February 23, 2007
SPEAKING OF PLEASURABLE VETOES FOR W:
Labor Seeks Boost From Pro-Union Measure (STEVEN GREENHOUSE, 2/23/07, NY Times)
Organized labor is fighting for a pro-union bill as if its life depended on it.Some labor experts say the union movement's ability to reverse its slide could in fact hinge on its winning passage of the bill, which would make it easier for workers to join unions.
The United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation and more than a dozen other business groups are mounting a fierce campaign to stop the bill, inundating Congress with more than 10,000 e-mail messages and letters. At the same time, labor unions are sponsoring demonstrations, conferences and meetings in 99 cities this month to push for the legislation. The two sides have also squared off with newspaper advertisements.
"The business community thinks the labor movement is at death's door, and they want to make sure they keep this bill from passing," said Charles Craver, a professor of labor law at George Washington University. "If it passes, it will give labor a big boost." [...]
Business lobbyists voice confidence that they can block the bill in the Senate, where opponents say a filibuster is likely. Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that President Bush would veto the bill.
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 23, 2007 8:39 AM
"which would make it easier for workers to join unions."
More like "easier for unions to impose themselves on reluctant workers".
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 23, 2007 2:19 PMDidja notice it took the NYT till the 9th paragraph to explain what the bill did? And even then they had to follow it with spin. They know this bill cannot survive sunlight.
Ras:
Indeed. "Let's abolish the secret ballot" is a profoundly unpopular idea. Mr. Judd likes to talk about 60-40? This one puts the Dems on the wrong side of 80-20 or worse.
Posted by: John Thacker at February 23, 2007 3:28 PMYet another missed opportunity for the Republicans. Why aren't they pounding on this? Ask every Democratic presidential candidate whether they believe in secret ballots or not. Force them to either line up with Big Labor or, as John says, 80%+ of the public.
Posted by: PapayaSF at February 23, 2007 5:34 PMIndeed. "Let's abolish the secret ballot" is a profoundly unpopular idea
If so, then why the popular push for mail-only voting and permanent absentee voting and Internet voting and all the other ways in which the voting process is conducted anywhere but at a state-sanctioned and publicly scrutinzed polling place?
(Again, those people who obsess over Diebolt show a curious lack of interest in real vote fraud, too. Could it be because Dems and the Left recognize that computer automation, as in so many other parts of life, will put make their labor intensive old-fashioned methods obsolete?)
Raoul,
If so, then why...
I'd figure it's because the mail-in and absentee etc ballots etc are still basically secret, whereas the union proposal is for a public "vote," with union organizers standing right behind you all the way.