Debate continued in the Senate today, with Sens. Lautenberg (D-NJ, my home state), Webb (D-VA) and Clinton (D-NY), all co-sponsors of the bill (along with 43 other Dems) talking up the measure. I wonder if in this era of party over principle the speeches were meant to get the senators' populist talk on record for a future campaign, especially for Hillary, competing for labor endorsements and votes with John Edwards. I ask this because the money interests in the Republican party have their claws in so deep that I can't imagine any amount of depressing statistics, rhetorical appeals to the greater good or anecdotal evidence featuring a single mother working two jobs and still unable to feed her kids would really change the way their puppets in the upper chamber will vote on this thing.
Meanwhile, that bastion of fair journalism, the Chicago Sun-Times, comes out with this ridiculous statement :
And how do the unions, and union-backed supporters of the egregious Employee Free Choice Act, which is due to be voted on in the Senate today following its passage in the House, propose to protect workers from intimidation and harassment? By overturning employees' right to secret ballots in deciding whether to unionize and replacing that long-ingrained feature of American democracy with a "card check" method by which union organizers collect signatures on cards in public and every employee's choice would be known. Which would . . . mitigate efforts by managers and union organizers to influence the outcome? A public declaration is less open to intimidation than a secret vote? (emphasis mine)Horseshit. Under the current secret ballot system, employers can force elections off for weeks, leaving ample time to illegally fire organizing workers, make threats on job security, intimidate and indoctrinate workers with mandatory anti-union information sessions.
Chew on this: 92 percent of employers force employees to undergo these closed-door meetings, 72 percent hire private union-busting PR firms, half of employers threaten to shut down operations or fire workers, and a quarter of them actually follow through with their termination of employment threats. To even begin to suggest that these are free and fair elections just goes to show how warped the conservative view of democracy is. Lying, twisting and intimidation to get your way: the modern day conservative's ideal democracy. And given that 60 million people would join a union if they could, I don't think intimidation or coercion by organizers will be much of a problem.
-----
The NY Times has this little ditty from the world of free, worker exploiting trade:
Despite pressure from U.S. lawmakers and President George W. Bush, Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet said Friday that his country does not need to improve its human rights record.Of course, that belief isn't strong enough to call for any kind of sanctions on a country that we have a $7 billion trade deficit with, nor does stop Bush from calling for more free trade with countries known to exploit their workers. Or President Clinton, for that matter, who is accepting an award soon from the corrupt President Uribe. Stay strong, Congressional Dems.''It's not a question of improving or not,'' Triet said in an interview with The Associated Press, hours after meeting with Bush. ''Vietnam has its own legal framework, and those who violate the law will be handled.''
Triet, the first president from the communist-led nation to visit the White House since the Vietnam War, acknowledged differences in the countries' positions on the matter and called for more dialogue. He said his talks with Bush were ''frank and open'' and that disagreement over human rights would not stop a thriving trade relationship from getting stronger.
...
''I explained my strong belief that societies are enriched when people are allowed to express themselves freely or worship freely,'' Bush said in the Oval Office after meeting with Triet.
No comments:
Post a Comment