Fox's Cavuto, Baier repeat falsehood that Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate secret ballot
SUMMARY: Neil Cavuto and Bret Baier falsely claimed that the Employee Free Choice Act would, in Baier's words, "do away with the secret ballot in votes to unionize." In fact, as The Christian Science Monitor noted, EFCA would give "workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ... or an election by secret ballot."
The March 24 editions of Fox News' Your World and Special Report advanced the myth that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would abolish the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process. On Your World, host Neil Cavuto said the legislation "would end the secret elections." Similarly, on Special Report, host Bret Baier said, "The bill would make it easier for employees to form unions and would do away with the secret ballot in votes to unionize." In fact, as The Christian Science Monitor has noted, "[t]he proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot." Indeed, 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, Employee Free Choice Act supporters say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
Media Matters for America has noted that Fox News hosts and contributors have frequently advanced falsehoods about the Employee Free Choice Act.
From the March 24 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: All right, our friends at Dow Jones are reporting right now that Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- in fact, he's facing an uphill re-election battle next year, I believe -- is going to come out against the so-called card check bill, a top union labor priority. This is the one, you know, that would end the secret elections, and of course it's been a divisive battle.
His vote was considered a crucial swing vote; now ,he's indicating that he will not support this -- not vote for the Employee Free Choice Act. That will be a very, very big blow to unions. We're going to keep on this. We're trying to call Senator Specter now to get his reaction -- why he decided this, why he's moving in this direction -- but we'll keep on top of this. But this is a stunning blow to the labor movement, because they thought that vote was a gimmie.
From the March 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter says he will oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as card check. The bill would make it easier for employees to form unions and would do away with the secret ballot in votes to unionize. Specter was the only Republican who supported the measure two years ago, and without his vote this time around, card check would likely fail or never be brought to the floor.
CSPAN 2 , right now, has these 'foremans' who are saying they were intimidated to sign for a union three times in the last 18 years and they don't want it to happen to others. Besides bumbling through his *talk*, this guy, Cannon, came off as a complete liar. He gave no concrete examples and gave second hand stories. If this were a court of law, he would have booted to the curb.
Oh, what a surprise... it's a senate republican't conference...
There's one of the fundamental differences between a Democratic-controlled Congress and a GOP-controlled Congress. When the Republicans were in power, Democrats couldn't even HOLD meetings to conferences like this - if they tried, the GOP leadership would order the lights and microphones to be turned off.
This will be a stunning blow to Arlen Specter who will lose the support of organized labor in his next Senate race in Pennsylvania.
your right and i hate to admit it cause i like specter....he is my senator.
the Scranton Times had an article the other day that unions would back his next election if he voted for this and fight him if he didn't.
from where im at...looks like specter just cooked his chances at getting reelected.
and if he was smart he would run independent but he doesn't have the balls to try and do so.
He's mine too- I used to say Specter's greatest accomplishment was not being ANYWHERE near Santorum in policy issues (or morality).
Anyone from SC? Senator Thume just said this act takes away employees' rights. Wonder why he doesn't know what's going on?
I've always liked him too, since he was the DA when I was growing up in Philadelphia.
Specter is a disgrace. That loon Toomey is gonna run against him in a primary no matter what he does.
He's 79 years old and he's had at least two bouts with cancer as it is. The least he could do would be to go out with a little integrity instead of kowtowing to the brain-dead bigot gop base. They hate him more than they hate McCain.
Wow Fox Noise going against the Christian Science Monitor......there is a big snafu in the neo con propaganda machine.
Heads will roll for this!
The Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around Earth,
Cavuto came out of the Business News Enviroment, you know, the idiots that were telling the world to be bullish about the very investments that we the taxpayer are buying for pennies on the dollars, and stil getting stuck!!
You know the 'snake oil saleman' that were held up as investment experts, all knowing of thing economic!
Why do we have to endure this man's foolishness stil??? How bad does he have to be before he is completely discredited?? When we had the Fairness Doctrine a commentator would have been tossed to the curb never to be heard of again may times over by now. Cavuto would be remembered as an media embarassment, and example of journalistic foolishness and failure.
Instead he gets his own show, and is promoted as some sort of fair arbiter???
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
we don't have to endure this buffoon. there is the Cartoon network. And NASAtv, And the history channel. Or here monitoring MMFA.
So, let's get this straight. The secret ballot is not done away with, but when our union organizer, Guido comes into the shop with his pisans, he tells us that we could do the union the easy way or the hard way. Easy, card-check, hard, say no to card check and ask for a secret ballot instead?
Let's hope socialized medicine covers 'accidental falls' that injures kneecaps!
Ah the other shoe dropped. Huzzah! Three cheers and a tiger for you!
Something beyond your talking point fantasies would be nice, unexpected, but nice.
How else do you get to do the 'secret ballot'? It all has to be done out in the open, where intimidation rules. Not that any union organizer would ever be caught using that!
How else do you get to do the 'secret ballot'?
As it was done before this proposed amendment: If a "substantial" number of 'cards' are submitted. While "substantial" is not directly defined, I suspect it would be 30% or better. Refer to 29 US Code Section 159(c)(1)(A)(i)
The proposed amendment (EFCA) simply eliminates the duplication of effort (holding an election if 50+% of the employees have already voted yes, albeit publicly). This concept is not hard to grasp, unless perhaps one has an agenda...
Union busting pays much better and is a growth industry right now.
My expectation is 20 20. Any other anti-union myths you'd care to unload?
Ridiculous. If you could hear yourself, you'd be embarrassed. Arguing against direct democracy and trying to link the concept of open elections to intimidation. All you are doing by fighting unions is helping to redistribute as much income as possible to the wealthy.
In other words, ya haven't got a case, a clue or a leg to stand on.
Gee, thanks for clearin' that up.
Is that just your racist opinion or do you have anything to back this up other than hearing it from some idiot on the radio?
Scanlontodd9871 has real world experience as a union organizer. I've also got more than forty years experience as an organizer and union official.
I've never had first hand evidence of corruption by any union official. I've never had the opportunity to witness intimidation of any kind from organizers or union people.
But I've got a list as long as my arm of instances of intimidation by management. Another list of corruption of company officials and several cases of political pressure against employees of the NLRB who were considering cases against politicly connected employers.
I also know many firefighters, policemen, teachers, plumbers and government workers who appreciate having someone else in their corner when confronted by million dollar attorneys representing employers.
Every working man and women in this country owes what they have to organized labor. And thanks to them too for my not having to write "every working man, woman and child".
DJNate the union does not come in and try to unionize it is up to the employees. When I tried to unionize my workplaces I talked to other workers about the union, I was not paid by the union but an employee that knew we were geting screwed. I personally went to talk to a union rep that I know and he gave me the cards and the information that I needed. After our employer got wind of what was going on he started downsizing. then it went to the NLRB and we lost our case. There was no knee busting as many rught wing talking heads are saying what is going to happen EFCA.If you want to know about EFCA go to their website and get the facts.
This is just another political football being kicked around to help the dems out. i have friends of mine who are teachers,fireman,cops etc. that always vote democratic because of their own self interests rather than what they really feel, They have admitted to me.
The "push" for more union jobs is just like more welfare,food stamps, housing,assistance etc. It is all about tying up long term dem votes. I own a business that employs 11 people, I would love to see a union guy go in to my place to try and start a union, it would probably result in a pay cut and more hours for the people that work for me.
I don't see "wide spread injustice" in our country today, their maybe some isolated areas, but this proposal is purely based on politics and votes.
"I would love to see a union guy go in to my place to try and start a union"
I would too, because the desire to organize and collectively bargain starts with the employees. If you treat your employees well, that desire may never be a concern for you.
Pete that is what I am saying, my employees are all overpaid, and work under 40 hours. I would laugh if a union organizer came to my place.
I've got no problem if the workers turn down an offer to join a union. I'm pretty sure what you and pete are saying falls in line with that - I believe unions work best when the workers are being purposely screwed over by management. Unions aren't for everyone.
Just because you provide a healthy and happy working environment for your employees doesn't mean that there isn't wide spread injustice in the American workplace.
Yeah, management has been bashing labor for the past 30 years and it's killed the middle class. Management has no beef. If they find their work force threatening to unionize, they have only themselves to blame.
frankq2722 in this fiscal time you maybe right about a union in your small business but even without a union this may happen in these times. There are a lot of small and large business going under but it has nothing to do with unions. There are wide spread injustice in our country today one of them is that the top elite have gone from 12% to 400% pay to the average worker that's a very big deal also wages have stagnated while this has happened, maybe you are a social conscience employer but most what to pay the least amount with the least benefits. The business community would like to see universal/single payer health care because this is one of their biggest layouts to their employees and many have stopped it or chopped down to little coverage and the employees pay much more for this health care. I can see why business wants universal/single payer health care it helps their bottom line and makes them more competitive in the world economy. I read that your employee are all overpaid and work under 40 hours, do you provide any benefits for them like health care, paid vacations, sick leave, if so you will probably will never see a union try to organize in your place of business.
Good points. But fundamentally, if employers cannot be good stewards of their communities and provide working families with good wages and good benefits, like you mentioned, then they really have no business being employers.
know you bring up a couple of interesting points:
Yes my employees do have health care, but for how long I do not know it costs me about 50k/yr for my half of their insurance. As a relative conservative it is funny because the longer it drags out the more I am for National Healthcare, however the other side is how much will my companies taxes go up to make up the difference(if it is more than 50k obviously i'm behind).
On another note previously i have had some respondents say that everyone has a RIGHT to a job, a job is a privelege and should be treated as such. My RIGHT to a job is I worked 2 jobs(16hrs/day) for 6 years to get my company up and running. As times get harder yes my employees will pay the price in shorter work weeks and pay cuts, if not they can go and start their own businesses, I have earned my position, I appreciate my employees, I pay them well, but when all is said and done I'm the one paying their mortgages and putting food on their families tables.
If Marcello and his two brothers can go around getting people to sign a petition for a union and simultaneously, Nikita and his two brothers go around getting people to sign a petition for NOT having a union, who wins? The longer petition? Would the proposed National Health care cover both knee caps?
Seems like a petition FOR a union should have equal weight of one AGAINST a union.
This will be interesting. Of course a secret ballot elminates this possibility.
Maybe on the wingnut home world. Back up your contension on secret ballots, or continue to say words that mean little. Whatever spins your gizzard.
The one that gets more than half of the total employee votes wins. DUH!
News Flash: You can't cut an orange and get two pieces that are each bigger than one half of the original.
What does the law say? In some states 30% of the work force is all that's required to have an election. Let's go with the majority rule. Who ever gets a majority wins. Then once the winner is determined, what prevents the other side from starting a new petition to throw out the results of the first petition if they can convince enough people to sign the new petition.
Irrespective of whether a union is good, it seems to me this mechanism is geared towards churn. After 10 years of no union, union is declared and in force. Then after 2 years of union, company might make less money and think about moving to a cheaper location. They start a petition to remove the union with the implied threat of moving or going out of business all together.
With two adversaries and no common goal, it would appear to me that stability would be difficult, espectially in an exciting economy like our government has and is producing now.
What do you have against petitions anyway? Petitions are a major icon of democracy. And Republicans want to deny Americans the choice of either petition or election.
Another News Flash: EFCA doesn't eliminate the secret ballot.
And Another News Flash: Present law doesn't guarantee a secret ballot election.
Arnold Schwartzenegger became governor of CA specifically because of a petition. And that petition consisted of a very small percentage of CA population to trigger an election.
Is there a URL somewhere that has a full text of the proposed ECFA? [All I could find is last years version of the ECFA bill.] Petitions generally are used to cause an election. I can't think of any petitions that actually bring a law into effect. Can anyone? A petitition is how CA gets new items before the electorate. Enough people sign a petition and the matter is put to the (secret) ballot. I have a difficult time understanding why that is a problem. Using yours and CA's model, employees would sign a petition and if enough signatures were gathered, there would be an election by secret ballot. The number of signatures might not have to be 50% in this case. That is not what I understand ECFA to be. Am I wrong?
What problem is there with a secret ballot? Indeed, there is no "right" to a secret ballot held by any individual today or in what I understand to be ECFA. Today, only the company has a "right" to choose a secret ballot. With ECFA, if I understand it, the employees (the petition signers and only the petition signers) have a right to not have one. Individual employees have no right to have one, especially the non signers. The "right" is switched from the company to the collective will of the petition signers and only the petition signers.
After getting the requisite number of signatures on a petition to declare a union, what does it mean to say those employees (the petition signers) have a "right" to a secret ballot? Under what circumstances would they ever exercise such a right. Win the game and then say "Let try again". That would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
If there is some operational problem with how secret ballots are done, that should be discussed and possibly fixed. Simply removing the secret ballot deprives non signing employees and the company the right to a secret ballot, doesn't it?
Note that the California petition "triggered an election" i.e. a VOTE...one that is a secret ballot.
Grey Davis wasn't just thrown out of office after a certain number of signatures were submitted.
But the petition did have enforceable power. That power is is established by CA law. The Constitution does not set any limit to what kind of power can be given to petitions. And there is nothing in the Constitution that said petitions can only start elections. You would have to prove that a 50%+ petition that creates a union is unconstitutional.
You can search the CA constition here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const.html
I found 8 different articles that mention "petition". I didn't read them all, but putting things on the ballot is the gist i got from the first serveral references.
The point is "rights" are generally associated with individuals. When we start handing "rights" over to groups (corporations, signers of a petition, unions, governments [city,county,state,and federal] ) all kinds of mischief shows up.
It seem to me that a secret ballot is the answer. If there are problems with a secret ballot, then we should fix them, not eliminate an individual's right to a secret ballot. As far as I can determine, ECFA elminates the right of an idividual to participate in a secret ballot.
As I mentioned, handing individual's rights to groups (companies, union organizers, unions) is bound to lead to mischief.
Both sides intimidate and that is the problem with petitions. The only recourse I can think of is a required, timely secret ballot. Fix the secret ballot if it is broken, but don't fix it with a potentially more violent solution.
I have been in the UAW and it was not a pleasent experience. I did not get my dues' worth. I respect those who want to be in a union, I just don't think they are the best solution to problems. Unionization is only one solution that sometimes works well and other times does not.