George Bennett of the Post on Politics blog writes a story about Ron Klein today that is loaded with right-wing anti-labor language and talking points:
Klein says he supports secret ballots despite voting for, cosponsoring union ‘card check’ bill
There is nothing called the “card check” bill. The Employee Free Choice Act has a provision in it that allows for workers to check off on a card if they are interested in creating a union, as one of many provisions. The phrase “card check” is the right-wing, anti-union name for the provision.
U.S. Rep. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, voted for Big Labor’s top priority in 2007
“Big Labor” is a derogatory reference to unions.
a “card check” bill that would allow unions to bypass secret-ballot elections if a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign cards requesting a union.
It would only allow unions to do this if employees wanted to do it. If employees preferred to have a secret ballot election, that option would still be available. The “ending of secret ballots” is the right-wing talking point on EFCA and is demonstrably not true.
“There’s two components of it. One is the vote and the other is the arbitration,” Klein told reporters. “Arbitration is something I’ve always supported as a business lawyer, allowing them to arbitrate. But the card check…You need to have a secret ballot, so I support secret ballot.”
Ron Klein has heard the right-wing talking points enough that he’s bought into the secret ballot nonsense. He co-sponsored the bill, so he’s on the right side, but he’s repeating the same right-wing frame here that Bennett is. They are both wrong on the facts.
Under current law, votes on whether to unionize are done by secret ballot and overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Unions say the system allows employers to harass and intimidate employees during the run-up to an election. Businesses say the union-backed legislation would allow labor organizers to harass and intimidate employees by targeting those who haven’t signed cards.
Theoretically if union organizers were going to harass and intimidate employees, they wouldn’t need this legislation to do it, since they could just harass any employees that won’t commit to voting for the union. Since this isn’t the usual way for labor organizers to work, it isn’t happening and it wouldn’t happen if EFCA passed. Besides, in states like Florida, a so-called “right to work” state, labor organizers would have no leverage with which to harass employees even if EFCA passed. Employers, on the other hand, already have the ability to harass employees because of the leverage they have as employers (jobs, wages, benefits, working conditions) and they regularly do intimidate employees.
When I worked as a full-time college professor, I was active in the faculty senate. We began having discussions about unionizing and we were told that if we pursued a union, the faculty senate would be eliminated. When I was working as an adjunct professor at a different college, I attended some union organizational meetings and was advised — by the union — not to because I would almost certainly kill my chances of ever getting hired if I participated in union activities. And these two examples are from publicly-owned and operated entities. If they are that bad, how bad must private entities be at harassing employees.
Update: Bennett responds: “Saw your blog post. I used the term “card check” after reading it in the official Congressional Research Service summary of the Employee Free Choice Act.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01409:@@@D&summ2=m&
Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 – Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit.”
My response: Thanks for the e-mail. While the bill does use the term card check, that doesn’t mean it is a “card check bill.” Your post failed to include the actual name of the bill and suggested that the bill would eliminate the secret ballot, which it won’t, it’ll just offer another option that doesn’t have a secret ballot. That’s a big difference. Your post seemed to imply that Klein was pursuing a bill that would eliminate the secret ballot. If I’m reading more into it than is there, I apologize, but that’s what I took away from it, especially with the “card check” and “Big Labor” references.
Update 2: Bennett again: “Thanks for responding. We use Big Labor, Big Oil, Big Sugar and the like frequently on our blog, though we’re less colloquial in print.
Also, I did mention the actual name of the bill — “Employee Free Choice Act” — in the third paragraph, with a link to its official congressional description and vote history.
I said the very first sentence that the bill would “allow unions to bypass secret-ballot elections if a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign cards requesting a union.” I didn’t say “eliminate.” And while you say it’s “just another option,” it is a new option that is labor’s call rather than management’s — a significant change from current law, regardless of one’s position on whether it’s a good change or not.
As for what type of bill Klein is pursuing, I let his own words speak for him — he says he likes the arbitration part but not the “card check” part (his words) and cosponsored the bill so he could have a “seat at the table.”
Thanks again for reading.”
My response: Thanks for responding again. My mistake on saying you didn’t mention the name of the bill, you definitely did.
Using “Big Labor” like that without the context certainly seems anti-labor, though, since it’s the same language that Republicans use when they attack labor. Just like using Big Oil would show bias since it’s a term that is only used by one side and only when they are attacking that particular industry. I get that you are saying that there is a lower standard for objectivity because it’s the blog and not the print version, I’m not sure readers make that distinction.
Yes, EFCA would be a significant change from current law, but it isn’t putting that new option in the hands of the labor unions, it’s putting it in the hands of the workers, which isn’t the same thing. This move is democratizing in it’s effect, not a simple increase in power for labor leaders.
You did let Klein’s words speak for themselves, but not until later. The headline, in particular, is what gives me the problem, since it sets up a conflict between secret ballots and EFCA which doesn’t exist.
EXTRAS:
*Source: Post on Politics
*Questions: Are Post readers being well-served by such anti-union language from a “neutral” newspaper?
*Action: Contact Bennett and ask him to refrain from using anti-union language and talking points in future articles. E-mail: george_bennett@pbpost.com. Phone: 561-307-3031.
*Help support this blog, this type of post and additional investigative reporting by contributing $5 a month or more
*Send your tips, ideas, feedback and links to quinnelk@hotmail.com
*Interested in writing for FPC? E-mail me at quinnelk@hotmail.com
Recent Comments