Bipartisan Problems with Card Check
Not only are Republicans standing in opposition to “card check”, also known as the Employee Free Choice Act, but some Democrats are understanding the ramifications of the bill too. Blue Dog Democrat Dan Boren of Oklahoma went on the record voicing his opposition to the bill, and Hot Air has the video:
Boren’s dissent comes on the heels of the news that card check wouldn’t only effectively end the secret ballot when it comes to votes to unionize, but it would also do considerable economic damage. According to to the study’s results, more unionization in industries that do not want union influence would lead to higher unemployment, and would actually hinder social welfare efforts instead of enhancing them:
According to the new study, An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications, an increase of 1.5 million union members in year one would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs by the following year. Job losses directly attributed to the passage of the EFCA would be equal to the entire population of Boston , MA .
Dr. Layne Farrar concludes, “The costs [of EFCA] should be carefully weighed against any purported benefits of passing the Act, all of which appears to benefit some groups at the expense of others. There is no coherent theoretical argument that explains how the higher costs, greater legal uncertainty, and expanded government intervention entailed in EFCA would improve overall social welfare.”
Workers shouldn’t be forced into joining unions that could lead to job losses, into joining unions that donate money to political candidates or causes they don’t support, or into joining unions that have a track record of bullying employees. Unionization is necessary when dealing with certain industries, but that doesn’t mean it’s a miracle drug that will solve low wages and bad benefits. For that, we need to improve the economy, not slide power out of the hands of employers and into the hands of union bosses (not even the workers themselves).
“Boren’s dissent comes on the heels of the news that card check wouldn’t only effectively end the secret ballot when it comes to votes to unionize…”
And so Justin Higgins continues to lie to his readers. EFCA will not “end the secret ballot”.
Since Justin is unwilling to provide the facts to his readers, I will do it for him…
::: begin quote :::
NY Times report on EFCA ignored supporters’ point that bill would eliminate only employers’ right to demand secret ballot
A January 8 New York Times article quoted multiple opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) claiming that the bill would “eliminate … the right” to a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers wish to unionize, but did not mention that supporters of EFCA counter by pointing out, as the Times itself has previously reported, that the bill would only “take away employers’ right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election” [emphasis added].
In the January 8 article, labor and workplace reporter Steven Greenhouse quoted Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) claiming of EFCA, “It is a total game changer for the next 40 to 50 years if the Democrats are able to get this legislation that eliminates the right to a secret ballot.” Greenhouse later reported:
“We are against any bill that would effectively eliminate freedom of choice and the right to a secret ballot election,” said a Wal-Mart spokesman, David Tovar. “We believe every associate” — Wal-Mart’s term for employees — “should have the right to make a private and informed decision regarding union representation.”
But Greenhouse cited no proponent of the bill explaining that it would abolish only the employer’s ability to force a secret-ballot election. Indeed, as Greenhouse himself reported in a November 8, 2008, Times article, “Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers‘ right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization” [emphasis added].
As Media Matters for America documented, the House Committee on Education and Labor describes the claim that “[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board’s ’secret ballot’ election process” as a “myth” and states on its website: “The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice — whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up — a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.”
::: end quote :::
Remember: There is no lie that Justin Higgins will not tell.