Who's Special Interests'?

[Fieldmouse]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2MxMjVmNTg5MjUwYzNiMDE5YTdkMDhiMmQ3ZDA1OTU=

Whose "˜Special Interests"™?
Democrats don"™t have any, the way they tell it.

By Thomas Sowell






We take it for granted that a vote means a secret ballot, but it was not always that way. Moreover, it will not remain that way for workers who vote on whether or not they want a labor union, if legislation sponsored by congressional Democrats and endorsed by Senator Barack Obama becomes law.

Before there were secret ballots, voters dared not express their true preferences if those who watched them vote could retaliate "” whether by firing them, beating them up, or in other ways.

Anyone who is serious about people being free to express themselves with their votes wants a secret ballot.
[/align]
The problem for labor unions is that workers in the private sector increasingly vote against being represented by unions. The proportion of workers in the private sector who are represented by unions has fallen below 10 percent.

Since unions are losing the game under the current rules, their obvious answer is to change the rules. Specifically, they want to do away with secret ballots when the government conducts elections to determine whether the workers in a particular company or industry want to be represented by a union.

With labor unions being major supporters of the Democratic party "” spending hundreds of millions of dollars in this year"™s election campaign "” it is hardly surprising that congressional Democrats have lined up solidly behind legislation to let union organizers simply collect signed cards from a majority of workers, in order to be certified as the officially recognized union for those workers.

Of course, the union organizers will then know who did and who did not vote for them. And they may have long memories, or short fuses, or both. Moreover, the workers themselves know that, so they may find it prudent to sign up for a union, whether they want one or not.

This legislation passed the House of Representatives last year but did not make it through the Senate. "œI will make it the law of the land when I"™m President of the United States,"� Barack Obama has said to the AFL-CIO.

Senator Obama has also said many times that he is against "œspecial interests."� But, like most politicians who say that, he means that he is against other politicians"™ special interests. His own special interests are never called special interests.

Neither are the environmental extremists who support the Democrats called special interests. But the green zealots who have for decades blocked the country from using oil within our own borders "” more oil than in Saudi Arabia, by the way "” are also among the special interests with a big voice in the Democratic party.

They are also a major factor in shutting down the democratic voting process "” in this case, in the House of Representatives, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow a vote on drilling for oil in places where the green zealots don"™t want drilling.

The Congressional Democrats could of course vote to continue forbidding drilling in those places. But voters paying $4 a gallon for gas are not likely to agree with the green zealots "” and recent polls show that they do not.

Rather than lose votes in the November elections by voting with the green zealots, or lose the money that the green zealots contribute to the Democratic-party coffers, Nancy Pelosi simply shut down the House of Representatives, so that there could be no votes, and turned off the lights so that C-SPAN could not broadcast Republicans"™ speeches protesting what happened.

After all, what is democracy compared to support from the green zealots?

It is the same story when it comes to the teachers"™ unions, the biggest special interest of all in the Democratic party. They not only contribute money, they can contribute people who walk the precincts on election nights, rounding up the faithful to go vote.

Even the Congressional Black Caucus dares not vote for vouchers or any other form of school choice that the teachers"™ unions oppose. Better to let a whole generation of black children be trapped in failing schools that employ union teachers.

But special interests? Not at all.

[shepdogwv]

Um...actually that's not what the law is doing. The law doesn't get rid of the secret ballots at all, but if the union gets a majority of cards signed (they currently have to get cards signed but only have to get 30% to have a secret ballot vote, they don't have to get a majority to have a vote), then they don't have to have a vote after that. It makes it so that an employer can't MAKE them have a secret ballot election, if they already have a majority of the cards signed. If they don't get a majority, it goes to a secret ballot. The company still has plenty of time to bring in their propoganda and law firms. If the company can show that the union coerced employees into signing, then they can makethem havea secret ballot election (under the new legislation). Currently the workers must show that the company acted improperly, this will change the burden.


btw, I like thomas sowell, but this is a very misleading article. Also, there may be some other things in the law that I may not like, but that's not the points we're discussing.

[Fieldmouse]

but if the union gets a majority of cards signed (they currently have to get cards signed but only have to get 30% to have a secret ballot vote, they don't have to get a majority to have a vote), then they don't have to have a vote after that.

????? That's very very dangerous knowing what the unions have done in the past and have continued to this day still be capable of doing. There always should be a secret ballot. With out it will encourage strong arm tactics.

[shepdogwv]

Go talk to an attorney that represents companies in situations like this and you'll learn about strong arm tactics. Like I said before, basically what this boils down to is putting the burden on companies to prove that the unions were "coercive" instead of making the unions prove that the companies were coercive. I really think that this is better for everyone, if the employees know that their signature will mean something permanent, maybe they will choose to sign or not based on what they really think, instead of thinking "well I can sign now, but change my vote later" thus wasteing everyone's time.

[Fieldmouse]

Sorry Shep. If they can get more than 50% then they should be able to have a successful vote. Plain and simple. What would they be afraid of? I work with unions everyday and know some stories that just makes my head spin. This is bad bill and secrete ballots need to stay in place.

[shepdogwv]

Sorry FM, but for every story you have heard about the unions, there's a story about a company strongarming people around. What a union would be afraid of is that once a company forces a vote is when all of the company's strong arming begins. Under this bill a company has the right to force a secret ballot if they can show a union was using coercive tactics. If you can find out the stories, then they should be able to also.

[Fieldmouse]

Don't worry shep, your going to make a good union lawyer someday. Perhaps even own a baseball team.

I must say, I do like walmart's tatic. Just close the store.

[Whitehorse]

We all are part of a "special interest group." It's just the other guy's "special interest group" that's bad.

As far as unions and secret ballots, I hope the law stays where secret ballots are required. I have seen union strong-arm tactics & how some get cards signed - it's third world, not US.