Employee Free Choice Act

The Employee Free Choice Act faces a threat in the Senate.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Key Senate Democrats are wavering in their support of legislation that would give more power to labor unions, dealing a setback to labor's top priority as businesses warn of the damage the bill would cause.

The battle over the "Employee Free Choice Act" -- expected to be introduced Tuesday -- is seen as a power struggle among labor unions and businesses, as well as a test of whether moderate Democrats and Republicans will push back on Democratic congressional leaders and the Obama administration.

At least six Senators who have voted to move forward with the so-called card-check proposal, including one Republican, now say they are opposed or not sure -- an indication that Senate Democratic leaders are short of the 60 votes they need for approval.

The legislation is divisive and distracting, said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln in an interview Monday. The Democratic lawmaker, who was previously seen as a supporter, said the Senate should focus on creating jobs and improving the U.S. economy. "I have 90,000 Arkansans who need a job, that's my No. 1 priority," she said. The legislation, she said, would be "divisive and we don't need that right now. We need to focus on the things that are more important."

Sen. Lincoln is one of several moderate Democrats expressing doubts about the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join. A second provision would give federal arbitrators power to impose contract terms on companies that fail to reach negotiated agreements with unions. Both provisions are strongly opposed by business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

I'm glad to hear that there are some Dems willing to stop acting like lemmings and break ranks with their party.

This bill is part of a shameless power grab by the Democrats.

U.S. Congressman Steve King writes:

From tax increases to new regulations on job providers, there are many "changes" Barack Obama hopes to impose early in his Presidency. But at the very top of his list are measures to vastly increase the money and forced-dues power of the hard left Big Labor Bosses.

Why? Because Obama knows that pushing his far left agenda will be far easier with the money and manpower of Big Labor on his side. And because, quite frankly, as he himself said in his political memoir, "The Audacity of Hope,"

"I owe those unions... When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don't mind feeling obligated."

Well, Barack Obama may indeed owe the Big Labor Bosses. But his election did not give him a "mandate" to dramatically expand their forced unionism power...

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is reminding Barack Obama that he's overreaching.

Here's the text of the foundation's petition to Obama:

President Obama,

I feel it is my patriotic duty to advise you that your victory did NOT give you a “mandate” to impose draconian policies that will dramatically increase the power and money of the Big Labor Bosses.

I wish to specifically advise you NOT to advance proposed policies in Washington that will:

1. DENY workers the right to a secret ballot when voting on whether or not they want to be part of a union (this is at the top of the agenda for Big Labor, because it would enable union organizers to forcibly unionize millions more workers into dues-paying union ranks);

2. BAN companies in effect from running their businesses during a strike – a right they have held for roughly 70 years;

3. ATTACK all 22 state Right to Work laws, which make union membership and union dues voluntary;

4. INSTALL hundreds of Big Labor cronies on the federal courts, throughout the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, and other federal agencies;

5. EXPAND the definition of “employee” and narrow the definition of management, thereby placing more employees under union boss control; and

6. FORCE state and local governments under the monopoly control of union bosses as the monopoly bargaining agents for police, firefighters, and other first responders.

During the election, you claimed that you wanted to be President of ALL Americans. I hope this includes America’s workers. You can demonstrate this by respecting their rights and by not implementing ANY of the draconian forced unionism policies I have listed above.

Sign the petition.

The denial of the secret ballot is stunningly anti-American.

It's Soviet Union era stuff. It's oppressive. It's tyrannical.

How could Obama support something like that?

I guess it does make sense.
________________

Read the New York Times' spin on the bill. Pro-socialism.

Read the reaction from the Employee Freedom Action Committee (EFAC).

Union Watchdog Group Criticizes Backers of the Employee Forced Choice Act

Group Calls on Legislators to Oppose Bill that Would Effectively Eliminate the Secret Ballot and Cost Countless Jobs

WASHINGTON, March 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the Employee Freedom Action Committee (EFAC) criticized the legislators who are putting forth the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bill which would effectively eliminate private voting in union organizing elections. EFCA is a blatant power grab being pushed by union leaders looking to make it easier to add dues paying members at the expense of employee privacy. The bill is to be introduced at a press conference this afternoon.

Earlier this month a poll showed that 82% of Americans do not want their job to be unionized, which demonstrates that there is no national appetite for legislation to dramatically change the organization process in the unions' favor. In addition, a new study out last week by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar showed that in the first year after the implementation of EFCA, this job killer would cost the nation 600,000 full-time employees and permanently shrink the number of working Americans.

These facts are clear to the 100 editorial boards across the country who have opposed this undemocratic legislation, in stark contrast to the paltry three that have supported it. Even the former Democratic Party Presidential nominee, Sen. George McGovern (D-SD), has vocally opposed this legislation, saying that EFCA "cannot be justified."

"These legislators should respect the overwhelming majority of Americans who support retaining the secret ballot and have no interest in joining a union," said Employee Freedom Action Committee Executive Director Rick Berman. "They should be ashamed for backing legislation that will not only strip employees of their right to a secret ballot, but will cost the nation over a half million jobs, and force innumerable Americans into a union against their will."

Have you heard the commercials with George McGovern speaking out against the bill?

If George McGovern is against it, you know it has to be extreme.