Forbes on Fox featured all-out assault on Employee Free Choice Act
SUMMARY: On Forbes on Fox, Forbes national editor Mike Ozanian declared that the Employee Free Choice Act "should be called the anti-free choice, pro-slavery bill," and Ozanian, host David Asman, and others advanced a common distortion employed by opponents of the legislation -- that it would, in the words of on-screen text that ran during the segment, "Ban Secret Votes at Work." In fact, the bill would not "ban" secret-ballot elections; rather, it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization.
During a segment in which Forbes national editor Mike Ozanian declared that the Employee Free Choice Act "should be called the anti-free choice, pro-slavery bill," the January 31 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox featured remarks by Ozanian, host David Asman, and others advancing a common distortion employed by opponents of the legislation -- that it would, in the words of on-screen text that ran during the segment, "Ban Secret Votes at Work." As The New York Times has reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Also during the discussion of the bill, Forbes.com contributor John Rutledge said, "Banning secret ballots, that is a terrible idea. This is a Gestapo tactic."
Asman opened the segment by asking: "[W]hy are unions still pushing to end secret ballots at the workplace?" After Ozanian referred to the Free Choice Act as "pro-slavery," Asman asked: "Would it eliminate the secret balloting?" Ozanian replied: "Essentially, yes." Later, when asked to comment, Rutledge said: "Banning secret ballots, that is a terrible idea. This is a Gestapo tactic. Look, America is about individual freedoms, not about coercion, not about public ballots. What we need to -- I've lived in places where they don't have secret ballots. I've lived in Cold War Berlin, I've lived in Argentina and China, in the Persian Gulf. Trust me, fellas, you don't want to go there." Fox Business Network stocks editor Elizabeth MacDonald responded: "I think John is absolutely right. And you know, it's coercion, intimidation and inflammatory rhetoric on both sides of the aisle." Rutledge also later asserted: "I do not want to give anyone the right to ban open elections -- secret elections -- anywhere in America." During the segment, on-screen text read, "Union Membership Soaring; Why Ban Secret Votes at Work?" and "Unions Push to Ban Secret Votes at Work as Membership Soars."
These repeated distortions of the Free Choice Act were rebutted at one point during the segment by Forbes national editor Quentin Hardy. When asked by Asman whether there is "some way to be in favor of card check and still be in favor of secret balloting," Hardy responded:"Well, I think that's what this law's about. It's interesting to me that after I pointed out that this is just about giving workers a choice where previously management has a choice on the election style, three of you said it's about banning secret ballots. It's not. It's about giving the workers the choice of what style they want."
As Media Matters for America has noted, the House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth," and stated on its website: "The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer." Supporters of the legislation say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
From the January 31 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox:
ASMAN: Well, job losses mounting and union membership's soaring, so why are unions still pushing to end secret ballots at the workplace? Hi, everybody, I'm David Asman. Welcome to Forbes on Fox. Here with us today: [Forbes senior writer] Neil Weinberg, Elizabeth MacDonald, and Mike Ozanian, along with [Forbes associate editor] Jack Gage, Quentin Hardy, and John Rutledge. So, Mike Ozanian, what about this new rule that would essentially make it easier for unions to organize?
OZANIAN: David, this bill should be called the anti-free choice, pro-slavery bill.
ASMAN: Pro-slavery?
OZANIAN: It would be bad for the economy, bad for jobs, and bad for consumers. It would essentially allow unions to bully people into joining them.
ASMAN: Would it eliminate the secret balloting?
OZANIAN: Essentially, yes.
ASMAN: All right.
[...]
ASMAN: John Rutledge, I love Neil. He's honest. He said yeah, there will be coercion, but it will equalize things. So what do you think of it?
RUTLEDGE: I'm tired of people figuring out whether to support one side or the other side fighting each other. Banning secret ballots, that's a terrible idea. This is a Gestapo tactic. Look, America is about individual freedoms, not about coercion, not about public ballots. What we need to -- I've lived in places where they don't have secret ballots. I've lived in Cold War Berlin, I've lived in Argentina and China, in the Persian Gulf. Trust me, fellas, you don't want to go there. You don't want to go there.
ASMAN: It's not the kind of American way that we're used to, E-Mac, that's what John was saying.
MacDONALD: Yeah, I think John is absolutely right. And you know, there's, you know, coercion, intimidation, and inflammatory rhetoric on both sides of the aisle. And you know, talk about the Pundit Polling Act. How about Stewart Acuff, special assistant to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, saying that union surveys show nearly 260 -- nearly 60 million people would join a union if there was no fear and intimidation. That's about half the workforce. Was it a polling of those two alone? I mean, who did they poll? Where did they get that number?
OZANIAN: Yeah, and let's be honest here. The only reason why Barack Obama is so for this bill is because the unions lined his pockets in his campaign. This is a way to pay back those who supported his presidency. That's all it is.
GAGE: Absolutely. No question about it. But I think also addressing the decline over the past 25 years for union membership is the fact that free trade works better. Opening borders, allowing workers to be competitive on a global stage is a better way to create job security.
ASMAN: [Unintelligible] Isn't there some way to be in favor of card check and still be in favor of secret balloting?
HARDY: Well, I think that's what this law's about. It's interesting to me that after I pointed out this is just about giving workers a choice where previously management has a choice on the election style, three of you said it's about banning secret ballots. It's not. It's about giving the workers the choice of what style they want.
ASMAN: Jack [unintelligible] said no.
GAGE: It's not about style. They have the choice to join a union or not right now. This is about giving unions more influence.
HARDY: They are intimidated in 51 percent of cases, Jack.
[...]
ASMAN: And John Rutledge, you know, a lot of the works programs in the new stimulus bill focus on government getting bigger, and there would be more government unions. Is there an ulterior motive here to try to increase the number of public sector union membership?
RUTLEDGE: Well, of course everybody has got an ulterior motive, David, but the problem here, and I can't believe I'm hearing this, there's a difference between fundamental rights and temporary economic issues or groups fighting each other. It is a terrible mistake to mix the two. I do not want to give anyone the right to ban open elections -- secret elections -- anywhere in America.
HARDY: They have choice.
GAGE: Absolutely right. And listen, we also have to remember that unions, back in the free trade thing, strangle competitiveness. That's a big downside to this, that ability to grow unions, whether it's through influence or other means, is bad news for the U.S. economy.
ASMAN: But Mike Ozanian, it is all about choice. The American system is about choice, as Quentin is pointing out, this would not remove the choice element from the workplace, or would it?
OZANIAN : It certainly would, David, because the unions would be given a platform which to bully people into joining them, and that's the big problem --
ASMAN: Isn't the NLRB around to make sure the bullying doesn't take place on either side?
This act is designed to minimize the coercion from employers, so naturally the business community opposes it. It is scary how many people think Fox Channels are credible sources of information.
Lest anyone think the NLRB is even-handed and a boon for workers, just remember what many unionist's have found --NLRB stands for Now Largely Representing Business.
Given some of the big rollers hatred of it, expect quite a few threads on the subject. And quite a few posts defending it as in the worker's interest. From people who who don't give a fig about the american worker on any other issue.
Big box retail is scared to death that workers will be empowered. They can't outsource these employees unlike the traitor CEOS who run US manufacturing.
The opinion of business is simply that all workers who wish to have a union must first genuflect to management and divulge their name. Business doesn't want true secret ballot where employees can organize in private. They want all those employees who vote yes to first be exposed before the union is enacted, so that these members can be fired.
Billionaire Bernie Marcus the founder of Home Depot was recently irrationally, frothing and foaming at the mouth on CNBC fearful that he might have to sacrifice a few of his billions to provide America with a strong middle class and unionized employees.
The pendulum of America needs to swing to a pro- USA labor position after 28 years of pro CEO policies as reflected with their exorbitant compensation and the pillaging of America and out sourcing of jobs.
You're probably right, Wolf. Journalists have formed unions over the years.If management and owners had been able force a secret vote, it would have been a lot easier to discreetly coerce and intimidate, or even bribe, enough votes without the others finding out.
Too bad that it didn't ensure journalistic ethics. Apparently even union journalists can be bought at fox.
if Fox ever inadvertently hires a journalist, I'm sure the guy will join the union.
Well, there's big money at stake for union busting law firms.
Great article, roundhouse.
Thanks.
Off topic- did anyone see Quinn's apology about equating welfare to slavery? It made page 14 or so in Pittsburgh's paper.
Thankx mr.l, Have the paper downstairs..
Like the say, when you really need information and can't find it on your own, just go to L.
Hopefully, this will open the flood gates against him and the Unrepentant, phony Christian, Radio Rose who just sits there and agree with this less than average Unrepentant Sexual Harasser.
Read the crappy apology from this dork. It was his own choice, Right!!!! I forward his commentary to the local NAACP in November. Maybe just maybe, it helped. Sending more info to the writer of the article Adrian McCoy. amccoy@post-gazette.com
Meida Matters gets a nice plug. STEELERS WIN
Thing is, I have seen this happen at places where i have worked. In my last place of employment, the folks who worked there, were feeling that they were being taken advantage of. Long weeks (some, more than 70 hours per week), no pay raises for 3 years (even though the company was doing well), no additional vacation days set aside, no bonuses (even though management and salaried personnel were getting them), and so on and so forth. They organized a little bit, called in a union rep for the UAW (this was an automotive business), and they started talking about voting for a union. As soon as management got wind of this, they brought in the lawyers, who told the wokers in no uncertain terms what would happen if they started a union. The company would shut down the plant, and move everything to Mexico ASAP (even though the plant I worked at was the company's best performing and most efficient production facility in the world for this company, which is very large). It probably wasn't intimidation, but it was darn close. Of course, they didn't start a union, and as far as I know, everything remains the same at that place. They've really got no rights, and when they complain about it to management, the typical response is, "Well you should be glad that you've got a job..."
"It probably wasn't intimidation, but it was darn close. Of course, they didn't start a union, and as far as I know, everything remains the same at that place. They've really got no rights, and when they complain about it to management, the typical response is, "Well you should be glad that you've got a job..."
If that wasn't intimidation, what WOULD you call it? "Shut up or we'll fire you and all your friends and move this factory to Mexico?" "Be glad you've got a job?" Sounds like intimidation to me.
We are entering a VERY rough time for workers in this country because a LOT of companies are going to be parroting the philosophy of the company you describe. I teach at a private school which has given us nothing but 2% cost of living increases every year for the last six years- no raises. This year, we fully expect to be told that we won't even get that. Guess what? Nobody is expected to quit, because we are all so grateful to be employed.
"Take it and be thankful" is what Mrs. Squeers barks when she shoves brimstone and treacle down the throats of the students at Dotheboys Hall. I think a lot of American workers can expect to hear versions of that in the next several years.
What never, ever ceases to amaze me is how right-wing blowhards on Fox and talk radio constantly bash union leadership, union contracts, and unions in general, while claiming to be fighting for the "worker's rights." I can't tell you how many times I've heard the refrain "Unions make it impossible for American companies to compete with companies overseas," etc. or even (on the Milkow Majority, an especially loathsome addition to XM/Sirius radio) "it's no accident that strong union states like Michigan and Ohio are bleeding jobs, while Right To Work states like Alabama and Mississippi are growing..."
Well, no s**t. If only there were no unions in the US, and companies were free to hire workers at rock-bottom wages with no health care, there would be a lot more jobs in this great country of ours. WHAT'S THE POINT???
The fact is, all these bloviating jerks really hate ANY organization that fights to keep workers above the level of serfs, which in turn makes finite the amount of profit corporations can make. If unions simply ceased to exist, and American workers were willing to work for rice like the industrious people of Asia, everything would be fine. Sickening.
Corruption is corruption...no matter which side of the fence you're on.
-- At the Consolidated Biscuit bakery in McComb, Ohio, Bill Lawhorn said more than 70 percent of the workers had signed cards in favor of joining the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union when he led efforts to form a union in 2002. Nonetheless, the union lost a secret-ballot election, 485 to 286, after Consolidated Biscuit conducted a vigorous anti-union campaign. Two years later a National Labor Relations Board judge found that managers had illegally spied on union supporters and had warned them that the bakery would go bankrupt if a union was voted in. -- firedoglake
-- During a card-check campaign at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, union organizers threatened that workers who did not sign union cards would lose their jobs when the union was recognized...In 2002, a long-time organizer for the United Steelworkers felt compelled to quit his job after "a senior Steelworkers union official asked me to threaten migrant workers by telling them they would be reported to federal immigration officials if they refused to sign check-off cards." -- heritage.org
This bill doesn't seem to affect the corruption in the process...it just moves the goal posts around...as both sides attempt to gain or keep the upper hand in labor relations.
While I'm in favor of the current secret ballots...warts and all...I can agree to card check with one caveat. Let both labor and management use it.
Let union organizers advance the benefits of the union and if you believe in the cause...sign the card and publicly state your support for union representation.
Let management advance the benefits of a non-union work place and if you believe in the message...sign the card and publicly state your support for non-union representation.
Let the chips fall where they may...who needs the sanctity of secret ballots.
The first of your examples tells what happened when the NLRB got involved.
The second one, however, does not give any indication of what transpired after the offenses were committed. Was there an official compliant to the NLRB over unfair labor practices committed by union reps? What about the congressional subcommittee from which this testimony came? What action was taken? We don't know because the Heritage article doesn't tell us (yes, I googled and looked at it).
This is one of the main deceptions being pushed by the right-wing about the EFCA. They are trying to portray union reps and pro-union workers as being above the law by making little to no mention of labor being subject to the same ULP regulations as management. The wingnuts are insisting that the EFCA is somehow going to compound this fantastical immunity.
Why didn't Sherk tell us what happened to the union as a result of the legal proceedings? I have a distinct feeling that if the union got off scot free, Sherk would have gladly told us this in order to further his case.
The report below details of some of the unscrupulous activities of employers that the NLRB found perfectly acceptable:
http://edlabor.house.gov/publications/NLRBreport071306.pdf
Plain and simple - EFCA does away with the secret ballot and even former Sen. George McGovern opposes it. 'Nuf said.
But MMfA says it isn't going to happen and they even linked to their OWN story twice, so it must be true...