*

*
Today at the Forum
Opinions from members of the Enquirer Editorial Board


David Wells,
Editorial Page Editor


Ray Cooklis,
Assistant Editorial Editor


Krista Ramsey,
Editorial Writer


Dennis Hetzel, General Manager,
Kentucky Enquirer/NKY.Com


Jim Borgman,
Editorial Cartoonist



Powered by Blogger

Monday, March 19, 2007

McConnell right on 'Free Choice'

President Bush should keep his promise to veto the HR 800, curiously named the “Employee Free Choice Act.”
Sponsored by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., it passed two weeks ago in the House and now goes to the Senate. The legislation is wrongheaded, and is potentially unfair to workers.
Workers now can vote for or against a union can via a secret ballot under the oversight of the National Labor Relations Board. HR 800 takes away the secret ballot. Instead, it lets workers simply sign union authorization cards, or “card check.”
The American worker ought to maintain the right to have labor representation, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.
Card check is not the way. It opens up a host of issues, but most prominently it could lead to coercion or intimidation of workers, who may feel pressured into decisions. That's not the atmosphere you want on the job.
When the bill passed, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell wisely noted, “We will not allow the progress already made on behalf of U.S. workers to be undone, nor will we allow coercion by employers or unions. … “Let’s continue our efforts to safeguard the rights of America’s workforce and stop this attempt to strip away workers’ rights.”
If the bill makes it to Bush’s desk, a veto is in order.
For the record: Ohio lawmakers Steve Chabot, Jean Schmidt, Mike Turner and John Boehner voted against the legislation. In Kentucky Geoff Davis, also voted against the legislation. Of the 24 Kentucky and Ohio representatives who voted, 14 rejected the measure.


8 Comments:

at 4:06 PM, March 19, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, what a surprise he feigned. all the neocons voted against a bill that can only help the middle class and working man.

had enough? vote democratic.

 
at 4:10 PM, March 19, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous said...

You raise the issue of POWER and COERSION at the ballot box.

Seems that elected officials are required to divulge their voting choices, to be accountable to the people they represent. When individuals perform voting tasks representing their single vote, they should be able to maintain secretive ballot choices.

This is a simple issue of POWER. Individuals representing their own vote should be free of coercive tactics. Elected officials should be “on the record” as to how they vote, when representing their electorate.

I only can think of “Individually Polling the Jury”, when this practice is possibly violated. But in some respect, isn’t the jury representing the wishes of the public. So the public awareness policy of representative voting is still maintained.

The guidelines currently in practice for voting on issues, public or private, within the USA, seem clear to me.

 
at 8:06 AM, March 20, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unions are,one of many,factions that support, and gain status from their connections with political parties. They are the perfect business, earning money with others sweat. They are the perfect mother for workers who were never weaned. By eliminating the vote the need for personal responsibility is removed. The liberal cause is increased.

 
at 8:59 AM, March 20, 2007 Blogger Labor Lawyers for Management said...

More than the elimination of the secret-ballot election itself, the true aim of the E.F.C.A. is to eliminate the pre-election campaign period. It is during THAT period that the "free speech" rights of the employer ensure that employees receive a fuller, more balanced picture of union representation before having to commit themselves to a decision. By curtailing this, the E.F.C.A. supporters seek to ensure that employees hear only the organizer's one-sided, rosy, pro-union sales pitch before being confronted with a binding decision. (http://union-free.blogspot.com)

 
at 11:49 AM, March 20, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Secret ballots? Maybe the NAACP could hold honest NAACP leadership elections if they restricted one "legally eligible voting person" to one vote, without the corrupt practices of those in power within the NAACP Cinti Chapter.

 
at 1:01 PM, March 20, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shouldn't there be some effort to protect an election process but also ensure that a real democratic debate and discussion can occur?

Currently, employers are permitted to require workers to attend antiunion campaign meetings. But workers who want to form a union aren't, of course, allowed to make their coworkers listen to their side of the story. This creates a gigantic advantage for the employer -- like setting up a political campaign where the incumbent is given unlimited TV time but the challenger is limited to talking to voters door-to-door one afternoon a week. One side if far more likely to reach the voters with their message, and thus far more likely to win.

Corporate America's sanctimonious rhetoric about sacred democratic principles quickly devolves into hypocrisy if no effort is made to address the underlying undemocratic practices that make the current process so flawed.

Unions are almost dead in many areas of the economy, and an outdated law prevents working people from joining together in a union if they choose to. That's why corporate America is so determinted to block reform.

 
at 11:10 PM, March 21, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous said...

With that lineup of Neanderthals voting against it, clearly it must be a good law that should be passed. "Birds of an anti-middle-class feather flock together."

 
at 12:17 PM, March 22, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 11:10 PM, Spoken like a true liberal. You know nothing about the issues but if your enemy the conservatives are for it, you're automatically against it.

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck