FOX News: Employee Free Choice Act "Pro Slavery"

[proud2BlibKansan]

Yesterday's (1/31/09) Forbes on FOX featured what Media Mattes called an "all out assault" on the Employee Free Choice Act. As Media Matters noted, the Act would take away employers' right to demand secret ballots when workers vote on whether or not to unionize. Yet FOX News repeatedly and falsely asserted that the Act would "ban secret votes at work." With video.

Mike Ozanian, Forbes National Editor, called attempts to make it easier for unions to organize "anti free choice, pro-slavery...essentially allow(ing) unions to bully people into joining them."


Media Matters noted:

The House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth," and stated on its website: "The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer." Supporters of the legislation say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.

Senior Editor Neil Weinberg was the voice of reason. "Let's face it, there's been a lot of coercion by big business over the last 10 years. We've had this situation where the rich have gotten richer,and the poor have gotten poorer,and now what we're trying to do is get some more equilibrium into the system. So if you get more people to unionize, you give people health care, raise wages, or close this income gap."

Ozanian said "the only reason Obama is for this bill is because the unions lined his pockets in the campaign."

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/02/01/fox_news_employee_free_choice_act_pro_slavery.php#more

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901310006?f=h_latest

[bluestateguy]

1. If the companies had not bullied people into not unionizing the EFCA would not be necessary

I can't say with a straight face that the unions will never, ever bully anyone, but this bill is needed to counter corporate bullying of workers who even consider unionizing. Had corporations not behaved badly, the EFCA would not be needed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. And if employers treated employees well we wouldn't need unions at all

That point seems to get lost in the shuffle.

[teamster633]

4. Just out of curiosity, when exactly was it that your hypothetical applied?

Or am I missing something?

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Costco would be a good example, but I strongly believe we need unions

since the majority of employers aren't as charitable as Costco's policies - or that of my husband's employer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Sorry I don't understand your question

:shrug:

[Cerridwen]

2. Cerridwen News: fox news, joseph goebbles' wet dream n/t

[givemebackmycountry]

6. The upcoming fight over the EFCA will be an epic battle -

The Republicans and their corporate masters are going to fight this with everything they have.
It's going to be all out war, and I hope Obama and the Dems are ready for it because it's going to be bloody.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. The unions are more organized on this than I have seen in years

I am really impressed as a union member with this campaign.

There is a massive lobbying campaign taking place in DC this week. Time is of the essence and the unions are trying to get this bill passed ASAP.

[customerserviceguy]

9. The question is

how much political capital are the President and the Democratic leadership in Congress going to expend on something that won't be useful for years? Surely you don't think this recession/depression is a good time to unionize, most workers who did such a thing would be replaced in a heartbeat.

This is something that will be quite useful after we get the economy back on its feet, but right now, it is of very limited, if any, value.