UNIONS: FROM FAIR TO FASCIST

Early-on in their history, labor unions played the key role in the elimination of the exploitation of human labor for profit. They fought hard for fair treatment of workers and they were subject to horrendous retribution by the captains of industry and those in law enforcement and politics who served them. The unions earned their spurs and were primarily responsible for the development of workers rights and the protection of the employee. For that they have earned and they deserve the credit due them from history and from society.

Oh but how times have changed. In today's America it is far more often the case that the large and impersonal unions are the exploiters of their members. What workers are now forced to do are what their disconnected union bosses dictate to them. Now they must join the union. Now they must pay the union the member tax that it imposes upon them. Now their money can be utilized for whatever purpose, be it legitimate or duplicitous, that leadership decides, without needing or even wanting the approval of workers. Leadership perks abound, corruption recurs again and again. In short, union members now are forced to live with taxation without representation.

And the worst is yet to come. Should the Democrat party, a wholly owned subsidiary of large labor unions, get it's way in the next Congress, which given their substantial majority is likely, American working families will be forced to comply not only with unrepresented taxation but with top down fascist union governance. Marx, Lenin and Chairman Mao would be proud indeed.

Under the guise of "protecting workers rights" labor unions seek to eliminate the secret ballot in the American workplace as it applies to a vote by employees as to whether or not they wish to unionize within a company. In a nation where liberty is held so dear as to be based upon a secret ballot system for elections, unions wish to take that basic right away from American workers. Unions want to install a system, therefore, that is fundamentally un-American, unfair, undemocratic and, frankly, unconscionable.

Why do we have a voting system in this country based upon the secret ballot? For all the obvious reasons, not the least of which is to diminish, if not eliminate, the intimidation of voters by the forces on one side or the other. As we know from experience, how people publicly state they are going to vote and how they actually vote can be two very different realities. Voters will often tell pollsters what they think the questioner wants to hear or what will cause them the least amount of hassle, terror, harassment and censorship. But once in the privacy of the voting booth, that same voter will at times vote quite the opposite from their public statements. Thus the secret ballot leads to less manipulation, intimidation and external control.

By eliminating the secret ballot, unions seek to be able to overtly and unfairly influence the outcome of votes that could turn out to be to their clear benefit. In other words, they seek to control how workers vote. They desire to direct the outcome of elections so as to essentially invalidate the concept of a free and secret vote altogether. The free will of our working families be damned.

It all sort of fits with the operational style of labor unions as they now exist. Control the vote. Impose membership. Tax without representation. Spend without approval.

Sound like freedom and democracy at work to you?

Obviously not. There is to be no freedom for the working man and woman in America. It is fascism, pure and simple.


Secret-Ballot Hypocrisies
The Democrats believe in one man, one vote, one time.
By JOHN FUND

This week's 137 to 122 vote of House Democrats to replace John Dingell with liberal Henry Waxman at the energy and commerce committee would likely not have happened but for the secret ballot. Even Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, told Congressional Quarterly she was relieved the vote would be a private one: "It's a secret ballot. . . . Thank the Lord."

After all, the fearsome Mr. Dingell, who will become history's longest-serving House member next year, has been known to hold grudges.

Yet the obvious irony is that Democrats now will try to deprive workers of the same privacy privilege in workplace unionization battles. So-called "card check" legislation would require an employer to sign a union contract as long as a simple majority of workers sign a form authorizing a union to represent them -- a move that necessarily makes workers more vulnerable to coercion and intimidation than if they are voting by secret ballot.

And the ironies keep piling up. The leading House sponsor of card check is Rep. George Miller, who also served as campaign manager of Mr. Waxman's race against Mr. Dingell, settled by secret ballot. What's more, along with 10 House Democrats, Mr. Miller wrote a 2001 letter to Mexican government officials encouraging the "use of secret ballots in all union recognition elections." The letter states: "We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose."

Rep. Miller and the other signers now say their demand was for secret ballot votes only when "workers seek to replace one union with another union. " Funny. Their letter made no mention of that specific situation and instead referred to "all union recognition elections."

A better explanation is that Democrats' principled support for a secret ballot flies out the window when it comes to union organizing efforts sponsored by the special interests who helped them win control of Congress.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content