McCain – Employee Free Choice Act “bad” for America

Posted on October 30th, 2008 by ecthompson

One of my readers is a Republican who continually needles me on Obama and the Democrats. Now the Dems aren’t perfect and they make mistakes. I’m not perfect and I will post an erroneous something or other from time to time, too. I try not to jump on too many bandwagons.

Today, the question is where did John McCain state that he was anti-union?. The Employee Free Choice Act is something that the unions have been pushing for years. It would hamper Big Business’ ability to bust unions before they can form. McCain is against this bill.

From TP:

But this is — we’ve been talking about it for a long time — this is a threat to the fundamental of labor-management relations. It’s fundamental to democracy, the right to have a secret ballot.

The way that Senator Obama envisions — and the unions, and this is their big push, they’ve gotten commitments from Senator Obama and Senator Biden — union organizer goes to your house and says, Hey, Joe, can I sign you up for the union?

That is — we all know what that opens the door to. It’s dangerous for America, it’s dangerous to small business. And I think it’s a threat to one of the fundamentals of democracy.
McCain added that he would veto the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in a “New York minute.”

Tags: Civil Rights, Economy, Election 2008 // View Comments

  • ecthompson
    Chris -

    I appreciate the clarification. I shouldn't have assumed.
  • Chris -

    I appreciate the clarification. I shouldn't have assumed.
  • Chris
    Doc:

    I've never identified myself as a Republican. The truth is that my political identity tends to fall along conservative lines, but I still reserve the right to vote for the best person for the job.

    Or, at least, the best person out of the people who actually want the job.
  • Chris
    Doc:

    I've never identified myself as a Republican. The truth is that my political identity tends to fall along conservative lines, but I still reserve the right to vote for the best person for the job.

    Or, at least, the best person out of the people who actually want the job.
  • Chris
    How they always have before: the prospective members meet about unionizing, contact the union for help, vote on the resolution. It's really quite simple.

    It's served them well for almost 100 years.

    The facts here, that workers are well aware of, are that manufacturing jobs move away from the Rust Belt to the Southeast, as the companies that do move are all too cognizant that that particular region of the country is less likely to be unionized. From there they move to Mexico/Caribbean basin/South America, because typically those workers cost less than those in the American Southeast... isn't that your neighborhood, Doc?

    To be fair, some companies find the lack of education and mechanical skills in those areas to be an insurmountable obstacle, and end up moving back to the American Southeast, much like GE Medical Systems did at their plant near Columbia SC. They were having issues teaching Mexicans how to machine their medical products, and last I checked, they had moved the entire operation back to South Carolina.

    Unions haven't helped anyone in the past 50 years. They've priced their labor over what companies can afford, driven up legacy and health care costs, and offered little, if anything, in return for their "services" to the country. They may have been necessary in the times of the robber barons, but they've outlived their usefulness. Now, they introduce this legislation as their last gasp for relevancy, and in doing so, trample over a time honored tradition of democracy; the secret ballot.

    I'll ask the question again: how can anyone be FOR the demise of the secret ballot?

    As a general question of clarification, what happens when the workers discover that the union hasn't served them well, or that they simply haven't gotten their money's worth? Can the workers vote the union out?
  • Chris
    How they always have before: the prospective members meet about unionizing, contact the union for help, vote on the resolution. It's really quite simple.

    It's served them well for almost 100 years.

    The facts here, that workers are well aware of, are that manufacturing jobs move away from the Rust Belt to the Southeast, as the companies that do move are all too cognizant that that particular region of the country is less likely to be unionized. From there they move to Mexico/Caribbean basin/South America, because typically those workers cost less than those in the American Southeast... isn't that your neighborhood, Doc?

    To be fair, some companies find the lack of education and mechanical skills in those areas to be an insurmountable obstacle, and end up moving back to the American Southeast, much like GE Medical Systems did at their plant near Columbia SC. They were having issues teaching Mexicans how to machine their medical products, and last I checked, they had moved the entire operation back to South Carolina.

    Unions haven't helped anyone in the past 50 years. They've priced their labor over what companies can afford, driven up legacy and health care costs, and offered little, if anything, in return for their "services" to the country. They may have been necessary in the times of the robber barons, but they've outlived their usefulness. Now, they introduce this legislation as their last gasp for relevancy, and in doing so, trample over a time honored tradition of democracy; the secret ballot.

    I'll ask the question again: how can anyone be FOR the demise of the secret ballot?

    As a general question of clarification, what happens when the workers discover that the union hasn't served them well, or that they simply haven't gotten their money's worth? Can the workers vote the union out?
  • ecthompson
    Tell me how unions can organize without it.
  • Tell me how unions can organize without it.
  • Chris
    Doc:

    Again, this bill obliterates the idea of a secret ballot.

    Further, of COURSE the unions favor this bill. It is their last ditch effort at drumming up union members in the days of flagging membership. The fact that there would be no more secret ballots in union elections is specifically designed to strong-arm holdouts who wouldn't necessarily want to be in the union in the first place. It circumvents the democratic process in union elections! How can anyone be FOR this bill?

    Further, I find it appalling that Democrats support this bill. How can you call yourselves "Democrats" when this bill is clearly contradictory to democratic principals?
  • Chris
    Doc:

    Again, this bill obliterates the idea of a secret ballot.

    Further, of COURSE the unions favor this bill. It is their last ditch effort at drumming up union members in the days of flagging membership. The fact that there would be no more secret ballots in union elections is specifically designed to strong-arm holdouts who wouldn't necessarily want to be in the union in the first place. It circumvents the democratic process in union elections! How can anyone be FOR this bill?

    Further, I find it appalling that Democrats support this bill. How can you call yourselves "Democrats" when this bill is clearly contradictory to democratic principals?
  • RMcGary
    JOE AGAIN? Does McCain think every middle-class fellow is named "Joe" or is the senator simply that devoid of unique thought? We already know Palin's obsession with "Joe." I wonder if the First Dude ever has to dress up like a plumber. (Gotta laugh a little in order to avoid insanity, right, Dr Thompson? A little Jimmy Buffett?)
  • RMcGary
    JOE AGAIN? Does McCain think every middle-class fellow is named "Joe" or is the senator simply that devoid of unique thought? We already know Palin's obsession with "Joe." I wonder if the First Dude ever has to dress up like a plumber. (Gotta laugh a little in order to avoid insanity, right, Dr Thompson? A little Jimmy Buffett?)
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »