Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Employee Free Choice Bill Battle Is Joined

By Alec MacGillis
Get ready for one of the nastiest fights of President Obama's still young first term. As supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act prepared to introduce it in the Senate, opponents of the labor rights bill came out in force.

The Chamber of Commerce brought nearly 200 Chamber members from around the country to Washington today to lobby the senators who will decide the bill's fate for a campaign they're billing a "Workforce Freedom Airlift."

They gathered this morning in the grand Hall of Flags in the Chamber's headquarters across from the White House, where national leaders of the chamber praised them as the "first Marines hitting the beach" to defeat a "job killer" of a bill that would violate American democracy and bring further ruin on a beleaguered economy.

"You've got to go up and tell them what will happen [if the bill passes], that no one is going to add a single job in the United States," Chamber president Thomas Donahue told the assembled. "Will I put a job here where it'll get unionized in an illegal way? No, I'll put it somewhere else."

The bill has two main elements. It would give workers the option of forming unions by getting a majority of workers to sign cards to join without having to hold a secret ballot election. (Current law leaves it up to employers to decide whether workers must hold an election or can organize via "card check.") And it mandates that -- if employers and workers cannot reach a contract within 120 days -- a government arbitrator intervene and set terms.

Workers say the first provision is needed because employers now intimidate workers in the run-up to elections, making them something other than a democratic vote, and that the second provision is needed because employers sometimes go years without agreeing to a contract. Employer groups counter that the first provision would expose workers to union intimidation and that the second one would allow the government to interfere in how they run their business.

There is majority support for the bill in both chambers of Congress, but labor supporters need 60 votes in the Senate to prevent a filibuster. That probably means the unions will need to hang onto the 52 votes the bill got when introduced under President Bush, and snagging support from every one of the eight Democrats added to the Senate in 2008, including Al Franken, if he is finally seated.

AFL-CIO lobbyist Bill Samuel said last week that the 60 votes were there, but several conservative Democrats -- including Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) and both Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas -- say they are very much on the fence. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the only Republican to side with labor on the previous vote, is also on the fence and facing pressure on the right from a likely primary challenge.

The Chamber leaders made clear to their troops today that they needed to demand a vote for a filibuster, and not settle for senators saying they would try to improve the bill, or vote against the bill when it comes for a final vote after getting past a filibuster.

"The only thing that stands between this Draconian, game-changing legislation and your workplace is the filibuster," said Steven Law, the chamber's general counsel. "It is critically important to be very clear: There is no compromise."

Donahue drove this point home: "On this deal... there's no compromise. There's no credit for amending the bill, the only credit anyone gets is for voting against cloture. Am I clear?"

The officials made their targets plain. Donahue said the chamber would "make sure the ladies in Maine are on the team," a reference to moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who voted against the bill last time.

Randy Johnson, the chamber's point man on labor legislation, predicated that Specter might argue for amending the bill, but said that the chamber wouldn't stand for that. "If he says, 'Look, guys, you have to negotiate ... or I'll vote for it,' we'll say, 'fine,' to Senator Specter. 'Do what you want to do, we'll find other votes.'"

Hugh Keogh, president of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, said he still held out hope of getting newly elected Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) to vote for a filibuster, saying that Warner has "has always had very strong business support and we intend to spend some of that on this."

Johnson cautioned against over-confidence, saying that an article on the Wall Street Journal's front page today about the doubts that six Democratic senators have about the bill may have been "a little optimistic" -- "even though I planted a lot of that story."

"This is the day we're going to put a stake through the heart of this bill," he said.

Labor supporters were sounding similar notes of bravado. Andy Stern, president of the Services Employees International Union, said in an interview that he remained confident that his side could find 60 votes to hold open debate in the Senate, even though it might take making some tweaks to the bill, which he said labor would be open to as long as the changes didn't go too far.

"We know we have an issue on rebuilding the middle class.... a debate about whether or not there's a way through labor policies to let workers rebuild the middle class," he said. "I'm confident that senators who have voted for debate will continue to vote to have a debate. American workers deserve a debate on this issue, and there are 59 Democrats who have all supported the bill in one form or another. I think we'll see a debate."

It is unclear just when the bill will be brought to the floor -- its supporters will have to wait until Franken is seated, at the very least. Law told the assembled Chamber members that it would keep bringing in members from around the country for lobbying visits as long as is needed. "We will doing this until the bill is dead," he said. "With your help, we're going to kill it."

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 10, 2009; 3:11 PM ET
Categories:  Economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The 50-Year Recovery Plan
Next: Freeman Withdraws From Intel Position

Comments

I find it amazing that corporations are spending so much money to spin the "democracy" of workers -- and no one thinks that is just a little odd? Since when, in the United States, did corporations ever give a damn about a worker's rights? Clearly they still don't give a damn putting up this much money and political lobbying to fight a bill that would level a very uneven playing field.

As a union organizer I can honestly say that not many people outside of the little world that labor is - ever realize how much coercion, intimidation and retaliation a company puts out there when their workers seek a voice in the workplace.

When a union's organizing drive is defeated by a company's union-busting tactics, this doesn't make front-page news, though I don't know why. There are cases every day of the week, every week of the year when a company has either pulled a worker in for a "one on one," showed them a movie about the ills of unionism, or plainly fired a workers known to be organizing on the inside.

Clearly a lot of people in the United States, not in a union job, know about this ... and the need for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Posted by: UnionReview | March 14, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I would add my own comments, but hfisher1 put it about as eloquently (and accurately) as you can put it. Great post on corporate greed and the damage it's causing to our country.

Posted by: ltjones12 | March 12, 2009 8:10 AM | Report abuse

JakeD: I thought it was a rhetorical question. Of course the workers in the Far East will outcompete us in wages. They live in tyrannies where the government can work people to death in order to attain its goals. Take China. People live in shanties and hovels and work for peanuts while the government harvests the profits of foreign trade. And where does this profit go? To make conditions better for the people? It goes for building a military that is already challenging our naval hegemony. Did I answer your question?

Further, the case can be made that the wholesale exportation of American jobs and factory technology to China is a threat to national security. It shows the incredible degree to which business rules America that the government sacrificed our manufacturing core to “globalization.” So what happens if we get into a war with China, something which seems inevitable in the long run? Are we going to contract out to China, our enemy, for military equipment? Is Wal-Mart going to sell imported Chinese-made assault rifles cheaper than we can make them ourselves? Insatiable greed has put the United States at great risk, not only economically but politically and militarily. Just look at the plutocracy, our rich rulers. The country’s infrastructure is collapsing and unemployment is through the roof destabilizing society, American companies freely kill our industries and send them abroad, the Chinese navy runs off ours, we’re mired in two unwinnable foreign wars, and Iran, our proclaimed enemy, is building an atom bomb. And how does the plutocracy respond to the inevitable discontent with this state of the Union? By creating the world’s largest prison state, a country that has more people in prison than any other on the planet, both in percentages and numbers. Only a cretin can’t see the negligence, incompetence, and treason of the plutocracy that controls the United States.

Posted by: hfisher1 | March 12, 2009 12:48 AM | Report abuse

hfisher1:

You didn't answer my question to you.

Posted by: JakeD | March 11, 2009 9:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Unfortunately, I can't take credit for that. The credit goes to Mme. Simone Weil, the former French Minister of Labor. When asked why France, so wealthy and populous, cannot match the industrial output of Japan, she answered, "Because, Monsieur, we are not ants."

Posted by: hfisher1 | March 11, 2009 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Let's just roll over and let the rich screw us like they've been doing since Reagan. Take pity on them and let them enjoy their fleeting days of privilege, because, when it's all over, they'll be going to hell.

Posted by: rooster54 | March 11, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

alan21:

Liberals will never give up public education / indoctrination.

Posted by: JakeD | March 11, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Look at the bright side. If the oligarchs continue to succeed in scaring the public and bribing our elected leaders with lobbyists and the corporate media with advertising contracts, and thereby cause our legitimate democratic attempts to advance workers to fail; then we can at least take comfort in knowing how cheaply we'll be able to produce large numbers of Guillotines.

Posted by: rooster54 | March 11, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Here's the problem:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/17/1928-resemblances/

We workers can either hang together or hang separately. Trying to outrace developing nations to the bottom has not worked out very well for us.

Posted by: rooster54 | March 11, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I don't trust giving power to those union bosses. I'd rather leave decisions about my employment up to those benevolent corporate executives. They have done a great job of looking out for working folks.

This is about power. The business elites don't want to give it up. They want to be feudal lords in their McMansions while everyone else gets $7.50 per hour, no healthcare, no education for their children, and no say in the workplace. So they are pulling out the scare tactics.

Posted by: alan21 | March 11, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"FREE CHOICE"??? What a gross misnomer! Label the bill for what it is! Can you see what the unions will do to the economy in this country? They will inflate the value of everything you purchase! They will do unto you the American citizen, what they have done to Detroit and the big auto manufacturers! Sure, they want inflated wages and huge pensions! Just like what is happening in California! Look to see why the State of California and cities like New York are bankrupt! They need suckers to pay for the huge pensions they will gain! Enough is enough!!!

Posted by: SeniorVet | March 11, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

hfisher1:

Nice comment about the "ant like Chinese". And you wonder why our economy is in the dump?

Posted by: JakeD | March 11, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

My father worked as a union member and he hated it. Said that the unions encouraged slowdowns in production and were run by and for the union bosses, workers just paid the dues for the bosses to use.

Posted by: lorddunsmore | March 11, 2009 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I can't speak for all unions, but in mine they BARGAIN IN BAD FAITH ! They use desipcable tactics that undermine the "Working Families". They only favor legislation that "empowers" union bosses, thus giving them legal rights to intimidate,harrass, and retaliate and call it legal to engage in this otherwise criminal activities.

They NEGATIVELY affect commerce all of the time! Unions are nessacary for "Patronage Machines" to operate.

My union is currently enaged in attacking its own members. That's why they need this bill to pass, so they can replace the DUES. That's what this bill is all about. There declining numbers are not allowing them to BUY/RENT all of the politicians they desire, and they talk about corporate GREED!

They are not looking to empower the middle class just there CRONYS ! ! ! They use this agenda to say they are for Working Families and that is not the case at all,IT IS A FRONT ! ! ! In my opinion !

Posted by: JohnAdams3 | March 11, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

jhnjdy wrote: "Production over and beyond the quota is discouraged by the union, you must work slow and lazily or your life will be made miserable by the union."

Why must work be done as fast as possible? Is that a law of nature? I bet nobody here has any real-life experience in the matter of how your work speed affects others. I do.

When I was a senior in high school, a friend and I got summer jobs at the local wall board factory. Our job was to work at a machine where porous wall boards rolled out that we counted, stacked, and tied into bundles with steel bands. This work was paid by the piece, i.e. the more bundles we could assemble, the more money we made. My friend and I practically licked our chops, seeing how, if we busted our a$$es, we could make a lot of money over the summer. So we cranked up the machine, let the boards roll, and worked our a$$es off. This went on for three days.

The next day during lunch break, we were approached by three workers, one of whom I had a nodding acquaintance with. He said, "do you guys want to come for a walk with us, we got something to talk about." So we walked a little ways, and one of the workers said: "So how do you like your machine?" We laughed and said the machine really sucked, but the money was great. He said, "Listen, you guys. We've been watching you work your a$$es off. Now that's all well and fine with you, you guys make a bundle and go right back to school after the summer. But we, we get to stay here month after month, year after year, binding stacks of wall boards. If you guys work fast, then management will want to increase the hourly quota during the next negotiations, and the we will have to work our a$$es off, permanently. So don’t go so goddam fast, y’hear?”

I thought that was reasonable. After all, they were the permanent workers there, I was just a visitor. So we came to an agreement where we could do somewhat more than they did, but less than what we had been producing due to us being students and all. In this way, a modus vivendi was found. So everybody didn’t work as fast as humanly possible. There’s nothing that ordains that American workers absolutely must work at the speed of the ant-like Chinese. There’s more to the working life than the paycheck. Do any of you understand this?

Posted by: hfisher1 | March 11, 2009 12:33 AM | Report abuse

I do not blame the businessman who do not want a union, it hampers efficiency, profits and managerial freedom. On the other side their is a temporal correlation between the decline of trade unions and the increase in the wage gap. The rise in the wage gap has caused a shrinking of the middle class. It is the middle class that is the foundation of our country, not the entrepreneur or the CEO.

The law as it presently stands allows for intimidation of employees by their employer. The new law potentially allows the union to intimidate the employees to gain membership. Neither outcome is in the best interest of the employees or the country in general. The first 2 components of the law are needed to protect the employees from the intimidation by the employer. A third provision is needed to protect employees from union intimidation. It is up to management to figure out how to stop union intimidation the way the unions figured out a way to stop managements intimidation.

The CoC is playing hardball. Support this bill and they will come to the table and make it a better not just for themselves but for all of us. Intimidation and corruption that is ignored comes back to affect us all. I have lived in a community where corruption was rampant and people not directly involved suffered in ways that they never were aware of.

Unions have both hurt and benefited most of us. If you are not aware how it is because you take for granted your work benefits or because you are not aware you have overpaid for something.

Posted by: Gator-ron | March 11, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

I do not blame the businessman who do not want a union, it hampers efficiency, profits and managerial freedom. On the other side their is a temporal correlation between the decline of trade unions and the increase in the wage gap. The rise in the wage gap has caused a shrinking of the middle class. It is the middle class that is the foundation of our country, not the entrepreneur or the CEO.

The law as it presently stands allows for intimidation of employees by their employer. The new law potentially allows the union to intimidate the employees to gain membership. Neither outcome is in the best interest of the employees or the country in general. The first 2 components of the law are needed to protect the employees from the intimidation by the employer. A third provision is needed to protect employees from union intimidation. It is up to management to figure out how to stop union intimidation the way the unions figured out a way to stop managements intimidation.

The CoC is playing hardball. Support this bill and they will come to the table and make it a better not just for themselves but for all of us. Intimidation and corruption that is ignored comes back to affect us all. I have lived in a community where corruption was rampant and people not directly involved suffered in ways that they never were aware of.

Unions have both hurt and benefited most of us. If you are not aware how it is because you take for granted your work benefits or because you are not aware you have overpaid for something.

Posted by: Gator-ron | March 11, 2009 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Alec:

Did Law REALLY say "We will doing this ..."?

Posted by: JakeD | March 10, 2009 10:32 PM | Report abuse

hfisher:

Communism FAILED in the Soviet Union. Also, we put Communist spies to death. It's not just business that made it a dirty word.

Posted by: JakeD | March 10, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

This should be a right to work country not a pay the union and vote democrat to get a job country. Unions bankrupt companies, they do not create jobs. They protect the worst workers and fail to protect the over achievers as well as aid in the termination of the best workers. Production over and beyond the quota is discouraged by the union, you must work slow and lazily or your life will be made miserable by the union.
Look at the auto industry, it fails because of the unions and no other reason, they can't compete against non union auto makers. and to top it all off the product they produce is in a lot of cases worst than like vehicles produced in a non union shop.

Posted by: jhnjdy | March 10, 2009 10:17 PM | Report abuse

jgault2 (hah!) wrote, "You will find out that you no longer own the business in the classical sense. Rules will be dictated to you. If it means you cannot compete you will go out of business. Unions are over paid under worked institutionalized mediocrity. By the way did you know that many of the unions were organized by the communist party. Don't believe it look it up."

So they were organized by the communists. So what? Is that supposed to scare anyone? "Communist" is a dirty word only in America, having been demonized by the business class for a century. As for rules being dictated to business, it is absolutely necessary. Without curbs on business practices we'd soon see 4-year olds crawling under the machines and working a 10-hour day, just as they did before the labor movement pulled some of business' poison fangs. That was business in the "classical sense." Is there anybody stupid enough to believe that we would have the 40 hour work week, paid vacation and sick leave, the minimum wage, unemployment insurance (which that sh!t-bird Reagan referred to as "a pre-paid vacation for freeeloaders",) parental leave, etc. etc. etc. without having to wrest these things from the employers? None of these things were given by the good hearts and intentions of the business people but had to be fought for by the labor movement. Its members often had to pay with their blood because of the goons and criminals hired by the employers to terrorize and kill workers and their families. If all employers have the same rules to follow, then you won't be outcompeted, at least not when it comes to treating the workers right. Why is it that you have the right to perpetual profit while those that generate it for you, the employees, can be kicked to the curb at your whim? Because you had money to invest? Is that nobler than working?

saw1: Wal-mart? You're kidding. The only time I will go to Wal-mart is when they drag my dead body in to buy a cheap cardboard coffin (Made in China.)

Posted by: hfisher1 | March 10, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Hey Hfisher-spoken like a true union member. Yes lets stick it to the businesses. Let's put them all out of business. And when theyre all gone we'll sit back and relax on all the wealth those guys have been hoarding. That is until the food runs out.----Enough already with the jaded communist b.s. Proletariat????

Posted by: jgault2 | March 10, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I think the concern by the Chamber of Commerce about this bill stiffling job growth is very touching.......and also the biggest load of elephant manure I've heard in a long time. If a company treated it's employees like human beings there wouldn't be any need for collective bargaining, now would there? The GOP (Greedy Old Pharts) have been trying to break the unions ever since Dumbo Reagan weaseled his way into office.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | March 10, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

hfisher1 Wrote

Such shameless b@stards, these business-swine. After having ripped us off to the tune of trillions, after having sold millions of American jobs to the lowest Asian bidders, they now want to dictate terms!

NO! Let the b@stard republicans filibuster, the sh!tty ratfinks, the hired messenger boys for business that they are. So the fatcats don't want to open businesses where workers have rights? Then let them take jobs themselves, and to hell with their rotten businesses. Why do the employers get to determine how union representation is decided? That is patently unfair, but par for the course in this retrograde, quasi-fascist, right-wing country that is filled with lumpen-proletarians who side with the money against their own interests. A lot of these rats and scabs are in the South, in so-called "right to work" states. The rest of the rats are white-collar office nerds who think they're too good and too "educated" to side with workers, until their own jobs are shipped off to India, that is.

Bring it on, you rotten mofos, BRING. IT. ON! There are lots more of us than of you. Let's get down and dirty and pay back the business-b@stards and their goons. WE NEED TO TAKE THE COUNTRY BACK FROM THE BUSINESS-B@STARDS! We need to squeeze them until they whine like the pigs that they are. GO OBAMA! Your base, the overwhelming number of Americans, is behind you! Let's stick it to business, but good!

===========================================
With the card check law we may be able to spread this attitude through all of our small business, soon it will function as well as Detroit.

I am a small manufactureer does any one wonder why I don't want a union?

What do you fear from a secret ballot?

I believe it to be apparent who would be the intimidator.

The right to vote your consience in private is a basic tenant of our democracy, those thst oppose that have another motive.

As far as sending jobs over to asia. Go out back and polish your Jap car, make some toast in your chinese taoster that was $5 cheaper. Eat dinner on the imported silver and dinner ware you bought at Wal-Mart. Now if you would like to see the real problem go look in the mirror that you saved $2 on at Wal-Mart (Chinese).You are the problem.

Posted by: saw1 | March 10, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

He's an ok guy, Obama; he's pretty smart, everyone likes him, and he has a real opportunity to prove himself even to people who can't stand his guts.

So, why in the name of the ghost of Everitt Dirksen would he get behind a piece of goat-dropping like the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act.

He already won the left; he needs to concentrate on the center. He can get all the equalizing he wants by targeting individuals, not unions.

If a union can't win a secret ballot, it's because it hasn't made a convincing case to the potential members.

Posted by: shmaryahoopizzaman | March 10, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

To fully understand how bad unions can be I suggest you start a company with your own money and then invite the unions in. In due time you will learn to hate unions like every other business out there. You will find out that you no longer own the business in the classical sense. Rules will be dictated to you. If it means you cannot compete you will go out of business. Unions are over paid under worked institutionalized mediocrity. By the way did you know that many of the unions were organized by the communist party. Don't believe it look it up.

Posted by: jgault2 | March 10, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I'll support the union over slave-loving executives anyday.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | March 10, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

This is fine , but an admendment should be added requiring Unions to use E-VERIFY as well as employers BEFORE they can form a Union !! We don't need anymore laws that protect Illegals and as we know , the Unions have become their best friend !! Next to the Democrats that is !!

Posted by: catinhat83510496 | March 10, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Well said Onestring.......

For Unions to remain viable in this century they'll need to be making some serious changes as well. They should be around for advocating workers rights and providing a grievance process when there is an abusive workplace. Not for creating an atmosphere where they can tell a boss to f off, sleep on the job, or get paid when they're not working.

Along the way some Unions in niche fields appear to have gotten as bloated as management has.


Posted by: theobserver4 | March 10, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

i can't think of any laws that appear more hostile to business. but since i live in a "right to work" state (Virginia), i say pass the law so all those companies move here :-)

Posted by: millionea7

How're they going to move hospitals and schools down to VA?

You do understand that you'll end up with the worst nurses in the country right?

Enjoy......it's also pretty presumptuous to assume those awful laws will be on the books until the end of time. Virginia is becoming more educated every year with NOVA implants. Richmond and the Cumberland Gap won't be able to sandbag the dam forever.

Move to 'Bama I bet they won't be changing for another 100 years.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 10, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm for unions - but I'm also against incompentent managers of unions who's previous employment was as a blue collar worker member of the union they now run.

Unqualified, and militant union leaders are 50% of the problem. Look at the teacher's unions for example - they have GUARANTEED THE FAILURE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION.

The other 50% are the corporate management teams who depress wages to get a personal bonus at the end of the year.

"Yes" to Unions. "No" to union lifer-management. "No" to inflexible work rules. "No" to idiot ideas like paying unemployed union members from a "jobs bank". "No" to unions messing in politics. "No" to tenure. "No" to preventing computer automation to protect inefficient, last century jobs.

Get it? Or can't you dump your ideology?

Posted by: onestring | March 10, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

This is probably the most important vote the Congress will have this session. Will they side with the Chamber and their bullying ilk or will the workers finally get make their decisions (anonymous to the employer and their co-workers and WITHOUT harassment).

This is grandstanding by the right in its highest form and it's incredibly dishonest to claim that workers making their own decisions is un-democratic. It's all about control and nothing more. Will workers stand up for themselves or work in fear?

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"Free Choice"? Isn't that a little like calling abortionists miracle makers? I have a proposal: let's let the Left have their way - collect ballots in a coercive manner until they claim victory. But then, let factory owners collect ballots from employees in the very same fashion to de-unionize. Is that fair? One would think so.

Posted by: guythompto | March 10, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

i can't think of any laws that appear more hostile to business. but since i live in a "right to work" state (Virginia), i say pass the law so all those companies move here :-)

Posted by: millionea7 | March 10, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Such shameless b@stards, these business-swine. After having ripped us off to the tune of trillions, after having sold millions of American jobs to the lowest Asian bidders, they now want to dictate terms!

NO! Let the b@stard republicans filibuster, the sh!tty ratfinks, the hired messenger boys for business that they are. So the fatcats don't want to open businesses where workers have rights? Then let them take jobs themselves, and to hell with their rotten businesses. Why do the employers get to determine how union representation is decided? That is patently unfair, but par for the course in this retrograde, quasi-fascist, right-wing country that is filled with lumpen-proletarians who side with the money against their own interests. A lot of these rats and scabs are in the South, in so-called "right to work" states. The rest of the rats are white-collar office nerds who think they're too good and too "educated" to side with workers, until their own jobs are shipped off to India, that is.

Bring it on, you rotten mofos, BRING. IT. ON! There are lots more of us than of you. Let's get down and dirty and pay back the business-b@stards and their goons. WE NEED TO TAKE THE COUNTRY BACK FROM THE BUSINESS-B@STARDS! We need to squeeze them until they whine like the pigs that they are. GO OBAMA! Your base, the overwhelming number of Americans, is behind you! Let's stick it to business, but good!

Posted by: hfisher1 | March 10, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Free Choice will make the stimulus battle look like the finest example of bipartisanship...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | March 10, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I do not want O'Bomba getting to become a Martyr!

The Fact he is half-Black will make it an issue other than the fact he is an Enemy of Capitalism-And Hence, the US!

He needs to be Removed BEFORE he gets REMOVED!

Posted by: SAINT---The | March 10, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Chamber president Thomas Donahue told the assembled. "Will I put a job here where it'll get unionized in an illegal way? No, I'll put it somewhere else."

Hey, that's real American of you Mr. Donahue. Blackmailing the beleaguered American worker and threatening to move desperately needed American jobs overseas. That ought to go over well in the breadlines!

Lucky for the supporters of the bill, between the 200 Chamber leaders, they haven't got two nickels to rub together. That should level the playing field, some what.

I have an idea for the Chamber's leaders. Instead of likening yourselves to Marines "hitting the beach," when you're actually only hitting the cocktail bar, why not really do something worthwhile and sign up?

Better yet, if you really want to help your country, join the Taliban. They'll be bankrupt and out of business in a month!

Posted by: WilliamDuane | March 10, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Did the WaPo just deny that the AFL-CIO has been known to "intimidate" too?

Posted by: JakeD | March 10, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company