Big Labor Safeguards Its Big Stake in Obama
First Amendment? Secret Ballots? Fuggetaboutit!
That was too much to bear for the handmaidens of Big Labor. Minnesota’s Democratic Farmer Labor (DFL) Party swung into action. In a brazen attempt to shut down EFCA opponents, the DFL filed a complaint with the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings lawsuit against the Coalition, a grassroots organization, two political consultants, the head of the Coalition Brian Worth and even Curatola himself.
The DFL claimed the ad was misleading in that EFCA would not abolish secret ballot elections but simply give unions and employees “another option.” The DFL contends therefore that Franken’s support for EFCA doesn’t amount to support for eliminating the secret ballot or opposition to workplace privacy. Left unsaid by the DFL: the “option” is for unions not employees, once the 50% threshold is reached no election is to be held and no union which is able to persuade at least a bare majority of workers would conceivably rely on less than 50% of authorization cards and risk a secret ballot election.
An administrative law judge in Minnesota dismissed the original complaint but an amended complaint was re-filed against the Coalition, Worth and longtime GOP guru Mike Murphy from the Coalition’s political consulting firm. At a subsequent hearing Murphy and Worth were dismissed but no decision has been rendered on the Coalition or on the underlying merits of the suit.
I asked Worth about the DFL’s unusual tactic of suing to shut down an ad. He said, “Frankly I’m not surprised. They can’t argue on the merits.” The press coverage of this extraordinary tactic has been minimal. Again, Worth says that it “is not remotely surprising. These are the guys who won’t report on John Edwards.” Worth says that the claim that the measure does not abolish secret ballot elections and that Franken doesn’t favor this move is belied by the language of the statute which he explains is “crystal clear.”
It is plain that DFL is telling tall tales. Even George McGovern understands what is up. He wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as “card-check.” There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
Rhonda Bentz, a political consultant who was dismissed from the original DFL complaint, says that neither she nor Murphy, a veteran of dozens of campaigns, have “ever been involved in anything like this.” She notes the irony that Al Franken, a “creative artist” would be involved in what can only be described as “censorship of political speech.” As for the ads, she surmises, “If they weren’t having an impact they would be ignoring them.” She explains, “They have a Sisyphean task in moving a boulder up the hill to say that secret ballots won’t be eliminated [by the EFCA].”
It seems unlikely that political free speech could be suffocated. But if Big Labor does somehow manage to prevail in its Minnesota suit it will be the ultimate proof that Big Labor isn’t interested in democracy — either in or outside the workplace.
And the battle over EFCA won’t end in Minnesota. An ad targeting Democratic Senate candidate Tom Allen has gone on the air in Maine. With got Senate races in New Hampshire and Colorado it is likely those will be battlegrounds as well. But the purpose Worth says is not to defeat select Democratic candidates but to force elected officials of both parties once the election is over to “go to their leadership and say ‘I saw what they did in Minnesota.’ I want to rethink this.”
Provided Big Labor doesn’t shut down the First Amendment rights of EFCA opponents in Minnesota, those catchy ads will continue to attract attention. But if Curatola ever decides to take a breather the Coalition could also hire McGovern to deliver his message to the voters and Big Labor:
To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. 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.
Could Big Labor shut down that message? Fuggetaboutit.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Jennifer Rubin is PJM's Washington, DC, editor. She also blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
9 Comments
1. RE:We are seeing a disturbing trend in Democrat circles to use grovernment to shutdown free speech. (The Ayers ad, these ads, the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, ‘Hate Speech’ laws, etc).
It seems like Democrats have a problem with the First Amenndment wery much at all.
Aug 27, 2008 - 10:05 am 2. MarkD:Can’t the Democrats be indicted under RICO? This looks like a criminal conspiracy to force union membership on folks who would rather not join one.
Aug 27, 2008 - 10:18 am 3. BritAm:Does anyone know if Mark Udall skipped the EFCA vote in the house? I’ve been waiting for this front to be opened here in Colorado.
Aug 27, 2008 - 2:02 pm 4. hp:@RE
which is weird because somehow I thought they were the ones who WANTED it. am I missing something or has the party changed that much?
you haven’t even scratched the surface of free speech stomping, either. uncountable numbers of individuals have already found their voices locked down across the internet.
Aug 28, 2008 - 3:51 am 5. Don:Big labor is about one thing, power for big labor. Welfare of the membership? The memberships are in thrall to those who will “take care of them”. They will take what the leadership feels they deserve.. The labor movement in this country is corrupt and feels “entitled” to determine what is best for it’s membership and for those (so foolish) as to not belong to associations run by “their betters”.
Aug 28, 2008 - 5:41 am 6. pappy:auto makers are losing money year after year, they can’t seem to grasp the notion that maybe the dips aren’t doing them any favors. by taking away the secret ballot it sounds like the dipocraps are following the lead of yugo shaveshis. maybe state ran t.v. will be next. another attempt to undermine the constitution by the bungholes that claim to love it so much. it would not surprise me if it was a group of pigs voting for more food, but to see every dipo senator be for this marxism is appalling to say the least.
Aug 28, 2008 - 8:08 am 7. Rubicon:And as mentioned by another, EFCA is not the end of the attempt to silence opposition to issues. Reinstatement of the so called “Fairness Doctrine” is also on the agenda. Many are apoplectic that talk radio has been so wildly successful. The hate of those who want this doctrine, is palpable. They simply do not want any speech that offers a view “they” do not subscribe to.
Aug 28, 2008 - 12:14 pm 8. Assistant Village Idiot:These actions are dangerous. These actions reflect the will of the select or elite, to silence the majority, through the mis use of law & regulatory systems.
I care not which party is pushing for such despicable actions. I care that ANY party is pushing for such actions. I care that some think this nations people need to be told what to do, how to do it, what to think, and when to think.
Around the world we see multiple examples of nations & bureaucratic organizations and NGO’s that want opposition to “their” views, to be silenced. Whether its Hugo Chavez shutting down TV stations, or Putin controlling all media, or educational advisory boards determining what can and cannot be said in textbooks that teach our children. When one suppresses free speech, factual history, and demands no one speak out against oppressors or oppression, it is unAmerican and unacceptable.
The media seems content to allow some to do as they want, why failing to even mention their despicable activities to us. Such is the state of the media today.
Stories are buried. Not because they are untrue, but because the story would do harm to a friend or to a favored political party. These are not the actions of freedom loving people. These are the actions of those who expect to be part of the elite who will get the benefits while others serve them.
An example: It was widely known in media circles that John Edwards was having an affair. The National Enquirer had evidence. No, not just hearsay, but actual photo’s and they could put Edwards in the same hotel as his mistress, while he was not checked in, or she was not checked in. The number of incidents was too many to deny there may be a connection & that alone warranted a story.
The establishment media decided they wanted actual proof of them together physically before they would even mention the possibility of an affair. The New York Times and/or Washington Post admitted they had information, but because they did not want to mention this due to the guys wifes illness, they decided not to run it. Yet when a staff person from the 2004 McCain campaign said he was told by someone who was told by someone else (no names were ever given as to who those someone’s were), the NYT did a front page above the fold major story exposing the affair.
This was all discredited when the campaign staffer admitted he had no evidence & based on a number of supposed meetings, and the fact McCain was not even in the same city when the meetings supposedly took place, the NYT finally dropped the story. They never admitted the information had been discredited.
So what we have is a media willing to hang some out to dry, but not favored others, and to do so using false information that is simply vicious rumor meant to discredit. Its called lying where I am from.
Card check is a dangerous tool for thuggish union organizers to get hold of. If their cause is so right, then it should stand the test of the traditional secret ballot. What’s next for these guys, forcing presidential elections to card check so opposing political operatives can go after those who fail to vote for their candidate?
Palin’s husband is a union steelworker, and that may count for a considerable offset to the $53M. When has a union person been anywhere near a presidential ticket?
Aug 30, 2008 - 1:58 pm 9. Commentary » Blog Archive » What Difference Does It Make?:[...] one isolated but important issue: the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, which will make secret union elections a thing of the past. If you think it’s just concerns [...]
Oct 14, 2008 - 11:39 am