Claude Cartaginese

FREE SPEECH TV: Al Franken's First Act as Senator is to Support a Bad Bill

Posted on July 10 2009 9:05 am
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

To the cheers of those in attendance yesterday at the headquarters of the AFL-CIO (the most powerful of the leftist labor unions), Al Franken, the new, conservative-hating senator from Minnesota, proudly announced his support for a measure that would make labor unions, and not workers or employers, the ultimate authority in the American workplace.

“As of about a half an hour ago, I became the co-sponsor of my first piece of legislation in the Senate, something called the Employees Free Choice Act [EFCA]” the Democrat Franken proclaimed.

Barely able to conceal her smile when reporting on the event, Amy Goodman, the far-left host of Democracy Now! (the public face of American Marxism), agreed. “This [bill] will make it easier for workers to vote on joining unions,” she happily exclaimed.

If you are a Marxist, then you take no issue with the “workers of the world unit[ing]” against the evil capitalists – the central tenent of Karl Marx’s thought.

But for the rest of us, is this EFCA bill really a good thing? Let’s have a look, shall we?

Currently, when workers choose to unionize, they vote on it–in private. EFCA would require the issuance of “authorization cards,” which potential members would be forced to publicly sign to express their desire to unionize. As these cards would not be confidential by design, the workers who sign them would be subjected to peer pressure, harassment, and coercion by fellow employees and union organizers.

EFCA would also give unions an unfair advantage in their negotiations with employers. As the card-signing drives would be organized by the unions themselves and not by the workers, those employees targeted by the unions would be given a one-sided pitch and would be shamed into signing the cards. The other side of the argument would never be heard. As one former union organizer told the the Heritage Foundation:

“We rarely showed workers what an actual union contract looked like because we knew that it wouldn’t necessarily reflect what a worker would want to see. We were trained to avoid topics such as dues increases, strike histories, etc. and to constantly move the worker back to what the organizer identified as his or her “issues” during the first part of the house call.”

These union tactics, which would have brought tears of admiration to any member of the Soviet politburo, have no place in a free America.

Be Sociable, Share!
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry