Fox News' Kelly falsely suggested Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate workers' right to secret-ballot elections
SUMMARY: On America's Newsroom, Megyn Kelly claimed that "the Democrats and the country's biggest unions today [would be] kicking off an effort to kill a worker's right to a private ballot" and later asserted that the Employee Free Choice Act could be called the "Kill the Private Ballot Doctrine." In fact, EFCA would not eliminate employees' rights to a secret ballot; as The New York Times 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."
During the March 10 edition of Fox News America's Newsroom, co-host Megyn Kelly claimed that "the Democrats and the country's biggest unions today [would be] kicking off an effort to kill a worker's right to a private ballot." Kelly later asserted that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) could be called the "Kill the Private Ballot Doctrine," advancing the myth that EFCA would abolish the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process. As The New York Times 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]. Moreover, supporters of EFCA say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
Contrary to Kelly's suggestion, 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 majority sign-up process has been a widely used path to union representation since 1935, but workers may only use the majority sign-up process currently if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act puts that choice in the hands of employees rather than their employer."
During his report, correspondent Brian Wilson asserted of the Employee Free Choice Act: "Well, basically, it will radically change the way that unions can be formed. Instead of secret ballots, union organizers can walk up with a card and get the employee's answer in person," echoing the falsehood that a secret-ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union.
From the March 10 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KELLY: Hi, everybody. We're also following a developing story on Capitol Hill this morning: the Democrats and the country's biggest unions today kicking off an effort to kill a worker's right to a private ballot. This is issue number one for the unions right now, and considering they spent more than $67 million getting Democrats elected last year, the unions want this to be issue number one for the White House and Congress as well.
[...]
BILL HEMMER (co-host): In the last few days we've heard from Wal-Mart, dozens of manufacturing firms, and dozens of major American companies, all warning that this dramatic change in workplace rules will hurt the economy, cost jobs, and force companies to move their operations overseas.
Even President Obama's favorite economic guru, Warren Buffett, is against it. So, then, what happens in Washington? Brian Wilson, with us now from our bureau in D.C. Good morning to you, Brian.
WILSON: Good morning, Bill.
HEMMER: Some call this the Employee Free Choice Act. Some call it the "card check" bill. What does it do?
WILSON: Well, basically, it will radically change the way that unions can be formed. Instead of secret ballots, union organizers can walk up with a card and get the employee's answer in person.
Business interests say this allows the union organizers to sort of intimidate the worker to join a union that they may not really want to join. The unions say that this cuts through red tapes; it streamlines the process for forming a union.
But one way or the other, it's the number one priority for the unions, who, as Megyn pointed out, feel they have some payback coming from Democrats for all the work they did and all the money they raised in the last election. Still, business interests will spend millions to try to stop the bill.
HEMMER: Is there any doubt as to where the administration is on this?
WILSON: There is no doubt. The president is on record supporting it. Last week, the secretary of labor and the vice president were in Miami meeting with members of the AFL-CIO executive council as they plotted strategy to get the bill passed.
No, the Obama administration is four-square behind this legislation.
HEMMER: Well, some of these Democratic senators are already saying it's not a good idea -- don't do it now; we should be focused on the economy and improving that and getting --
WILSON: Right.
HEMMER: -- jobs going again in this country. At this hearing today, what's expected, Brian?
WILSON: Well, officially today, I think we're going to see the legislation laid down, but the hearing -- when you are in the majority you get to name the hearings. So the title of today's hearing is "Rebuilding Economic Security, Empowering Workers to Restore the Middle Class." With a title like that, there is no doubt where the Democrats are on this one.
KELLY: Well who's against that?
WILSON: This is going to be -- this is going to be the opening salvo in a battle the likes of which we have not seen in Washington for a while, and Democrats and unions are feeling fairly optimistic. However, the real thing to watch is what happens in the Senate. You need, really, 60 votes in the Senate to make this move forward, and some believe that without Al Franken in the chair, they don't have the 60 votes.
HEMMER: Yeah, they're not there at the moment, you're right about that. We're going to bring on a union leader next hour to debate this then. Brian, thank you for that.
WILSON: You bet.
HEMMER: Brian Wilson, live in D.C. You got it.
KELLY: That naming thing is important in Congress. You know, like, the Fairness Doctrine. Yes, that sounds terrific. Who's not in favor of fairness?
HEMMER: [Inaudible] gonna call it a private ballot, huh?
KELLY: Right.
HEMMER: Private ballot?
KELLY: Right, the "Kill the Private Ballot Doctrine." No one would vote for it. It's very clever.
KELLY: That naming thing is important in Congress. You know, like, the Fairness Doctrine. Yes, that sounds terrific. Who's not in favor of fairness?
Kinda like how Faux News uses that "Fair and Balanced" tag line......
Bingo!
Until the Fairness Doctrine comes back, it's all hopeless. The orginal FCC was correct in the 30s-- no regulation of the airwaves means that the guy with the biggest d*** is going to dictate the show.
The Fairness Doctrine got crushed in some bill a week ago. It's alright, though. the better way to crack the conservative media monopoly is to crack the conservative media monopoly. Repeal Clinton's Telecommunications Act and prohibit two or three individuals from being able to control 90% of all media outlets.
Good old-fashioned William McKinnly (R), Teddy Roosevelt (R) and William H. Taft (R) trust-busting, huh? That WOULD be a grand old party!
that WAS the Grand Old Party, emphasis on Old.
funny thing is TR was dubbed the Trustbuster, and his scion Taft was the one who acutally broke more of them than TR did.
and TR still went to the white house and punched him out.
ya know..is there a way that we could see the grades megyn kelly got during her educational years?
i mean seriously either this chick has purposly sold her soul, which being a part of fox noise i think it wouldn't be a surprise as requirement to sell your soul to Rupert, or she is truly that stupid. or she slept around to get her grades.....which given her first marriage ended in divorce, couldn't be out of the realm of possibility. i may be wrong on that one though.
guess we know where the inspiration for lawyer barbie was drawn from
You went a bit too far on that 2nd assertion despite saying "i maybe wrong on that one though".
One thing I can say for sure after reading your comments, Kelly is a whole lot smarter than you. But it is the kind of comment I expect from a empty mind like yours. But I must admit I would be interested in seeing your grades, if you attended any school at all.
How is Kelly smarter than thejbomb65? Because she can read whatever is in front of her eyes?
She doesn't have to resort to senseless personal insults to make a point like the jbomb does, very simple.
No. Instead she resorts to out-and-out, bald-faced lies.
i wasn't really serious about the last part. i admit it was tastless joke. i was more serious about the selling her soul or is truly that dumb.
and by the way Bloomsburg University of PA class of 05.
And your conclusion for that is....? Oh, it's because you like what Kelly says and don't like what thejbomb says. I see.
now in fairness i did admit the last third of what i said was a tasteless joke, but it was a joke
Yes you did and I tip my hat to you for saying so.
and my gpa was a 3.05
If she were a C student, that would be nerd-level for most conservtives.
Rush Limbaugh - failed, dropped out.
Sean Hannity - dropped out.
Glenn Beck - Drunk. Never went.
Makes you wonder what happened to Bill O'Rielly (Master's of Public Administration - same as my wife, much to her chagrin!).
I'm not surprised about Ann Coulter though. If Yale would take (and graduate) George Bush, it doesn't surprise me that she can get through Cornell. (Was she a legacy too? I couldn't find anything on that.)
When a company embarks on a "union avoidance campaign" (hires a UNIONBUSTER) to "educate" their employees prior to a "secret" ballot Union election they use proven effective methods not only to persuade employees to vote no, but to gain a sense of each employee's opinion on the matter which in turn reveals how they are likely to vote. They will recruit "popular" employees & supervisors, assign each with a number of people in the voting unit and carefully record any information they can, often under the guise of "friendly conversation", and report it all back to the unionbuster. The unionbuster will employ "assistants" who have access to the workplace 24/7/365, often lurking in employee cafeterias, break rooms, outside the workplace...always watching, eavesdropping on conversations, reporting who is speaking both for and against the Union. There's many more tactics they use, too numerous to list here but the point is that by the end of such campaigns, usually 6 weeks or more, an "enterprising" unionbuster can usually predict fairly accurately how EACH EMPLOYEE WILL VOTE, and that the "secret" ballot reveals a lot more about an employee's feelings on the subject than does a majority sign-up.
This is a "Secret" Ballot? I'll go with the majority sign-up, s'il vous plait.
IMHO, the question of whether or not the EFCA "takes away", "strips", "abolishes", "denies", etc workers rights comes down to one very simple fact:
The Chamber of Commerce is against it.
Hahaha...you know sometimes it is best just to keep quiet then to post and remove all doubt? The bill's intent is to make it easier for employees to form unions...does that help? Hahaha!
SHOES: "MM is not being entirely forthcoming here."
MMFA, quoting the House Committee on Education and Labor: "The Employee Free Choice Act puts that choice in the hands of employees rather than their employer."
How much more forthcoming does it have to be?
Where is MMFA claiming that the secret ballot CAN'T be eliminated?
"then secret-ballot elections CAN be eliminated ... by the employees"
On a case-by-case scenario, not in an all-encompassing legal sense, like the right-wing is telling us.
There is also a minority opinion in the very same report that says that the act would strip the right to a secret ballot from every American worker. So apparently there is disagreement from the very people that MMFA is quoting.
It elliminates the right to a secret ballot election from MANAGEMENT... NOT from the EMPLYEES! EMPLOYEES can STILL request a secret ballot. To claim that it takes the right to a secret ballot election from EMPLYEES is simply a lie... no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
As I stated, the minority opinion in the report claims it can deny the secret ballot to workers, do you even understand my post. Do you understand the meaning of the word opinion?
And do YOU understand what propoganda is? Do you understand what a willing dupe you are being when you essentially argue 'well, someone said it, so it must be true'? Do you understand what FACTS are? Give me any FACTS that support your OPINION, and then we can have a real discussion. Otherwise, you're leaving me in the position of attempting to argue with a squaking parrot. Show us that you have at least a basic ability to ANALYZE your much vaunted minority opinion to see if there is ANY SUBSTANCE to it.
Got it?
There is also a minority opinion...
That space aliens are camping in my back yard.
And your point?
It just whisked right over your head.
"There is also a minority opinion in the very same report that says that the act would strip the right to a secret ballot from every American worker"
The simple fact is that it does not "strip" the right to a secret ballot from ANY AMERICAN WORKER.
Please read the bill.
Section 2 of EFCA amends Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (a.k.a. 29 U.S.C. 159(c)) and makes small conforming amendments to related passages elsewhere in the NLRA. Currently Section 9(c) consists of five sections governing when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) shall conduct hearings as to whether "a question of representation affecting commerce" exists between an employer and its employees. Inter alia it provides, in subsection 1B, that
"If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.
EFCA would add two new subsections to Section 9(c):
SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.
(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other (union or individual is) the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).
Beautifully done.
Thank you.
fairliberal : ****crickets****
ah but it is their choice, thats freedom for ya baby
ugh unions are bad
ugh destroy profits. ugh
then secret-ballot elections CAN be eliminated ... by the employees!
Yes, and it's their choice. The Right is so worried about the poor things, too. How sweet of them.
"The Right is so worried about the poor things, too. How sweet of them."
Yes, Isn't that special? (insert smirking Church Lady image here) As Art Levine wrote in today's Huff Po:
...the business lobbies' new campaign of supposedly standing up for workers' rights comes after opposing for decades everything from the minimum wage to health and safety regulations to government-aided health insurance for kids, SCHIP. How has their approach of lower taxes for the wealthy and big businesses, deregulation and unionbusting worked out? It fueled massive income inequality, stagnant real wages and our current economic debacle.
We need to "terrorist fist-bump" this talking about OUT of Fox Noise.
People who watch fixed news have no interest in facts. The facts have a well known liberal bias.
Did Fox news compare our president to a monkey? You should do a little fact checking yourself. And who was it that compared Bush to a monkey? Some idiots I guess.
You're right. It was not Faux News that compared Obama to a chimp. It was the New York Post... which is ALSO owned by Rupert Murdoch, and a sister operation to Faux News.
And comparing Dubya to a smirking chimp? Just horrible, horrible... what with America's long, racist history of comparing wealthy white men to apes and all. Yeah, I don't see any difference at all.
no but a different rupert proprerty did
Well said, Canaan.
Solidarity forever.
canaanxing9025: I am confused by your post. You state that "it gave my family a middle class life", referring, I assume, to a union. Did your father work for a union or for an enterprise, owned by someone who takes risks in the market, produces a product and creates jobs? Whether or not one supports unions, the mindset that a union created a job for life is quite disturbing.
It's quite simple FEB... a union made sure that Canaan's father received a fair wage, decent working conditions, health benifits, and an adequate retirement, by negotiating a good contract. Without collective bargaining, Canaan's family would most probably have to make do on far less. The union didn't create the job, but it helped to make sure that there would be an equitable distribution on the money that that business produced.
I hope your a bit less disturbed now.
What can't happen today, unless a company allows it, is for a group of thugs to go around and "convince" people to sign a petition. The EFCA would bypass a company's permission and allow that. Each employee might appear to have a free choice, but when presented with an offer he cannot refuse, that free choice evaporates. Union organizers are very skillfull in getting people to sign petitions.
Does anyone know if a small store owned by a single proprietor with 4 employees would also be covered by this bill?
Right. Sure. Believe what you want. So skillful are union organizers at getting people to sign that, not only are organizers usually fired before elections, employers will hire union busting law firms so they can learn to legally harass employees with lies and intimidation. Employers will routinely tell workers that they will be denied promotion, stripped of their health benefits or perhaps even fired if they are suspected of supporting a union.
So spare us the Tony Soprano talking point that Limbaugh gave you. We don't want to hear it because you have it backwards. Right now companies have the right, and usually demonstrate that they will bring in the brown shirts to crack skulls in terror campaigns.
Do everybody a favor and stop listening to Republicans on worker's rights. They're filthy liars. They have no interest whatsoever in ever helping working people get a fair share of profits or protections.
Speaking of Megyns and Fox, guess who the new Fox guest seems to be? Grampy McCain's daughter (it might be "Megan", but close enough).
I saw her on Hannity's Panel of morons and one polite "liberal" tonight, and she seems to have locked in a solid role there; hilariously uninformed average American middle-aged Valley Girl whose daddy just happened to have lost the election to Obama.
Her grasp of the current economic situation made Hannity seem like a higher primate by comparison.
yeah but did you hear about what she said about ann coulter.......
Or the creepy Republican guys she dates?
"You could be 'my Cindy'...."
i didnt hear about that. i was too enthralled about her taking ann coulter to school
You're right on the nose with your comments, RH. I'm a twenty year Teamster, and I have occaisionaly volunteered my time to our organizing efforts. In my experience, management has frequently used lies and intimidation tactics to dissuade employees from excercising their rights, often telling them that if they vote to go union, management will have no option but to close that facility and reopen at least a hundred miles away. I've yet to see or even hear rumors of a Teamster organizer attempting to bully or intimidate anybody into signing with the union. Its the promise of better wages, benifits, and working conditions that causes workers to come over to us. Intimidation only gives management attorneys the means to tear us down, and ALL organizers are SEVERELY and REPEATEDLY warned against this.
In general, EFCA purports to do three things: to streamline union certification (section 2); to facilitate initial collective bargaining agreements (section 3); and to strengthen enforcement (section 4).
The bill does not affect nor seek to include bussinesses already exempt under the NLRA.
"but when presented with an offer he cannot refuse"
Thanks for "contributing" to the discussion, there "e". That's just ignorant on all kinds of levels.
Is it not bold-faced plain pretense and crafty trickery? Instead of vehemently refuting such purposely and brazenly spoken lies, the esteemed Media Matters for America should consider soliciting suggestions for effective legislation to ban such naked tricky transmutation.
ummm dude.....not to knock you or anything but.....why did you choose that name out of curiosity?
i looked up the name you used and well.....doesn't seem like a guy
a nice guy i mean
The only reason you would not want a secret ballot is so that you know who to intimidate if they do not vote for the union or against the union depending on what you want.
You mean to sidestep the intimidation campaigns that employers wage to bust unions.
Employees already have free choice. An employer cannot stop a union from forming. What is wrong with an employer wanting to make a majority of workers actually want it without intimidation being a factor?
That's such a shameful strawman argument, Loki. Employers regularly use intimidation tactics in order to prevent their shops from going union. They fire pro-union employees. They threaten to close the shop and move it elsewhere. They make promises to employees that they have absolutely no intention of keeping... nor do the HAVE to, since nothing is put in writing.
Employers are not looking out for their workers when they resist the introduction of collective bargaining. They seek only to keep them weak and divided, in order to squeeze every last drop of profit possible out of them. Employers can't stop a union from forming? Maybe not in Wingnutia, but here in America its done all the time.
Why would anyone want to "sidestep" this type of employer MANDATED "educational" process:
Martin Jay Levitt, a union buster with over 250 union busting campaigns under his belt, has described in his book "Confessions of a Union Buster", in vivid detail, the way he went about busting unions:
Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on the truth. As such, it is a war without honour. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack. The law does not hamper the process, rather, it serves to suggest manoeuvres and define strategies. Each "union prevention" campaign, as the wars are called, turns on a combined strategy of disinformation and personal assaults.
When a chief executive hires a labor relations consultant to battle a union, he gives the consultant run of the company and closes his eyes. The consultant, backed by attorneys, installs himself in the corporate offices and goes to work creating a climate of terror that inevitably is blamed on the union.
For union busters, like Levitt, the NLRA is a "union buster's best friend".
According to Levitt, "in its complexity the nation's fundamental Labor law presents endless possibilities for delays, roadblocks, and manoeuvres that can undermine a union's efforts and frustrate would be members." The union buster's key strategy, when confronted with an election, is delay the ballot, thereby buying time to organise a so called counter campaign known as "Counter organising drives"...
Having turned the supervisor into an anti-union force, Levitt turned his attention to workers with union sympathies - what he termed "pushers". The strategy here was to personally discredit unionists. This required information. No means of obtaining information was ruled out. According to Levitt his team of union Busters "routinely pried into worker's police records, personnel files, credit histories, medical records, and family lives in search of a weakness that we could use to discredit union activists".
Where it was not possible to get "dirt" on a unionist, Levitt made it up. "To fell the sturdiest union supporters...I frequently launched rumours that the targeted worker was gay or was cheating on his wife. It was a very effective technique, particularly in blue-collar towns.
If the lies and rumours failed to muzzle union activists, the union buster resorted to sackings. These sackings are illegal under the NLRA. Section 8(a)(3) clearly outlaws discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union. Nevertheless, union busters know that reinstatement procedures are complex, some dragging out for years after the incident. The aim of the union buster is to remove the union support, based in the crucial period, prior to the ballot.