Labor Law Filibuster: Trashing Democracy to Save It
The irony is that the GOP is wailing about the potential violations of democratic decision-making embodied in the Employee Free Choice Act -- and they are so concerned that a minority of workers might somehow impose a decision to unionize on the majority that the GOP is going to use the filibuster to impose their will on the majority of Congress.
So since the GOP is so concerned about protecting majority rule, they should support a campaign to abolish the filibuster
Advertisement
I believe you mean the "Tony Soprano Free Choice Act."
I'm pretty sure Democracy doesn't mean someone leaning over your shoulder to make sure you vote "properly". Didn't they do that in Iraq, Cuba, Venezuela, Zibabwe, and all those other bastions of Freedom?
March 12, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Current law means exactly that -- management (alone) has the opportunity to intimidate workers into voting "properly", and often employees involved in trying to organize are fired for doing so (even though that is supposed to be illegal).
Card check will fix this problem, and allow workers to truly have the Freedom they deserve to organize.
-- ARG
March 12, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what's really dumb about your comment-- the tiny percentage of union locals that are mobbed up don't need worker votes. Organized crime cut their deals with management, usually at the expense of workers and usually to keep out legitimate unions. Remember, Tony Soprano was MANAGEMENT or an investor in most of the legitimate companies pictured on the shows.
March 12, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note -- I meant to be replying to shooter
March 12, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, you wouldn't be advocating two wrongs to make a right would you? Perhaps you could explain to us how management has leverage in a secret ballot overseen by the National Labor Relations Board?
The part I forgot to address in this mess is the amazing turn of mind regarding filibusters. What opportunistic, integrity-free, posturing, pettifoggery. What hypocritical pretense. I can hardly wait to see extensive filibustering of judicial nominees like that done during Bush's term.
March 12, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm-- most totalitarian countries run secret ballot elections, with lopsided vote results. Why? Some may open the ballot boxes but they hardly need to and neither does management. If you have the secret police/supervisors interrogating all citizens or having friends/coworkers spy on each other, you pretty much know the vote count ahead of time. And who to punish.
The secret ballot is meaningless in many ways as a symbol of democracy. Town meetings across the country use show of hands to make decisions while corrupt dictatorships worldwide thrive with a secret ballot. The issue is not HOW you vote, but whether people feel intimidation based on that vote.
And despite the propaganda -- and complete lack of evidence -- that unions use any illegal intimidation in card check campaigns, the reality is that all evidence is of management intimidation during secret ballot campaigns.
March 12, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan, you rightly point out the irony of their position. But I'm sure you realize that the GOP is not "so concerned that a minority of workers might somehow impose a decision to unionize on the majority..."
As is so often the case, the GOP's argument is disingenuous. They don't really believe that an "undemocratic" process the problem with the proposed law. The problem they have with the new law is that it will make it easier for unions to organize, and more likely for them to be sucessful.
The GOP are just using this ruse about the "secret ballot" as a marketing campaign, as a line of attack. I think the country's getting wiser, however, and they'll see through it. So I hope they do go to the mat and filibuster -- and I hope Harry Reid makes them do it the old fashioned way, by taking the floor and talking non-stop until they can't stand up any longer. Set that precedent now, that the Grand Obstructionist Party will have to actually pay a physical price for standing in the way of the mandate we voted for last November.
-- ARG
March 12, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
i support the campaign to abolish the filibuster,
the minority's most harmful weapon against getting anything done in the Senate.
March 12, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to believe that if the Democrats and Republicans in Congress do not figure out a way to deliver some real protections for the workers of this country, they soon will be replaced by people who will.
This chronic inability of both parties to deliver minimal change that benefits average Americans, combined with a fine record when it comes to delivering trillions and change to benefit a small group...well, at some point American citizens will conclude that there is some sort of convenient collusion going on at their expense.
March 12, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should the Republicans unilaterally give up the filibuster? Democrats used it and will use it in the future if and when they return to minority status. That's part of the game of Congress, and has the decided advantage that it makes it harder to pass laws, which creates stability in the Federal government, while the legislative mistakes the individual states make will have a more limited impact.
Why should progressives support a proposal to take away secret balloting from workers? This concept is deeply puzzling and disturbing to me. The secret ballot is part of the very fiber of the progressive movement, which seems to have deeply lost its way on this issue. The end doesn't justify the means, friends. If we want to be taken seriously, we have to have principles and stick with them.
March 12, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm-- what parts of Bush's core agenda were filibustered? His tax cuts? The Iraq War? The Patriot Act? His Supreme Court appointments?
You're right that the purpose of the filibuster is to stop new laws, to stop progress, to keep in place existing inequalities and protect those with existing power. So to promote progress, of course progressives should oppose the filibuster.
And what is the principle of promoting the secret ballot? In fact, progressives demand disclosure of votes by our representatives all the time. In fact, secret ballots are often used to prevent accountability.
And if secret ballots are so sacred, why do corporations use card check to elect its board of directors? It usually goes by the term "proxies" but anyone with a single share of stock is perpetually petitioned to sign such cards to make an array of corporate decisions. So if card check is good enough for management, why do they oppose it for unions?
March 12, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On corporations, I've responded in your other thread.
We progressives must elevate principle over momentary expediency. The purpose of the secret ballot is so that people can vote for what they really want without pressure or even perceived pressure. If union organization is to have legitimacy in the eyes of the public, the process needs to be perceived as fair.
Secret ballots are vital for the rank and file voter. Legislators in Congress need not and should not have a secret ballot - that way, if their constituents disagree with their votes, they can elect someone else.
Everything I'm stating about the importance of the secret ballot for legitimacy of a vote is basic civics - I'm surprised it even needs to be explained in this forum.
March 12, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink