-
Key Soros Ally Provides Race-Rhetoric Training Session for House Democrats
May 13, 2012 | 11 comments
-
Washington Post Quotes the Dead to Defame Romney
May 11, 2012 | 20 comments
-
Chronicle Editors Pander to Academic Lynch Mob, Fire Naomi Schaefer Riley
May 8, 2012 | 39 comments
-
NBC News and the Death of Truth
April 26, 2012 | 24 comments
-
Geithner Says Obama Policies 'Incredibly Effective,' Calls Romney Claims 'Ridiculous'
April 15, 2012 | 38 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Opponents of Democrat-backed "card-check" legislation, which would abolish the right to a secret ballot in union elections, are pushing state constitutional amendments to guarantee workers' rights.
The amendment effort, now going forward in 10 states, is necessary because Congress "seems bound and determined to deny workers the secret-ballot guarantee that they have under current law," said former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), chairman of Save Our Secret Ballot (SOS Ballot), the organization backing the effort.
Istook announced yesterday that the group has added five new target states -- Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and North Dakota -- to its list, which already included Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada and Utah.
SOS Ballot aims to take the issue to voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, asking approval for state constitutional amendments that would read: "The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."
The initiative effort is a response to proposed federal legislation, the Employee Freedom of Choice Act (EFCA), which Istook says is "grossly misnamed." While longstanding federal law requires secret ballots when employees vote whether to unionize their workplace, EFCA permits union organizers to substitute signed pledge cards for secret ballots, a change that would expose workers to intimidation tactics, Istook said.
While some have questioned whether states could pre-emptively protect workers' rights against the EFCA provisions, SOS Ballot sponsors are "fairly confident" that state constitutional amendments "would hold up" under federal court challenges, former South Dakota Attorney General Mark Meierhenry said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday.
The Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute is "prepared to defend this language against any court challenges," said Istook, who is affiliated with the Heritage Foundation.
Istook noted that Democrats supporting EFCA "are trying to claim that they are not abolishing the right to a secret ballot," but said such card-check sponsors would be "smoked out" if they filed suit to overturn state measures guaranteeing that right.
Democrats began pushing the card-check measure after they took control of Congress in the 2006 election. The House passed EFCA in March 2007 by a 241-185 vote, with only two Democrats voting "no," but was stopped by a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Now, however, Democrats control at least 58 Senate seats, and EFCA opponents fear that the Republican minority will not be able to block the measure should it come to a vote again. President Obama has voiced strong support for EFCA.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/01/22/fighting-card-check-at-the-sta
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pat| 1.22.09 @ 7:14AM
This is not a good plan. We can defeat the Card Check Bill in the United States Senate. This amendment strategy, or, opt out strategy is destined to empower Big Labor.
By going forward with this strategy, Big Labor will pass Card Check and the only recourse will be this constitutional amendment strategy. Do you know how hard con. amendments are to pass???
Why are we giving up on defeating Card Check straight up? Squash this opt out strategy as soon as possible.
The state strategy to pass right to work laws is very similar (except most are not passed by con amendment) -- decades later, only 22 states have right to work laws.
Don't you see where this is going? You may get a handful or baker's dozen number of states to pass con. amendments, but, an overwhelming majority will not do so and you will be empower the Big Labor to use coercive, federally backed card check methods to unionize workers.
Your piece lays out a strategy for surrender and to make a horrible bill less horrible.
Anyone reading this should want to beat the bill straight up.
Don't you s
Why are we ceding defeat by seeking to amend the bill in the Senate. Let's defeat this bill straight up.
Labor Man| 1.22.09 @ 7:19AM
Right on, Pat. I agree with you 100%, and more folks on our side need to start speaking out about this dangerous move which is going to hand Card Check and more power to Big Labor.
Plus federal law in this area would supersede state law, so these amendments wouldn't even work in the first place. There's already precedent for this.
Pat| 1.22.09 @ 7:51AM
I just cannot believe people on our side are talking about trying to amend the Card Check Bill as a strategy to neutralize the thing.
We should settle for nothing less than total defeat of this bill.
By taking this strategy outlined above, not only would Big Labor get their destruction of the secret ballot codified into federal law, but, we would greatly lessen the impact electorally that this issue would mean to us come November 2010 and beyond.
What is proposed by Mr. Istook and written about in this article is bad policy and bad politics.
Defeat Card Check and settle for nothing less.
Pat| 1.22.09 @ 7:51AM
I just cannot believe people on our side are talking about trying to amend the Card Check Bill as a strategy to neutralize the thing.
We should settle for nothing less than total defeat of this bill.
By taking this strategy outlined above, not only would Big Labor get their destruction of the secret ballot codified into federal law, but, we would greatly lessen the impact electorally that this issue would mean to us come November 2010 and beyond.
What is proposed by Mr. Istook and written about in this article is bad policy and bad politics.
Defeat Card Check and settle for nothing less.
Robert Stacy McCain| 1.22.09 @ 9:42AM
Pat and LM, you appear to misunderstand the strategy here. There are 41 Republican senators, of whom one (Arlen Specter) already voted for EFCA. So a filibuster is a dim hope, unless opponents can get the attention of some Democratic senators.
Well, look at this list of 10 states. Nevada is Harry Reid's home state, for example, and Reid is up for re-election in 2010 -- when SOS Ballot hopes to put the measure to the voters. Go down the list and figure out how many other Senate seats in these states are up in 2010. Now try to see the potential danger to Democrats of pushing through EFCA and then having to campaign in 2010 in states where there are organized efforts to block EFCA.
Opponents of EFCA are in effect pointing a loaded gun at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and saying, "Go ahead, punk. Make my day."
Stan Greer| 1.22.09 @ 12:47PM
Robert Stacy McCain, as you may recall, seven Democrats voted to sustain a Senate filibuster against Big Labor's so-called "Striker Replacement" Bill when it came up in 1994, with Bill Clinton in the White House.
Two of these Democrats had voted for the bill when it came up in 2002, when George H.W. Bush was still president. Two Republicans also switched their votes and opposed the "Striker Replacement" Bill after Bill Clinton became President. The same pattern could very well hold in 2009 and 2010 -- if freedom-loving Americans stand up and fight.
Two of the Democrats who voted "No" in 1994 were from Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas.
And both of the current senators from Arkansas, although they voted to shut down a filibuster against the "card check" bill in 2007, now say publicly they are "undecided" on the legislation. Arkansas's senior Democrat senator, Blanche Lincoln (who is up in 2o1o), has gone so far as to say she doesn't think "there is a need for such legislation right now."
Michael Bennet, the newly appointed Democrat senator from Colorado, is apparently running in the 2010 special election in that state and is publicly "undecided" on card check.
Arlen Specter has also said he is now "undecided" on the bill, though he voted for it before. Specter quite possibly faces tough GOP primary opposition in 2008.
My home state Democrat senator, Mark Warner, is already indicating publicly he would be reluctant to vote for the "card check" bill in its current form.
Why should opponents of the "card check" bill give up now when, by all appearances, they have a very solid chance of defeating it in the Senate, if they keep their eyes on the ball and don't focus on unproductive side shows?
Stan Greer
National Right to Work Committee
conservative carl| 1.26.09 @ 3:50PM
First, no organization does less with more money than the National Right to Work Committee.
Second, the SOS Ballot isn't in opposition to killing the federal bill. To the contrary. But so long as this remains a Washington DC issue about big unions vs big business about something called "card check" it's a loser. The vast majority of voters will simply say, "I don't have a dog in that fight."
The SOS ballot strategy as described above in the article puts the issue back into home states and makes the issue meaningful to every voter.
Ah, since all knowledge resides within 25 miles of Washington DC, I now understand why you don't get it.
And a reminder -- National Right To Work opposed right to work in Colorado and Oklahoma. How about trying to win for once by taking the message straight to the voters. You remeber voters...those pesky people who get in way of your fundraising for millions while doing nothing for decades.
sidnee| 12.12.09 @ 12:08PM
jack wills
ugg new arrivals