Specter Knows: Card Check Is Good for Union Leaders, Democrats, Bad for America

"using union talking points"

Care to expand on that? Or do you prefer to stand on the sidelines and cheerlead? Tell us what YOU think.

RE: OOPS! I referenced "Mr Goldberg" in my comment...

Let's see, what are the chances Ross Eisenbrey, (excuse me, I mean Joe D.) was using union talking points in replying to Mr. Goldberg (excuse me again, I mean Mr. Barone)

"Specter should be FLOGGED"

I predict that your "wish" will be granted......

In the 2010 general election. Should he even SURVIVE a G."NO"P. primary.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/03/25/arlen-specter-stays-republican-on-card-check-but-polls-show-he-may-be-wrong.html

OOPS! I referenced "Mr Goldberg" in my comment...

Sorry, obviously I should have referenced Mr Barone. I just got through an op-ed by Mr Goldberg in the LA Times on subject of EFCA.

No matter. Mr Goldberg's column parroted right-wing talking points, as does Mr Barone's,and as such they all may as well call themselves "Polly".

Thank you, Mr Eisenbrey, for bringing FACTS to this dicussion

instead of C of C & right wing rhetoric. At least Mr. Goldberg didn't go the route of Sheldon Adelson—-right-wing billionaire and fundraiser-who recently called the Employee Free Choice Act "one of the fundamental threats to society"—the other being “radical Islam.”

The EFCA does NOT eliminate, nor "effectively" eliminate a secret ballot election, but as you stated, put the "choice" where it belongs--in the hands of the EMPLOYEES.

Powerful Corporate Front Groups are carrying out one of the biggest Anti-Union campaigns in history, hoping to wrench public opinion in their direction and spread misinformation about the Employee Free Choice Act. Several anti-union Corporate Front Groups plan to collectively spend almost $100 million in the next year against the bill and those who support it. The breakdown is as follows (from the National Journal):

Chamber of Commerce: $20-30 million

Coalition for a Democratic Workplace: $30 million

Employee Freedom Action Committee: $30 million

Freedom's Watch: $30 million (from one anti-union contributor)

Center for Union Facts: unknown, but in the millions

Let's see: The Chamber of Commerce, Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, Employee Freedom Action Committee, Freedom's Watch and Center for Union Facts are pouring all this money into an anti-EFCA campaign because...they want to "protect"..........WORKERS RIGHTS? That in itself should tell even those who have little or no knowledge about the EFCA, or NLRB secret ballot procedures, or union organizing...or any other subjects relating to the bill, where their motivation lies. These groups, led by the C of C, who has for DECADES lobbied AGAINST such issues as increasing the minimum wage, increased workplace safety rules, OSHA, SCHIP, affordable health care, etc, suddenly wants to CHAMPION WORKERS RIGHTS PLEASE.

Mr Goldberg fails to point out that under current NLRB rules, an existing Union can be DE-CERTIFIED by CARD CHECK or PETITION. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE for "violated workers rights"? In a case called "Wurtland Nursing", the Bush NLRB decided that the union could de-certify WITHOUT an election because the employees signed a petition that stated(we)"wish for a vote to remove the Union".

The reason they are spending all this money and political capital fighting this bill's passage is that current labor law restricts Union organizing, and that's how the C of C and cronies would like to KEEP IT. Some excerpts from "Confessions of a Union Buster" by Marty Levitt explains it best:

Levitt’s first union-busting campaigns introduced him to the most “common strategy among management lawyers.” First, Levitt tells us, “Challenge everything ... then take every challenge to a full hearing ... then prolong each hearing” as long as possible, then “appeal every unfavorable decision.”

According to Levitt there was method to the madness. “If you make the union fight drag on long enough, workers...lose faith, lose interest, lose hope.” Taking away people’s hopes, their aspirations for a better future – that was Levitt’s JOB.

For union busters, like Levitt, the NLRA is a "union buster's best friend".

According to Levitt, "in its complexity the nation's fundamental Labor law presents ENDLESS possibilities for delays, roadblocks, and manoeuvres that can undermine a union's efforts and frustrate would be members."

The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack. The law DOES NOT HAMPER THE PROCESS, rather, it serves to SUGGEST manoeuvres and DEFINE STRATEGIES.

Thank you, Mr Eisenbrey, for bringing FACTS to this dicussion

instead of C of C & right wing rhetoric. At least Mr. Goldberg didn't go the route of Sheldon Adelson—-right-wing billionaire and fundraiser-who recently called the Employee Free Choice Act "one of the fundamental threats to society"—the other being “radical Islam.”

The EFCA does NOT eliminate, nor "effectively" eliminate a secret ballot election, but as you stated, put the "choice" where it belongs--in the hands of the EMPLOYEES.

Powerful Corporate Front Groups are carrying out one of the biggest Anti-Union campaigns in history, hoping to wrench public opinion in their direction and spread misinformation about the Employee Free Choice Act. Several anti-union Corporate Front Groups plan to collectively spend almost $100 million in the next year against the bill and those who support it. The breakdown is as follows (from the National Journal):

Chamber of Commerce: $20-30 million

Coalition for a Democratic Workplace: $30 million

Employee Freedom Action Committee: $30 million

Freedom's Watch: $30 million (from one anti-union contributor)

Center for Union Facts: unknown, but in the millions

Let's see: The Chamber of Commerce, Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, Employee Freedom Action Committee, Freedom's Watch and Center for Union Facts are pouring all this money into an anti-EFCA campaign because...they want to "protect"..........WORKERS RIGHTS? That in itself should tell even those who have little or no knowledge about the EFCA, or NLRB secret ballot procedures, or union organizing...or any other subjects relating to the bill, where their motivation lies. These groups, led by the C of C, who has for DECADES lobbied AGAINST such issues as increasing the minimum wage, increased workplace safety rules, OSHA, SCHIP, affordable health care, etc, suddenly wants to CHAMPION WORKERS RIGHTS PLEASE.

Mr Goldberg fails to point out that under current NLRB rules, an existing Union can be DE-CERTIFIED by CARD CHECK or PETITION. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE for "violated workers rights"? In a case called "Wurtland Nursing", the Bush NLRB decided that the union could de-certify WITHOUT an election because the employees signed a petition that stated(we)"wish for a vote to remove the Union".

The reason they are spending all this money and political capital fighting this bill's passage is that current labor law restricts Union organizing, and that's how the C of C and cronies would like to KEEP IT. Some excerpts from "Confessions of a Union Buster" by Marty Levitt explains it best:

Levitt’s first union-busting campaigns introduced him to the most “common strategy among management lawyers.” First, Levitt tells us, “Challenge everything ... then take every challenge to a full hearing ... then prolong each hearing” as long as possible, then “appeal every unfavorable decision.”

According to Levitt there was method to the madness. “If you make the union fight drag on long enough, workers...lose faith, lose interest, lose hope.” Taking away people’s hopes, their aspirations for a better future – that was Levitt’s JOB.

For union busters, like Levitt, the NLRA is a "union buster's best friend".

According to Levitt, "in its complexity the nation's fundamental Labor law presents ENDLESS possibilities for delays, roadblocks, and manoeuvres that can undermine a union's efforts and frustrate would be members."

The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack. The law DOES NOT HAMPER THE PROCESS, rather, it serves to SUGGEST manoeuvres and DEFINE STRATEGIES.

Big Labor

I'm a worker and I believe that unions are inapplicable to me and I don't want anything from them or anything to do with them. The excesses of big labor along with the excessive environmental regulations in this country have done a lot more to kill manufacturing in this country than NAFTA ever did.

Why Government Unions?

What is the role of a Union? Isn't it to ensure that workers are treated in a fair manner? If that is the purpose of a union, why do government employees need a union? I mean shouldn't we assume that our government will treat employees fairly. I mean if a union and a corporation have a dispute they can't solve doesn't a government mediator solve it?

The answer is clearly that goverment unions exist to pay tribute to their political masters, the democrats.

Barone speaks for the US Chamber, not workers

Barone never mentions employer intimidation of workers who want to organize. Does he not know about it, or doesn't he care? The government's statistics (from the Bush Labor Board) suggest that employers are at least 12 times likelier than unions to coerce or intimidate an employee. And of course, the power of employers over employees is far greater; they can take away a worker's job, income, and health benefits. His concern about the possibility of union coercion would be more believable if he had expressed even a shred of concern about the reality of widespread employer coercion, firings, blacklisting, etc. Barone isn't worried about coercion; he doesn't want workers to organize.

Barone doesn't admit the sticky truth that we've had card check for 74 years. He pretends it's something new. The only change the Employee Free Choice Act makes with respect to card check is to let employees decide whether to use it or to have an election. Today, that decision rests with the employer, who ought to have no say in the matter at all. So much for democracy: let the boss decide.

Barone doesn't get his auto facts right, either. The definitive Harbour Report shows that the UAW's plants (despite the work rules Barone attacks but doesn't identify) are more productive than the transplants' non-union assembly operations.

The problem is legacy costs from 75 to 100 years of operations in the US and more than a million living retirees.

Barone doesn't answer Hoffa's argument that new England town meetings, quintessentially democratic, have residents vote openly; he simply evades it. How about ballot proposals, where the names are public, and the topics are often the hottest issues in our society? Surely, Barone knows that the secret ballot wasn't predominant in the US until the second half of the 19th century and that many of the Founders of the nation didn't think it was essential. But the key point is that the employees, not the boss, should decide whether to submit cards or go through an election process that's more like Zimbabwe's than Vermont's.

The goal of the Act is to increase the bargaining power of ordinary Americans, 53% of whom expressed support for the Act in a recent Gallup poll. Barone should know that the median income of working families declined from 2000 to 2007, even as productivity and profits soared. More union contracts and greater union power would mean a better deal for average working Americans - the kind of deal they had from passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 until right wing politics won out in 1980. Since then, wages have stagnated, but the top 1% has seen its share of national income more than double. We can do better.

Specter should be FLOGGED

I can't understand how he can call himself a Republican.

This man is a disgrace. I hope the Republicans run someone against him and he gets thrown out on his azz.