Email This to a Friend
Shock: Al Sharpton Takes on the Unions
Sharpton opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and plans to mobilize the African-American community against it.
Whatever one’s opinion of Sharpton, his opposition to EFCA signals an important division within the Democratic Party. If he and his followers organize and influence members of the Black Caucus in the House, for example, or apply pressure to wavering Democratic senators, the fierce fight will get a lot fiercer.
Certainly politics makes strange bed fellows and none would be stranger than pro-business fiscal conservatives joining forces with — Al Sharpton. But it might be one more reason, if any were needed, for President-elect Obama to put this at the bottom instead of the top of his agenda. Rather than risk a filibuster and a divided Democratic Party, the better course of action might be to put this on the shelf for another day.
UPDATE: Steve DeMaura, head of Americans for Job Security, a pro-free market group which opposes “card check” legislation which would dispense with secret ballot union elections responded to the news of Sharpton’s opposition to the EFCA: “I applaud Reverend Sharpton’s principled stand on the Employee Free Choice Act. Reverend Sharpton clearly understands that in these difficult economic times Card Check threatens the job security of workers and the recovery of the American economy.”
<- 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.
29 Comments
1. Self-hating Boomer:The cynic in me says that Rev. Al is afraid that his shake-down enterprises might get saddled with a union. But he does raise a very good point regarding what happens if the union vote fails.
Dec 17, 2008 - 5:23 pm 2. jvon:I never thought I’d say it, but thank God for Al Sharpton. Bless his crooked little soul.
Dec 17, 2008 - 7:24 pm 3. Eric:All we need to do now is to get Rev Al to get on board with opposing illegal immigration. It is the black community that is hurt the most.
Dec 17, 2008 - 8:00 pm 4. fear Obama:2. jvon:
I never thought I’d say it, but thank God for Al Sharpton. Bless his crooked little soul.
The Rev. Al looking for a fight against the unions.
And now this:
We conservatives just be pissing everybody off.
heh
Dec 17, 2008 - 8:20 pm 5. kevin:How is this a surprise? Any black leader (including the cynical Al) would and should see independent small-to-medium black business owners being threatened by such a bill, and black business owners are a critical part of the new civil rights movement since it’s a major gateway to upward mobility. Being pro-card check is a White Thing: targeting, in their fantasies, rich waspy business owners, not blue collar business owners of any color and certainly not african american and other minority business owners. It’s just not on their radar due to their own internalized racism.
Black business owners? Card Checkers likely have never bothered themselves to meet one, even when their business provide their needed and desired services.
Dec 17, 2008 - 9:03 pm 6. Perry:OK, where’s Jesse?
Dec 18, 2008 - 3:40 am 7. SAF:Amazing indeed.
Dec 18, 2008 - 4:16 am 8. Ann:I did not see this one coming.
Kevin’s comments clarify the reasons Rev. Sharpton would take this position, but I really thought that the civil rights leaders were basically blind followers of the union mentality of “We’re the only ones who care about you. We’ll get more money from those inherently corrupt management people”.
There is some evidence here that Rev. Sharpton actually recognizes individual liberties as being a significant issue. Hmmmm.
Dec 18, 2008 - 4:25 am 9. Bob:Al Sharpton: Yeah, the outsourcing, well I’m all for…
Rev. Sharpton is all for the outsourcing of American jobs??
Dec 18, 2008 - 6:00 am 10. Ms Attitude:The rise of minority business ownership will cause more minorities to question the Democrat Party. Whether we admit it or not we all cast our ballots with self-centeredness. How will this affect me? This previous election had many minorites thinking that a biracial president would somehow change their lives. They saw his skin and not the issues. They might soon have buyers remorse.
Dec 18, 2008 - 6:07 am 11. Thinking Person:FINALLY…..A reason to like Al Sharpton!! Go Al, Go Al, Go Al!!
Dec 18, 2008 - 6:47 am 12. Tim:Kevin wrote:
Dec 18, 2008 - 6:54 am 13. Maggie:“Being pro-card check is a White Thing:”
let’s not get so tied up into the racist bugaboo there, I’m white, after reading the article I too oppose the measure, I believe that over 90% of the folks in a 50 mile radius would agree with me as well, the majority of them being white also and this crosses party lines as well. Something like this is to easy to extend into other areas of life and would likely wind up stabbing most of us in the back.
It is interesting to watch the brain shift when liberals have to agree on a policy instead of just contributing criticism.
Dec 18, 2008 - 7:31 am 14. Saltherring:Whatever his rationale, this is the first time I can recall agreeing with Al Sharpton on anything. Makes me wonder if something is fishy here……
Dec 18, 2008 - 7:34 am 15. Wacky Hermit:I had little respect for Rev. Sharpton before, but now I’ve got a bit more respect for him now that I know there actually ARE lines he won’t cross.
Dec 18, 2008 - 8:13 am 16. Mister Snitch!:You are blind to what’s REALLY motivating Sharpton. What’s in it for him, to support card check? Nothing, at this point. Under card check all power would shift to the unions. This does not benefit Sharpton at all.
By coming out strongly against it, Sharpton makes himself a stumbling block for the unions – someone who must be dealt with. The question then becomes, ‘What do the unions need to do, to win his blessing?’ That’s a matter they’ll negotiate. When and if Sharpton is given his ‘taste’, he’ll change his tune.
Amazing that anyone could be taken in by this. Look out over Sharpton’s history. He’s never, ever taken a principled stand – why on Earth would you think he’d take one now?
This is political positioning, masquerading as principle. Same as it ever was.
Dec 18, 2008 - 8:17 am 17. Dan Irving:A broken clock is right twice a day.
Dec 18, 2008 - 8:24 am 18. Matthew in Austin:I am giving Hope by Maggie’s comment:
“It is interesting to watch the brain shift when liberals have to agree on a policy instead of just contributing criticism.”
Obama has put together a surprisingly conservative cabinet, the Democratic Congress is wavering on the auto bailout, and now prominent Civil Rights leaders are acknowledging that management isn’t all bad and that unions need checks and balances too.
Now that they are in power, conservative ideas don’t look so bad! Fine with me! I don’t care if there is an R or D after someone’s name, as long as they enact logical policies.
Dec 18, 2008 - 8:26 am 19. Everett:Kevin: “How is this a surprise?”
People often take positions contrary to their interests to support their party, and Rev. Al is no exception. I can’t wait for him now to support public school vouchers!
Dec 18, 2008 - 8:29 am 20. asdf:kevin:
Dec 18, 2008 - 8:38 am 21. Nony Mouse:What a rascist thing to say, im white and against it so what now a$$hat? Is pulling the race card the only argument you can make? Its people like you who keep racism alive cause you need it to fuel your victim mentality and industry. Tard.
There are two sides to coersion, and two different arguements made to explain them. The end of the political spectrum you’re on will probably determine about which one you worry.
Dec 18, 2008 - 8:51 am 22. Rubicon:Those who want a union try to make people sign the cards, and once they’ve twisted the required number of arms, ta-da they have their union. This is the viewpoint from a number of “pro-business” people, that think that unionizing would be bad for their business.
And the other side, the side that Mr Sharpton is worried about: those who do not want the union and may retaliate against those who do, up to and including termination of employment. Ta-da, no chance at a union. This is the viewpoint from a number of “workers-rights” people, that think that unionizing might be good, but calling people out would be bad.
There should (not that there is) be a general outcry that there is a reason we have secret ballots, from all sides of the political spectrum. The only votes that should be public are the ones made by people making policy while they are doing so. Meaning: I want to be able to keep track how my senator is voting in the senate while representing me. I should not be privy to who the senators vote for their mayors as private citizens, even if I have a good party-line guess.
Card Check is not a white thing. Nor is it a black thing. Card Check is a union thing. As was pointed out, unions have been losing membership for the past few decades & that means they’ve been losing “dues.” The all important ingredient in al of this is “dues.” Take away the money & the unions can no longer have the back room meetings to “BUY” the elected officials they want for offices, whether by appointment or by party endorsement for an election.
Dec 18, 2008 - 9:16 am 23. jr:Al Sharpton figuring this out is a good thing. And yes, small businesses are the real gateway to prosperity for those who have not reached upper middle class. Take away those businesses & what you have are many people permanently relegated to poverty & subservience to the masters of the money!
The unions ran into a block wall with this fiscal crisis. It may be good for Democrats to flail away at Bush with, but it exposed the greed of the unions when everyone looked at their so-called “concessions” & it became obvious they were token measures designed to keep the unions with their power, but stick it to the company, the customers and worse, all taxpayers whom the unions expected to pay for their excessively lucrative benefits.
Unions are now desperately trying to portray Republicans & conservatives as the bogey men in this, because the unions realize they blew it. So the unions are employing the typical radical leftist socialist tool by trying to deflect attention away from them and at someone who has long been set up as the bad guy! Only this time, there are enough thinking people who realize what the unions are trying to do is protect their power & increase it through intimidation. Many realize what effect the card check extortion plans would have on “ALL” Americans.
I agree with Mr. Snitch, I’m afraid Al is for sale and Jessie is already bought and paid for.
Dec 18, 2008 - 9:36 am 24. Eric S.:You’ll note, though, that he’s not worried about the communistic mafia thugs of the union doing the coercing of the workers, he’s worried about business owners (*including the black small business owners, presumably*) doing the coercing.
Dec 18, 2008 - 9:51 am 25. kman:Can someone please explain to me WHY there should be a card check. If people want a union, let them vote secret ballot w/o fear of reprisal or recognition. What are the unions afraid of people voting secret ballot? If they make a very good case for organizing then there shouldn’t be a problem having a union come in to represent them. I just don’t get how there could be an good rational argument FOR the card check. It just seems to bring out the bad image of the union as being strong-armers more.
Dec 18, 2008 - 10:27 am 26. Kevin:“but I really thought that the civil rights leaders were basically blind followers of the union mentality of “We’re the only ones who care about you. We’ll get more money from those inherently corrupt management people”.”
In the days where there were fewer minority owned businesses, that might have been the case…
As for people walking miles to get all uppidy at my White Thang jibe, grow up and save it for the Democratic Underground & Kos. For that matter read my post again. The clarification of that line is right after the colon. The fact is that the stereotypical target of a card check business from the checkers Public Relations perspective is one that is owned by a rich white guy, not a middle class Joe the Plumber type, or African American entrepreneur who grew his or her business from the ground up. Change the class (and yes race) of the business owner and dollars to doughnuts the pro-card checkers would rightfully see it as union power-grab before having to blank out that harsh reality and keep pushing Card Check to hold on to their cred as being for the “little guy” (so long as they stay little of course). Welcome to the proverbial church of the painful truth.
I do agree with Eric S though — Al, himself, did not voice much at all for minority business owners, or any middle class small biz owners or others people who would be hurt hardest by card check.
Dec 18, 2008 - 10:31 am 27. Sam:this issue has been out for a while now, it’s a wonder that Sharpton even picks this up let alone understands it. The secret ballot/vote is one of the most precious rights we have in this country. if that needs explaining, then i think a dictatatorial country is for you.
Dec 18, 2008 - 11:26 am 28. Ann:Kevin.26…thank you for your further comments re the change of scenery that is perhaps driving the Rev’s point of view. Right on about the # of minorities owning small businesses….
This thread about the Rev. illustrates something about communication today:
1. Shall I take what someone says at face value?
2. If I do, does that mean I may be blindsided by underlying motives I’m not aware of (i.e., I’m a sucker!!)?
3. No matter what, we are all dealing with politicos, bureaucrats, movements, criminals, judicial who may or may not be telling the truth. And a very high percentage of them you KNOW you cannot take at face value. We may have to think new thoughts on new ground to figure out what’s going on, MOST of the time.
For the sake of our nation’s future, I think the effort is well worth it.
Dec 19, 2008 - 5:58 am 29. sbenard:Did I misunderstand Rev. Sharpton? My reading of the interview was that he just said it needed to be debated. I didn’t see any specific or decisive commitment against the bill.
Dec 22, 2008 - 10:36 pm