This morning’s St. Cloud Times editorial page has the first post-election editorial touting the virtues of EFCA. It’s the same tired collection of misinformation and unproven facts that the DFL used during the campaign. Here’s one of their ‘golden oldies’:

Major corporations pay their CEOs millions of dollars, and pad their salaries with millions of dollars in bonuses, but actively work against workers’ basic benefits. In fact, working Americans who try to organize and bargain collectively are often coerced, harassed, intimidated or fired for their efforts.

The editorialist didn’t provide proof that “working Americans” had been “coerced, harassed, intimidated or fired” for trying to organize a union. Similarly, the editorialist didn’t provide proof that CEOs “actively work against workers’ basic benefits.”

In other words, this editorial is long on allegations and short on proof. A brief history lesson is in order. I’ll start with this YouTube video of El Tinklenberg’s saying that he supports EFCA:

I’ll finish the ‘history lesson’ with George McGovern’s op-ed in the WSJ:

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.

Through the years, Sen. McGovern was as staunch a supporter of unions as Ted Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey. This isn’t someone who didn’t know or didn’t like the union movement. He fought for increased unionization. Sen. McGovern’s opposition of EFCA is the equivalent or the Sierra Club or the National Wildlife Foundation supporting the building of nuclear power plants.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “The Start of the EFCA Campaign”

  • eric z. says:

    What’s your point? You give no proof this measure would be bad for the nation. You only give McGovern’s opinion, presumably because part of it fits your own opinion.

    Why criticize an editorial that offers as much proof as you do?

  • eric z says:

    I forgot to say – Tinklenberg, this is HIS version of McCarthyism.

    Really.

    Not Joe.

    Not Gene.

    Bill.

    http://www.minneapolisunions.org/2007-11-29_tinklenberg.php

    No biting the hand —

  • eric z says:

    Gary – if you know, please post, this effort at making it easier to get bargaining unit approvals and hence dues-paying union members, is it involving any push to unionize the European and Japanese auto assembly plants in the rural south?

    Is that an objective?

    It seems that union leadership, if concerned for the existing bargaining units and labor-management relative options, other than viewing memberships as dues cash flow sources, those in the union driving seats would be more focused on changing existing labor law under the Dems – for stronger powers via secondary boycott rights, for stronger curbs on scab strike breakers being employed, and for stronger provisions against the runaway plants – NAFTA-Mexico, as well as to the rural southern US, and against outsourcing of the parts and products streams – e.g., the Boeing machinists and Seattle plant workers are aware of things that this cards-vs-election issue might assist them on – easier organization of firms for which the parent venture outsources to cheaper labor separate entities.

    Do you know if any such effort is in parallel to this cards-vs-election issue?

    Second thought — Two more Tink – McCarthyism links:

    http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?news_6_3391

    http://www.minneapolisunions.org/cluc_about.php

    Plus this one, contrasting Tink and Wetterling labor support going into 2006 precinct caucus:

    http://www.erstarnews.com/2006/May/9sixth.html

    I find that last item, and its view on a split of union support interesting, since Tink lined up every union person early for 2008 (despite that smoke he blew in Aug. 2007 about the bridge falling being his incentive to run but before that he was just simple Tink, the consultant).

    He’d union folks at that August announcement, so you tell me, was he pre-annointed, or not?

  • sethstorm says:

    When Reagan decided to give unionbusting the green light via PATCO, this is what you get in return.

    Interesting that folks like Rick Berman are protesting against the same tactics they use against labor unions. They have eviscerated the “secret ballot” without removing it in the very same manner.

    This is what happens when you try to go Pinkerton on your nation and its citizens.

Leave a Reply