After Years Of Lies, WSJ Concedes That Employee Free Choice Act ‘Doesn’t Remove The Secret-Ballot Option’
After Years Of Lies, WSJ Concedes That Employee Free Choice Act ‘Doesn’t Remove The Secret-Ballot Option’
In a stunning reversal, the anti-labor Wall Street Journal editorial page admitted today that one of the key messages in Big Business’s fight against the Employee Free Choice Act is false. “The bill doesn’t remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act,” wrote the WSJ editors today.
The acknowledgment by the WSJ that the legislation doesn’t eliminate the option of a secret-ballot election is surprising given that it has been one of the most aggressive pushers of the false meme:
– “Democrats in the House passed the Employee Free Choice Act, a measure that rewrites the rules for union organizing by eliminating secret-ballot elections.” [WSJ, 3/8/07]
– “Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s.” [WSJ, 10/17/08]
– “Mr. Pryor knew the GOP would block the bill, which gets rid of secret ballots in union elections.” [WSJ, 1/2/09]
– “Big Labor’s drive to eliminate secret ballots for union elections has united American business in opposition.” [WSJ, 3/11/09]
Just this past weekend, the Wall Street Journal’s editors repeatedly claimed on their Fox News show that the bill was an effort “to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.” Watch it:
As ThinkProgress has previously noted, the Employee Free Choice Act preserves workers’ rights to secret balloting. However, it also gives workers the option to form a union through a “card-check” system, in which a union would be recognized if a majority of workers signed a petition testifying to their desire to organize. This means that workers get to choose the union formation process — elections or majority sign-up.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’m fascinated to witness how the “new” Media of Progressive voices are bringing the arrogant bastards who “decide” what to publish down to their knees with nothing but THE TRUTH.
FASCINATING!
March 20th, 2009 at 11:58 amTelling the truth; what a concept.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:00 pmSomeone check the bathrooms at the WSJ; see if there are some discarded skins of WSJ editorialists, like the “Edgar suit” in Men in Black.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:04 pmYou must have lexis/nexis, right?
What’s that cost, annually?
I’m jealous…
March 20th, 2009 at 12:05 pmWatch for them furiously try to put the tooth paste back in the tube this weekend on FOX. Rush will not be happy and will be looking for the WSJ to present them with a virgin young boy sacrifice, a bottle of viagra and a fruit basket.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:07 pmAnd, of course this will be followed by corrections from Fox, World Daily Net, Drudge, Rush, Medved, Ingraham etc because accuracy is a trademark quality deeply instilled in them.
/snark
March 20th, 2009 at 12:07 pm… but what if the next union meeting comes in the form a mushroom cloud?
Employers need to be protected from gasp EMPLOYEE MEETINGS and shudder collective bargaining!
A level playing field unfairly handicaps the rich and powerful…
/sarc
March 20th, 2009 at 12:07 pmWow! An admission of error.
Will they now go back to Fox News and do a verbal mea culpa?
Hmm, I wonder if the decline of newspapers has any bearing on this admission of untruth-telling. It’s bad enough that newspapers are losing readership, but if they continue with their record of bias and untruths, that couldn’t have a positive impact on readership.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:08 pm.
Maybe the WSJ is afraid of John Stewart.
.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:08 pmIf only the Chamber of Commerce would come clean with their lies about this.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:13 pmI suspect they figure their lies have done the job they were supposed to do (scare the crap out of people), so telling the truth won’t have much impact now. But if they are ever called on it (a la Jon Stewart), they can point to this example of “responsible journalism”.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:21 pmMore fodder for the ‘liberal conspiracy’ crowd. George Soros did it, whatever it is.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:21 pmMy problem is that if the Reich and big business is looking out for labor(me&you)why would they oppose the EFCA and unions in the first place.My question to the Reich and big business is why have guilds and unions been needed for at least the last 1000 years or so?American unionized manufacturing wages are at 17th out of 20th with our top 20 trading partners, we are 18th out of 20 in percentage of unionized workers at 13%, while on average our trading partners are well over 40% unionized,but we are number in productivity, so our manufacturing would be cheaper and better except a couple of things, health care and supervisory and manufacturing wages and benefits(perks).
March 20th, 2009 at 12:28 pmWithout lies, how will they continue to frighten the cowards on the right into voting against their own interests?
March 20th, 2009 at 12:29 pmThe truly amazing thing is that they’re telling the truth.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:29 pmOh, I don’t think they need lies.
I mean, the lies help, but the cowards on the right are pretty easily frightened into doing whatever their authoritarian leaders want them to do.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:32 pmThe WSJ is now a lagging indicator of the TRUTH. Day late and dollar short.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:36 pmSo, can someone please read that article to the Democrats who are jumping ship.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:37 pmMax-1 Says:
Maybe the WSJ is afraid of John Stewart.
Good one!
The other possibility is that Rupert Murdoch might just be seeing the handwriting on the wall. After all, his News Corp lost 4 billion dollars in the last quarter and isn’t doing any better this quarter. Subscriptions to the WSJ are way down, too.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:39 pmThe Wall street journal had one editorial that conflicted with multiple previous claims. Did the Wall Street Journal publish corrections for all its previous incorrect claims?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the code of journalistic ethics would demand it. If the Wall Street Journal wishes to regain its journalistic integrity, it needs to come clean with a front page retraction.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:51 pmI guess if you “project your own reality,” nothing you say can be a lie.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:54 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong, but the majority sign-up (aka “card check”) option for forming a union is already allowed under current law, if the employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act simply eliminates that roadblock, giving employees the choice to form a union either by signing up or holding an election.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pmSo either I can’t read or hear as I did not see this backtrack on your video clip or when I read the transcript of this video. Please re-post as it be really amazing to have a record of Heninger of Freeman saying what you purpot them to have said. Thanks, a loyal follower.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pmProfessionals, corporations shudder at the thought of unions, but do people think that the AMA, insurance co and other business do not get together to decide what to pay the employees or to set their fees. Well, they do, speaking from experience from the HR industry. But, yet tradespeople should not unionize. Got to say I want a union electrician wiring my house or business.
March 20th, 2009 at 4:53 pmWhy did you not quote the full sentence in the editorial?
The paragraph continues…
The Journal’s not admitting anything, it’s not backtracking, and your representation of today’s editorial doesn’t accurately inform your readers. Let’s persuade, not deceive.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:56 pmThe emperor wears no clothes! Why don’t they talk about this also? http://tinyurl.com/cupw5u WHY?
March 21st, 2009 at 2:12 amIt makes secret ballots less likely. The proposed law requires 30% card check to call for a secret ballot or 50% card check to form a new union.
The argument against the 50% card check in lieu of a secret ballot is that Union bosses will pressure workers into signing a card (cheaper than holding a vote) rather than trust that the workers will vote the way they want.
Understandably, Unions are worried having only 8% of workers in a Union, down from 30% in the ’50s. But only 9% of non-union workers want to be in a union. http://tinyurl.com/8l8zjw
And 61% of Americans think that secret ballots are the way to go in forming a union. So should Congress submit itself to Organized Labor and force a change the People don’t want? http://tinyurl.com/dk6zhw
March 21st, 2009 at 5:58 pmIt does however make secret ballots less likely. Most union organizers love this because it does essentially do away with the secret ballot election. I know, I know… it doesn’t do away with them but the “check cards” are much easier to get votes and cheaper than running a secret ballot election. I’m disappointed that all the progressive blogs aren’t being clear on this but rather running the spin making it seem like both voting options would still be used. Clearly, the “check” card system would be used and unions would get into businesses much easier. That’s why the right and business people are fighting it… not because they have some evil plan to keep people down… They don’t want the unions in and this would tip the power to union organizers away from business. My own opinion is the field should be level not tipped toward unions OR toward big business. Make the “check” cards secret. Right now these card votes are public knowledge and can be used by either side to pressure people.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 amHmmm. I wonder if the WSJ has a new gal/guy on the editorial board. The group that used to accuse Bill Clinton of consortin with drug dealers in the Arkansas backwoods said yesterday that critics ought to get off Obama’s back about his Special Olympics gaffe & that Obama was a good guy.
Two decent WSJ editorials in a row?? If there’s a third one, I think that constitutes a miracle qualifying the maker for sainthood.
The Constant Weader at http://www.realitychex.com
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:35 pm