The Employee Free Choice Act’s advocates seem to have devised a strategy for misleading the public and press both about what the Act intends to do and what current law provides. Unions go so far as to claim the EFCA won’t abolish secret-ballot elections when the plain wording of the bill concedes that there shall be no election if authorization cards come from more than 50% of the employees in the bargaining unit.
Again on Sunday we saw flimflammery of the highest order. As the Huffington Post reported, Claire McCaskill was on This Week, acknowledging that perhaps the pro-card check forces didn’t have 60 votes to end a filibuster. Then she uncorked a doozy:
I would say that I think it would be fair that we have a secret ballot for the decertification of unions. Right now, businesses can go with the card check. There is no secret ballot to get rid of a union. But there is a requirement of that for people to be able to organize. And to me that seems unfair. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Let’s get people on a level playing field … Until they do that I’m not sure they have a lot of room to complain.
This is simply a lie. The procedure under current law for the decertification of a union is identical to the procedure for a certification. If 30% of more of the bargaining union employees want to decertify a union, they can file a petition and have an election. The NLRB has a handy guide explaining this:
The Act also contains a provision whereby employees or someone acting on their behalf can file a petition seeking an election to determine if the employees wish to retain the individual or labor organization currently acting as their bargaining representative, whether the representative has been certified or voluntarily recognized by the employer. This is called a decertification election.
[. . .]
Regarding the showing of interest, it is the policy to require that a petitioner requesting an election for either certification of representatives or decertification show that at least 30 percent of the employees favor an election. The Act also requires that a petition for a union-security deauthorization election be filed by 30 percent or more of the employees in the unit covered by the agreement for the NLRB to conduct an election for that purpose. The showing of interest must be exclusively by employees who are in the appropriate bargaining unit in which an election is sought.
It is the EFCA which seeks an imbalance of rules: card check for certification and secret ballot for decertification. Perhaps McCaskill is ignorant of the law and is not intentionally trying to mislead the public. But if this is what passes for argument by the EFCA proponents, you have a sense as to how weak their position is. Truth be told, it is hard to defend taking away the secret ballot. Even Obama booster Warren Buffet can’t bring himself to conceal his distaste for nixing the secret ballot.
Nevertheless, McCaskill’s argument that we should have a level playing field in the workplace is a compelling one. And it is one more reason for senators to vote against the EFCA.
“So the cause of human rights has fallen upon the shoulders of the Republican congressional minority…”
I know when I think of Neo-Con skum, the first thought that comes to my mind is HUMAN RIGHTS…
tee hee…
“There was a time when the American Left could be reliably counted upon to raise its voice in protest against the likes of Chas Freeman and his shilling for authoritarians.”
When was that?
warpublican that is bad manners! moderate your language please
“in 1991.”
alot has happened since 1991. does this senator guy also want to stop borrowing money from the chinese?
do we not want good relations with the chinese at this juncture?
that is this arguments serious flaw.
was this guy opposed to hillary clintons trip there? to the olympics? i mean come on
Gee, #1, we somehow missed your answer to the below from a previous thread. Put up or shut up.
#21 Warpublican Review
———————-
“they know that there’s releif coming for those ripped off by the rich when Bush redirected the largest transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper 2-3 percent”
———————-
Explain something. What’s the motive? Why would Bush, the most powerful man in the world, a person who really can’t get a much better position, want to “redirect the largest transfer of wealth”? What does he get out of it? What would he accomplish? He wouldn’t buy any votes for himself or the Republicans or the “upper 2-3 percent”, they are outnumbered by definition. Many of the “upper 2-3 percent” are vocal Obama supporters besides. You don’t really have to examine tax law very closely to determine that the Bush tax cuts were tax cuts for everyone, even those with lower incomes. So how did he “transfer” this wealth? You might say that increasing the deficit produces this transfer, but that hasn’t happened yet. The deficit hasn’t been paid for, maybe they will take the kids lunch money for it, but it hasn’t happened so far. So, the fact of the matter is that you are simply making something up, basically lying. Lying, except for bearing false witness, is only a venial sin, so you might escape eternal hellfire but you will suffer eternal derision from everyone that has read this post.
“Does the American Left Give a Fig About Human Rights?”
No.
I don’t know whether to laugh or to puke when I read a Zionist, Marty Peretz’s minion, prattling about human rights.
This is first of all about Freeman’s slightly critical view of Israel, and then about the neocons’ Jonesing for a renewed Cold War against China.
Time to initiate a moderated forum. The inmates are running the asylum.
fine with me
“So the cause of human rights has fallen upon the shoulders of the Republican congressional minority”
Nonesense, absolute nonsense. As Americans, both right and left – the protection and preservation of Human Rights is of paramount importance in all spheres of our internal and external relations. That is what is great about being an American, and both parties represent this tradition well.
Interpretations of “human rights” does vary, but we have a standard – even if the words become ambiguous and convoluted at times. There are trade offs that every president (dem or republican) must make in order to advance the greater interests of the nation. Our history is full of such compromises.
The appointment of Freeman seems to be soley a witch hunt concocted by GOP operatives with the sole intention of embarrassing the president. I think the Freeman fellow is one smart person who would do the US well in the current appointment under consideration. I keep seeing this type of outrageous hyperbole such as this quote from the author – “Tiananmen Square Massacre enthusiast” – but this does not appear to be the correct context.
The exaggeration of Freeman’s intention in regards to China is just as outrageous as the recent tiff over Limbaugh’s comment about wanting the president to fail. If we just look at the phrase “wanting the president to fail” and focus solely on those words, then the meaning is lost and it just becomes fodder for the continuing saga of right vs. left – with the left propagandizing that Limbaugh wants the USA to fail. Of course this is absurd. People who have read and listened to Limbaugh’s comments realize clearly that he doesn’t want the USA to fail, just the president’s policies that threaten to transform the society as we know it. This is legit discouse, and deserves a fair hearing.
Freeman also deserves a fair hearing so that we can discern his intentions. We don’t need this unjustified Salem-MA inspired witch hunt by contentions and the conservative blogosphere. This isn’t cool.
So much talk about the USA slipping off the slope into an Orwelian 1984 world by pundits on the right and left – for whatever argument currently under discussion. With threads like this that redefine alleged statements by the opposition into “new speak” (i.e. words taken out of context) to comply with a partisan agenda – then I wholeheartedly agree in this assessment. It is an Orwelian brave new world, and contentions along with other bizarre wing-nut sites (both right and left) is leading the way down that slippery slope.
James,
If your goal is to remove the “neocon” distraction from the Freeman issue, why are you posting this on a neocon blog? Seems to me that you just proved that the issues are inseparable. America wants a new direction in the Middle East. You want a continuation of the Bush policies. That’s what this is about. All your other complaints are a smokescreen. If you can’t get rid of Freeman, you want to make sure that he is damaged and weakened. But the message you are sending is that neocons are the weak and damaged party. It’s good for Israelis to see. It will let them know that they need to play ball.
More about moderating this blog: Do Commentary contributers want Contentions to give a license to anti-semites to spout their poison here?
Every good forum is moderated with a registration process and then banning trolls. Sure they’ll come back and then you ban them again. There’s pretty good methods today of eliminating the problem once and for all.
If you can’t do this then just eliminate the comment section.
If you want at all costs to break from the Bush administration, to zig wherever he zagged, you’ll find yourself cozying up to the tyrants and cads of the world community. Hence, we see a new, soft line on China, Russia, and Iran. There will be more of this to come. We’ll be getting along with Chavez and cutting Colombia loose before you know it.
The same approach leads Obama’s team to beat up on our friends. I’m sure Bibi knows what’s coming.
The American left never cared about the Soviet gulags, so why should we expect them to change now?
As anybody who reads Jeffrey Goldberg’s excellent blog knows, some liberals are scathingly criticizing Freeman and quite often.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/
I have to agree with Jan. The repulsiveness and bigotry of some of the repeat offenders here is getting rather tiresome. I would have thought anti-Semites of the Far Left AND Far Right (is there any difference, really?) would have plenty of forums out there, what with davidduke.com and the Daily Kos both being attractive options for Jew-haters.
Re: “Warpublican”
Flatulent bloviation from yet another sneering little leftard shill.
Thanks for the kindergarten entertainment, twittykins. Now run back to mewling and puking in your sandbox with all the other “special” children. The adults want to talk about things you can’t possibly understand.
I’m against sign-ins and other official group “moderation”.
It’s more fun to slap these moronic twits around whenever they show up. (And those who can’t do that need to develop the ability. As a debate defense skill it’s as essential as “concealed carry” is in “real life”.)
The hard left is about one thing and one thing only: power. They are made up of elites who believe they should be micro-managing the affairs of people from on high. Nothing could better demonstrate that than what is taking place now in the US under the current administration and the leftist congress. As with all movements with fascistic tendencies, they don’t give a damn about anything–be it human rights, civil liberties, national defense, or fiscal responsibility–when those things do not further their ends.
Do you really think the Left would give almost $1 billion to aid Palestine if we weren’t still committed to human rights? Do you think the Left would have boycotted Durban II if we weren’t committed to human rights?
The hypocrisy of the left is just as disturbing as their bias. How is it that the human rights issues raised by the left about Israel’s conduct in conflicts with neighbors or with Palestinians are so pervasive and we hear practically nothing about the Arab states conduct toward their own citizens? Why is precision targeting of Hamas fighting within a populated area deemed an atrocity but we hear nary a word about Darfur and Sudanese refugees from Darfur working in hotels in Eilat? Why don’t we hear about the conduct of so many other countries toward their citizens, yet when a single Arab is killed, or even slighted, by an Israeli, the protests by the left are all over the news? Where is the distancing of the left from cries of “Jews to the Ovens”?
Q. Does the American Left Give a Fig About Human Rights?
A. Yep. Also, this is a *really* stupid post.
Daniel (Re: #18)
Setting aside the “rubber number” you’ve given, WHO did the money go to?
It was mainly Hamas, UNRWA, and similar thug-controlled groups.
“The Palestinians” never saw a dime.
Leftists are still playing “fast and loose” with their alleged “morality” while continuing to shill for the world’s goons — just like they did during the cold war.
#18
The “Left” gave a billion to Palestine? The “Left” boycotted Durban II? Is there some organization with it’s own finances called the “Left”? Where does the “Left” get its money, anyway? A billion dollars. And the boycott of Durban II? Is there an unoccupied table at Durban with a placard that says, the “Left”? What on earth are you talking about?
Freeman is not qualified for what is a very important job on innumerable levels. That the administration appointed him indicates either at best extraordinary incompetence or worse a basic ideological ugliness. People have commented on the general media indifference. In part this is likely the tendency for a pro-Democratic media to cover for a Democratic administration. But it is likely also a reflection of the not so veiled anti-Israel attitudes that have permeated into the mainstream media from the political left’s outer fringes. How many in our media are conditioned to use glib terms like “neo-conservative” with all its connotations without so much as a passing thought? A media that traffics in terms like Likudnik or neo-con, that so willingly entertains cabalistic notions of neo-conservative conspiracies, cannot be too bothered by McCarthyite terms such as “Israel Lobby”, and the response to such canards is typically a studied agnosticism that masks sympathy for the viewpoint. Its not a coincidence that the same pundits and commentators who complacently speculate about “neo-cons” find nothing particularly offensive about other cabalistic accusations and are prone to share them. Of course in that case human rights or more general considerations mean less than fidelity to their dominant ideological belief. Their support for Freeman is not in spite of his extreme anti-Isreal views, but precisely because of them, whatever else may be claimed.
22
The American Left elected Barack Obama. Do you deny he is of the Left? Substitute Democrat for Left if that makes it easier for you to process. Democrats run the country. These are Democratic policies. If that’s not clear enough for you, I can’t help.
James K — I’m not sure how old you are, but some of us remember the later Cold War years, when too many Democrats’ commitment to human rights was contingent on whether the dictator jeopardizing them was Marxist or right-wing. The Marxists increasingly got a pass, as when Jimmy Carter lionized Robert Mugabe, and Democrats in Congress paraded around with Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro in the 1980s.
This was never a majority of Congressional Democrats, but it was a phenomenon of Democrats and the left, not of Republicans and the right. The political tradition Obama comes from is that radical-left element of the Democratic party. He IS from the wing that distinguished itself by preferring to support Marxist thugs in the ’70s and ’80s. That wing only invokes the “human rights” cry about leftist regimes — China, North Korea, Cuba — when a Republican president is in office, and it’s a cheap way to score political points.
25- during the “cold war years” many of the neoconservatives were socialists including many who are still around today.
#24
Now we’re getting somewhere. So it’s the democrats that are giving $1 billion to the Arab terrorists that call themselves Palestinians. And it’s the democrats that are boycotting Durban II. What else? Aren’t they also prosecuting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about Guantanamo, aren’t they holding some prisoners down there? That would be the left. Please make sure that all Americans know that, democrat=left.
Bless your heart, lester, you always manage to make irrelevant comments that you imagine to be stinging ripostes.
You go find me even ONE of the actual “Neoconservatives” from the 1970s who participated in the American left’s practice of lionizing Marxist dictators, and refusing to acknowledge the usually ghastly abuses of human rights characteristic of those dictators. Go for it. The stopwatch is ticking.
Whittaker Chambers started out as a card-carrying Communist, and James Burnham a socialist — and Ronald Reagan a Democrat. That’s about as meaningful to the original topic as your comment about neoconservatives.
28. david horowitz , joshua murivich, christopher hitchens, in fact i just read a piece of saddam hussein by hitchens from like 1986! ohld on
http://www.newstatesman.com/200707050056
saddam a visionary!
“”New” conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.[citation needed] A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,[citation needed] were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA.[citation needed]
The topic is quite trendy in the net at the moment. What do you pay the most attention to while choosing what to write ?
sssb
ᓆ
nnn
nnnm