[Peace-discuss] Liberal opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act

Mon Oct 27 14:40:56 CDT 2008

[I know that our associates promoting EFCA are doing so with the appropriate 
goal of encouraging and strengthening unions, but there is a case to be answered 
-- liberal opposition, as below.  --CGE]

	WALL STREET JOURNAL
	AUGUST 8, 2008
	My Party Should Respect Secret Union Ballots
	By GEORGE MCGOVERN

As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, 
I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great 
consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I 
made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. 
I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom 
to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice 
against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not 
in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it 
runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead 
of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

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.

There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their 
tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong 
middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect 
individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic 
Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.

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.

Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. 
Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney 
Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such 
as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their 
workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true 
ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a 
desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being 
a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a 
course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted 
method for conducting honest elections.

While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends, there 
are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and lonely 
opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress will 
re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as Americans, we should 
strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of expression and freedom from 
fear that is our ideal and our right.

Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic 
presidential candidate.

Robert Naiman wrote:
> Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
> http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110fJ89fa::
> 
> AFL-CIO page on the Employee Free Choice Act:
> http://www.afl-cio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/
> 
> AFL-CIO Q & A on the Employee Free Choice Act
> http://www.afl-cio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/qna.cfm
> 
> Roll Call in the House:   H R 800,  1-Mar-2007
> 241-185
> 228 Democrats in favor, 2 opposed
> 13 Republicans in favor, 185 opposed (TJ voted no.)
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll118.xml
> 
> Roll Call in the Senate: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke
> Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R.800 )
> 51-48 (cloture failed, needing 60)
> All Dems voted yes; SD Tim Johnson was absent due to illness
> All Rs voted no, except for Specter, who voted yes.
> Lieberman and Sanders voted yes.
> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00227
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss