Thursday, March 08, 2007

Free Choice Act

I realize that it has been discussed all over the local blogosphere, but props to Randy Pullen for calling out Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell on the "Free Choice Act" It is terrible legislation, meant to allow workers to intimidate other workers into forming a union where one is not needed or wanted.

Tedski has tried to defend the legislation over at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion. I love his blog, but I would suspect that he would also defend mandatory kidney surgery on all citizens whether they needed it or not as long as Raul Grijalva put his signature on a bill calling for it.

The general nutcase claim is that a secret ballot is subject to employer intimidation. If that is the case, let's just do away with all secret ballots as they also present, I would suppose, an equal opportunity for intimidation. Far better to have representatives from each party just knock on doors during a general election with a ballot and sit in the kitchen while the voter fills it out. No intimidation possible! We would probably get 100% participation doing that as well. You see it works out perfectly.

Voting integrity MUST include a secret ballot, which should not even be arguable at this point. The only people to argue against this are seeking an unfair advantage and the ability to pressure those not leaning their direction.

This Bill should turn out to be a tremendous loser for the Democratic party, and to someone like Gabby Giffords in particular. Were I in charge of party affairs, I would be sure to work for a ballot resolution outlawing "card check" type elections in Arizona entirely, and not only in the case of union organization. Its not that I fear the "Free Choice Act" passing the Senate or the President's veto pen; I want this bill to be a major player in the 2008 elections not just for Gabby and Harry, but for all the Democratic members of the state legislature as well. Let them squirm and try to defend this piece of legislative garbage. It's crooked, ugly, and reeks of a union payback which should be recognizable to most Arizonans, and they may vote accordingly.


sirocco said...

I've posted here and on RRR about my opposition to the bill, pretty much along the lines you give.

If the concern is intimidation by employers, I suspect I could, with 30 minutes thought, provide the rough outline of at least five approaches which would address that matter without making the voting public.

There are better ways to deal with the problem than to allow voter intimidation by all sides (just to make the intimidation equitable, ya know).

Framer said...


Exactly, you being Center-Left can see how bad of a law this would be, I would guess that, once educated on what this actually does, about 75% of the public would agree with us.

This is a straight payoff to Unions, and was one of the first things "the most ethical congress ever" wanted to take care of. I would guess there are more such payoffs coming.

Nail by nail, plank by plank, Gabby's "moderate" sheen will start to wear off, unless she starts to find some points of disagreement with America's third most liberal Representative.

Its our job to make sure this stuff is remembered when the inevitable flurry of puff pieces begin next year.

Labor Lawyers for Management said...

People must discuss this legislation all over the blogosphere. It is precisely as the commenter above said political payback for AFL-CIO millions.

We've been blogging on this issue in detail at Feel free to stop by and comment there as well.