Comments on: After Years Of Lies, WSJ Concedes That Employee Free Choice Act ‘Doesn’t Remove The Secret-Ballot Option’

By: Constant Weader

Constant Weader — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:35:13 +0000

Hmmm. 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

By: felixxx999

felixxx999 — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:05:27 +0000

It 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.

By: JustinAC

JustinAC — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:58:03 +0000

It 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

By: freecitizenusa

freecitizenusa — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:12:19 +0000

The emperor wears no clothes! Why don’t they talk about this also? http://tinyurl.com/cupw5u WHY?

By: NCW

NCW — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:56:50 +0000

Why did you not quote the full sentence in the editorial?

The bill doesn’t remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act but in practice makes it a dead letter.

The paragraph continues…

The bill allows a union to automatically organize a worksite if more than 50% of workers simply sign an authorization card, so pressure for employees to sign in public view would be enormous.

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.

By: texaslady

texaslady — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:53:55 +0000

Professionals, 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.

By: blood1

blood1 — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:57:45 +0000

So 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.

By: rmwarnick

rmwarnick — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:32:05 +0000

Correct 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.

By: Perry logan

Perry logan — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:54:22 +0000

I guess if you “project your own reality,” nothing you say can be a lie.

By: Levi the Oracle

Levi the Oracle — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:51:47 +0000

The 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.

By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins

Bilbo Hussein Baggins — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:39:42 +0000

Max-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.

By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins

Bilbo Hussein Baggins — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:37:50 +0000

So, can someone please read that article to the Democrats who are jumping ship.

By: jb

jb — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:36:43 +0000

The WSJ is now a lagging indicator of the TRUTH. Day late and dollar short.

By: ralph the wonder llama

ralph the wonder llama — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:32:34 +0000

RantingTommy Says:
Without lies, how will they continue to frighten the cowards on the right into voting against their own interest?

Oh, 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.

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:29:32 +0000

The truly amazing thing is that they’re telling the truth.

By: RantingTommy

RantingTommy — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:29:27 +0000

Without lies, how will they continue to frighten the cowards on the right into voting against their own interests?

By: christopher wiwi

christopher wiwi — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:28:53 +0000

My 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).

By: Roket

Roket — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:21:54 +0000

More fodder for the ‘liberal conspiracy’ crowd. George Soros did it, whatever it is.

By: misshusseinmolly

misshusseinmolly — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:21:09 +0000

I 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”.

By: PatrioticLiberalChristian

PatrioticLiberalChristian — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:13:16 +0000

If only the Chamber of Commerce would come clean with their lies about this.