George McGovern has been in the country club too long. Udall will win his Senate race. It is a pretty sad fact that we live in a country where it is ok for people in the investor class to sign contracts on regular basis for millions of dollars, but so often when employee tries to join a union, they risk losing their job. (at least) No other democratic countries go to such lengths to break labor unions. The ads attacking the Employee The Free Choice Act are premised on falsehoods. This bill does NOT eliminate elections, only makes them optional for the employees to decide. That way the employer does not use them to veto the union. The trickle down power structure feels the tide turning and they are uneasy. They should be. Millions of people are fed up with the 80's "conservatism", which has shown its true side over the last eight years. Their ideology is going down one election at a time. People will remember in November. It is real long shot to think McBush's VP will not save him. All 10 or 20 of those "hockey Moms" who are oppose abortion is all cases and think creationism should be taught in our public schools better get out and start knocking on doors. Then again, most of them too busy trying to think of ways we can make the public domain a church.
Pro Union Bill
This is against unions, but against business. If businesses are pressured to go union with a secret ballot then the ultimate issue is business closing or moving out of this country. Something worse than outsourcing. The ballot is secretive and not democratic. As an independent and former democrat I see this as a major issue where the Voice of the people isnt really heard.
Just think, whatever is left of the manufacturing as well as the foreign car assembly plants, who are supporting thousands, closing shop and moving out!
Thanks to the dems there really looking out for business...hey we dont need business, let the govt pay us just like they do in third world countries!
It's disappointing
to see the Right winning the misinformation campaign on EFCA. We should not let it die so easily, just because one Democratic party leader disagrees with it. Kudos to Mark Udall for continuing to stand up for Colorado's working families.
Jeff
It’s unfortunate that even a friend of workers like George McGovern has been caught up in the misinformation spread about EFCA. Although it makes a good sound bite, comparing union elections to a democratic political election is like comparing apples to oranges.
A union election pits an outside union with very little access to employees against employers which vigorously fight to keep unions out. Employers often require employees to sit through numerous mandatory meetings in which the union is criticized, and all to often, employees labeled as a union supporter are fired. The sad truth is that the National Labor Relations Board can do little to stop employers who intimidate workers. At most, employers that break the law only have to put up a sign and pay back wages—a small price to pay in exchange for scaring employees into voting against the union.
Until there are real consequences for employers’ intimidation of employees, the secret ballot union election is flawed. EFCA makes the playing field less tilted towards employers by giving employees more control of their choice of a representative. For over 70 years, a union could become the representative based on a “card check” in which a majority of employees say they want the union . . . but only if the employer agrees. Under EFCA, if a majority of employees say they want union representation—and the NLRB certifies that the cards are valid and weren’t coerced—then the employer must respect the employees’ choice.
The fear of union intimidation is also overplayed. The number of elections involving unions coercion is tiny, especially compared to employers’ use of intimidation. And ask yourself this: who would you rather say no to, some union representative that you may never see again or your employer, who with one stroke of the pen can take away your salary, health insurance, and pension contributions?
EFCA: Big Labor power grab getting some sunlight
Jeff, do you actually get paid by labor interests to blog this poorly, or do you just copy their talking points off the websites for fun?
McGovern UNDERSTANDS the Employee Free Choice Act, EFCA. He knows that it is big labor's latest attempt to shore up its sinking ship in the private sector by streamlining the organization process.
A union elction pits employees who wish to unionize against...a ballot box in a secret election. After the internal workers that wish to unionize (petition carrier types) collect enough signatures (varies by state) to call for a union election, both the businesess and the employees that wish to organize have equal access to their fellow employees to inform them of the pluses and minuses of organizing (umm, roughly 40 hours each, right?), and the NLRB holds an election. A private ballot election where NLRB is the umpire between business and union interests and every employee voices his own free vote on the matter.
EFCA fastlanes right past the whole American tradition of private ballot elections, and opens the door for massive employee intimidation. The aforementioned 40 hours, in addition to what any unscrupulous methods "card-check" petitioners care to use, with no fear of business or government input (see: interference). The fear of union intimidation is relatively low now because it is not LEGALLY SANCTIONED, as it would be under EFCA.
This is Big Labor and their Dem buddies way to screw workers INTO unions to bolster their lagging numbers (only 7.5% of all private employees in the country are union members...)and try to make government hold up their failing institution.
We have to tell Mark Udall he is a fool to follow all of the Union money into this tiger-trap of a bill. This bill cannot be allowed to pass.
Watch out for Udall
Democrat Congressman Mark Udall is running for Senator Allard’s seat in Colorado. He was a cosponsor on the bill in the House of Representatives in 2007. How can Udall support an act that takes away the right of private ballot elections for workers? Only 7% of his constituency are actually in unions. This is America. Individuals should be able to make these desicions themselves. Join me in opposing EFCA and Mark Udall.