Hey, Rachel, did you read the “Employee Free Choice Act” bill?
J. Justin Wilson has the vid and administers the spanking:
Rachel Maddow has always been in the bag for big labor, even before she joined MSNBC. Despite that, I gave her more credit than this. During last night’s show she told her viewers to “read the bill,” with the bill being the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act. Then, claiming that it’s “really simple to explain,” she doesn’t turn to the bill, but rather to Rep. George Miller’s fact sheet, which was issued by the Democrats on the House Labor and Education Committee…
…If Maddow’s viewers actually took her advice and “read the bill”—not the partisan hack job “fact” sheet she pretended was the bill—they would read that if a union turns in cards representing more than 50% of a company’s employees, “the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection.“
***
Related: Sen. Ben Nelson doesn’t like what he’s seen of Card Check so far.
More on the Senate Democrat wavering from the WSJ:
Key Senate Democrats are wavering in their support of legislation that would give more power to labor unions, dealing a setback to labor’s top priority as businesses warn of the damage the bill would cause.
The battle over the “Employee Free Choice Act” — expected to be introduced Tuesday — is seen as a power struggle among labor unions and businesses, as well as a test of whether moderate Democrats and Republicans will push back on Democratic congressional leaders and the Obama administration.
At least six Senators who have voted to move forward with the so-called card-check proposal, including one Republican, now say they are opposed or not sure — an indication that Senate Democratic leaders are short of the 60 votes they need for approval.
The legislation is divisive and distracting, said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln in an interview Monday. The Democratic lawmaker, who was previously seen as a supporter, said the Senate should focus on creating jobs and improving the U.S. economy. “I have 90,000 Arkansans who need a job, that’s my No. 1 priority,” she said. The legislation, she said, would be “divisive and we don’t need that right now. We need to focus on the things that are more important.”
Sen. Lincoln is one of several moderate Democrats expressing doubts about the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join. A second provision would give federal arbitrators power to impose contract terms on companies that fail to reach negotiated agreements with unions. Both provisions are strongly opposed by business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor are among the Democratic lawmakers who have backed off their previous support.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hey Rachel Maddow, take your own advice! READ THE BILL! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Buffet and Welch to Obama: Stop Pushing Liberal Agenda During Crisis! | The Great Illuminator
- A Basic American Right - the Secret Ballot - Under assault in Washington DC | Pirates! Man Your Women!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Democrats
Legal Insurrection
» Thanks, Global Warming
Stop The ACLU
» Oops! Now New Zealand NIWA Accused Of Faking DataRiehl World View
» BBC, KGB, Oh My: More On Climate Change FraudJustOneMinute
» The Prescient Joe BidenAmSpecBlog
» A Good Time Not to be a DemocratRiehl World View
» More Climate Change Fraud: Et Tu New Zealand?Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney Case
I have a feeling most would read it and not even ‘get it’… leave it to leftists with an agenda to name a bill the opposite of what it really is.
Never ever let the peons know your true intent or beliefs…
If her viewers were smart enough to take advice, they wouldn’t be watching MSNBC in the first place.
From the Republican fact sheet she should have used:
Big labor = higher prices, fewer sales, job losses and a weakened economy.
I have never watched msnbc and now I how why. I actually know what the ‘card check’ is about and it is not good for businesses.
L
I don’t know why anyone is surprised, people really are dumb enough to believe whatever these people tell them.
Here, try the Kool-Aid!
The Shopping Channel has more viewers that Maddow, the only person that watches her religiously is her partner-in-crime leftist Keith Olbermann. Maddow’s national ratings equal the population of maybe Cleveland, so WHO in hell cares WHAT she says or thinks? Nobody’s listening. Or watching. I’m waiting for the day she shows up in her black-and-red checked lumberjack shirt.
Maddow has her job because the guy in the previous time slot wasn’t LLL enough for Keith Overbite.
She is a hack.
BTW, if one is famous and a lesbian, does one need to continue with a boy’s parochial school haircut to advertise the orientation? Couldn’t she let her hair grow out a little?
I know, off topic.
Why should she?
Who cares about her hair? It’s what comes out of her mouth that’s the problem.
Focus.
Good call.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Rachel issue an apology/retraction. She’s done it before, which is a rare thing for any of the prime time talkers to do.
As a commentator on Foxnews.com noted, there’s also a dangerous aftershock lurking in this bill as well…the requirement for mandatory arbitration if the parties can’t agree. While it sounds like a panacea that settles disputes without strikes and lockouts, what it really does is turn over the responsibility for determining union (and many Federal…through Davis/Bacon) wage rates to a third party. I’m not entirely clear on who picks the arbitrator, but it sounds like an NLRB assignment in the language of the bill. That means, essentially, that the Federal government, through the assignment of arbitrators, will control wages and hours of work assignments in the private sector.
While this is obviously dangerous, it’s less obvious to the labor side as to how dangerous it is to them as well. Democrats don’t own the white house in perpetuity, and there’ll be a time when the arbitrator is assigned by an unfriendly. Now what’s really scary is how labor will have to react when that time comes. Since striking will be prohibited, and since strikes will be necessary, labor will be forced into lawlessness to fight the unreasonable burden of government-set guidelines.
Some of you may think that’s fair turnabout, but I’m trying to look past that and see the inevitable anarchy waiting down the road. We need to fight this one hard, both pro and anti union people, to preserve the remarkable system of collective bargaining the US has enjoyed for seventy years. Our labor system is very different from the rest of the world’s, and it has given our country a labor stability that begat prosperity that the rest of the world envies.
Why doesn’t the Orwellian language of that bill bother Democrats?
Oh, because “choice” only applies to one thing.
For me, I see this card check as no different than your ballot being checked to make sure you voted for the “right” candidate.
This is not an employee “Free Choice” act. It’s an intimidation and retribution act. Labor thuggery at its best.
It’s like “freedom of choice”. Infants don’t have much choice in the matter.
Maddow is a woman? You’re kidding me. No freakin’ way! That dudes a woman? Shocking.
#16 Sam
I’m focusing on the garbage she spews after a gentle correction from management.
I’ve never actually watched her on TV.
I have watched Overbite, and e-mailed him once when ‘Countdown’ did an episode that suggested that not only terror alerts, but actual terror attacks, were tied to bad political news for Bush.
He e-mailed back an abusive response I meant to save forever, but was lost in a tragic anti-virus installation disaster.
Mrs. Malkin e-mailed way back when I chided her for suggesting the DC sniper was anything other than an angry white male. Turns out that the DC sniper was a Muslim. Ooops on me.
Same e-mail disaster also lost my e-mail from Andrew Sullivan in which he signed off as “Nancy”.
Enough with the stupid ad hominem. Getting on my nerves. If you don’t have something to say about the substance of her union propaganda, please don’t hit the “submit comment” button.
Could someone explain to me how the substance of her union propaganda is incorrect or misleading?
Her hairdresser.
On what? That the show she runs is completely in the bag for the liberal agenda and this obama guy?
Everybody who is going to get that already does. The rest a drones and will not get it till to late. Personaly I sometimes accidentaly drift onto her show and find her condesending tone a huge turn off. So for me, her hair-do is vastly more important than the drivel that oozes out of the vacumus lump on her head that some generous person might describe as a brain. If they didn’t know what a brain looked like. But I do get where you are coming from.
Red State Skeptic:
What she actually says in the video is accurate with respect to the content of the bill. I think the problem is that she strongly suggests she’s reading from the bill, when instead she’s reading from a fact sheet put out by a supporter of the bill. It’s pretty shoddy work, especially when she was just chastising people for not reading the bill.
Sorry, didn’t see this before I hit submit. I humbly submit myself for abasement and punishment.
You are right about the subject matter. I sometimes feel a need to release frustration in the form of humor, which Is not always in the best of taste and alot of people don’t get.
Calling it “The Employee Free choice Act” is like Kim Jong Il calling his election “The Voter Free Choice Act” (he was just re-elected with 100% of the vote).
Given organized labors history with thuggery, you can imagine the slashed tires, broken windows, and assaults on those employees that freely choose “NO”.
This is bad for workers in every industry, union and non-union alike.
Oh, the irony. If you’re going to insult a Rhodes Scholar, you should at least try and use words that actually exist.
I sometimes happen upon MSNBC while channel-surfing. I ALWAYS come upon someone saying something totally stupid. I mean, every time I go there. That station is run by imbiciles and employs morons. How they stay on the air is one of life’s biggest mysteries.
But she doesn’t. She says she’s reading from the “cliff notes version” put out by the Democrats on the House Labor and Education Committee.
I can see that this whole card check process could be a recipe for disaster and intimidation.
But do the proponents of the bill have a point when they claim that the employer often controls the secret ballot election process?
Lighten up! It’s a freakin’ blog post.
http://edlabor.house.gov/employee-free-choice-act-myth-vs-fact/index.shtml
In humble apology to Michelle Malkin, I submit the actual fact sheet.
She is a rhodes scholar??? WOW that just lowered my opinion of the title.
That would explain the condescending tone
Um…did you know you just insulted your hostess, MM? Just wondering.
Why would union leaders oppose secret ballots?
Same reason, I suppose, why Texas Democrats oppose a bill in the state senate to require picture ID to vote.
They claim it is a hardship on minorities having to show ID.
I’m waiting for a minority to explain how it is harder for them to go to the DMV and wait in line than it is for me.
Common Answer: A fair election may not always provide the results they want.
Michelle, can you clear up exactly what it is Rachel did wrong here? She never said she was quoting from the bill. She said she was quoting from the cliff notes the House committee put out and showed the quote from the committee’s website on the screen. What’s the issue?
GM, enough said.
For the record, I think Card Check is a disaster in the making but I still don’t see what Rachel did wrong.
What Maddow viewers are we talking about? The couple hundred that are tied to their chairs/beds and can’t reach the remote?
Co-sign. She is insufferable. Watching that clip reminded me of Olbermann, just not so foaming at the mouth.
I do appreciate that there’s a regular old lesbian on the news, rather than some wacked-out media freak like Suze Orman. I just wish it was someone I could watch.
Madcow said that we should read the bill when she didn’t. If she says that WE should read the bill, should SHE read the bill.
opps madcow = maddow.
Who cares if she is into girls????
How do you know she didn’t read it?
#31 I did not insult the hostes. The hostess came at me for a joke I made at someone else.
The same hostes that has funny names, comments and analogies and for numerous politcal and celebrity figures and uses them daily. I’ll come back when the PMS’ing is over.
Oh boy.
Have you ever read a piece of legislation? Probably. Have you ever exactly a piece of legislation to another person for the purpose of explaining a concept contained within the bill?
Here is an actual part of the EFCA:
You want her to quote something like that verbatim and expect anyone to understand it?
Because whe didn’t quote it.
DUH.
wanst the secret ballot put into place to protect the workers from big business intimidation .
Now the unions want to do the intimidation.
i cant wait for ge to go bankrupt and pmsnbc is put on the chopping block .
I don’t care if Rachel Maddow is into girls. I do care that homosexuals are woefully unrepresented in the media and entertainment, and those who are gay feel the need to keep quiet about it (Anderson Cooper, Ryan Seacrest, Ne-Yo, etc.) Rachel Maddow isn’t hush hush, she’s not in your face, she’s just an ordinary gay chick. She looks, acts and dresses like most (white) lesbians I know. Good for her.
I lay even money last sentence of comment #42 earns someone a long time in time out.
Mookie,
The fact she had just been talking for a while about actually reading the bill, then said ‘do you want the cliffs notes version? from the house committee…’ I think gave the impression she was using text from the bill. She shouldn’t mock others for not reading the bill, then use the fact sheet instead.
Oh snap! They took out the ‘and’!
She never said she was quoting the bill!! She was responding to McCain and McConnell saying that the secret ballot elections were going to completely disappear, which isn’t true, and that’s why she asked THEM if they read the bill, offered the Cliff Notes version from the House, put that up on the screen and showed that secret ballot elections are still an option under Card Check.
People:
You cannot recite the actual text of the bill over TV and expect any sort of comprehension from the viewer.
Look at how that bill is written.
So if she had quoted the bill instead of giving the cliff notes, there would be no issue here?
Good lord, that takes nitpicking to an entire new level.
Sort of OT, but whether Anderson Cooper is gay or not-
If he is gay, how refreshing that he doesnt feel the need to flaunt his orientation.
I have never understood why gay men have to swish or lisp or advertise their orientation.
It isn’t a gay thing either, if a straight man kept announcing how much he likes women, I wouldn’t think much of him as a journalist.
Thanks, I accidently deleted that earlier and I couldn’t remember if it was paragraph (7)(B) or (7) (D).
Mookie,
It is kind of nitpicky, I agree. But I do think if she’s going to condescendingly tell someone to go read the bill, then she shouldn’t use a selected source herself. Whatever. I don’t think its a big deal either way, just a bit obnoxious on her part. And maybe a bit obnoxious on mine to be so nitpicky.
Chap,
As to your question earlier (#27), there seems to be a lot of conflicting data as to whether employers do control the secret ballot process. Some studies have shown numbers as high as 50% of employers threatening to close the worksite if employees support a union, or that 90% of employers force employees to attend one-on-one meetings with supervisors prior to secret ballots. On the other hand, there are scholars who question the validity of those studies.
In my opinion, even assuming the studies are accurate, I don’t think replacing employer intimidation with potential union intimidation is the correct response. I think strengthening enforcement and penalties of the NLRA would be a preferable method of dealing with the issue.
I’ll tell you one thing, if Sam was accusing me of “PMS’ing”, he doesn’t know me very well. As mentioned in numerous posts, I am retired. PMS is way in my past, thank God. I am now even tempered and sweet and polite to everyone. Oh wait…not to lgm.
It’s not all that surprising that Maddow would be a hypocrite on this issue. She has always taken the easy road on anything she’s done. Her stinking PhD was on an insipid topic of AIDS in the prison community, I understand. Can I get a collective …. Duh!? If you think she’s bad wait’ll Ed Schultz comes on board….lol
Why should you get a collective “duh”? Are you in favor of AIDS spreading through prisons and being used as a deadly weapon against prison staff?
Agreed. Schultz is going to be hard to take. But we have to recognize that it’s going to be very difficult for the left to find individuals with intellects as giant as Sean Hannity’s.
Heh heh.
Errah Rachel who??!! Why would anyone name their son Rachel?
Clearly you don’t watch any tv.
Get over this eternal victim crap. Its a real turn off. I really wish I didn’t know who was gay and who was not on TV instead of this endless harping on the worthless subject.
Anne Heche “converted” and Lindsay is an equal opportunity dater.
LOL! Yes, the theater arts have a long shameful history of flaunting their heterosexual tendencies.
/sarc
how can secret ballots in the workplace be intimidating? having guido the pimp killer standing over you while you express your feelings might be a little intimidating. if not, why don’t we let people stand behind you when you vote in elections. dear leader could rank up there with kim jong il and hugo with a few strategic thug soldiers.
***
Sometimes I see a little of Ms. (I think!) Madow as I go to the Fox Channel. She is usually “stuck in reverse” trying to blame George Bush for whatever is going wrong at the moment. Other times she is FLYING AIR COVER for the liberals like she and her cohorts “leg tingle” Matthews and Keith O. did during the campaign.
***
I wonder how long a “news” show can survive by doing snide Bush Bashing? It must get stale after a few years.
***
As far as “Card Check”–this is a new euphemism for the old “Slave Labor” label. The conservative euphemism was the “Right to Work” label. The taking away of a secret ballot during union organizing attempts and coerced government work rules are the keys to this bill.
***
As far as putting strange looking ladies on T.V.–I would rather look at and listen to Tammy Bruce and her gun–she is a lot better looking and funnier. But no (kindov) conservatives need apply on (P)MSNBC.
***
John Bibb
***
Mookie
I don’t care ….. and I don’t give a rat’s patoot about gay representation any where any more than I do percentage of heterosexual representation. Maddow’s PhD was milquetoast in it’s effort and content.
You read it?
I’m still waiting for someone to point out the errors she made in her analysis of the bill.
Anyone?…
Meh. You can tell from the title it’s just a piece of librul gay-luvin’ crap. No need to go any further.
You mean he didn’t read it? Aw man! I was really impressed by the fact that he traveled all the way to London to read the dissertation of someone he thinks is dumb.
I can’t beleive they can even argue for card check with a straight face. The secret ballot is fundamental to our concepts of democracy and liberty and anything less is Un-American.
How about we put card check at the ballot box for political elections? A third party arbitrator will check the card of voters to make sure they are properly registered citizens. That sounds fair right? Nope, not in Obamaland.
Liberal Democrats are total hyppocrites and will do anything to obtain and maintain power.
Also, I don’t think he used the word “milquetoast” correctly. It is a noun for a meek person, not an adjective to describe effort or content.
But what do I know? I’ve never even read Maddow’s thesis. So I will defer to MNUSMCDavid on points of vocabulary.
California Red,
We already have card check for recognizing unions. The employers can choose to recognize the card check, or force a secret election. The new proposal isn’t really adding anything new in that respect, but rather getting rid of the ability of the employer to force a secret ballot election after a majority of employees have signed cards.
let’s really make it fair and allow the personnel director of the company or the ceo in the booth with guido the union organizer, so both sides know where everyone stands. can you say pink slips. or sayonara, we’ll see you in indonesia.
I still can’t believe in this day and age, unions are actually even legal.
They don’t serve a purpose anymore except screwing over companies, going on strike, getting ridiculous perks at the consumers’ expense, etc.
I just don’t get it.
How would they control anymore than the unions, and most importantly, the voter him/herself? With a secret ballot, you can come out and say you voted any way you like, but with card check, they know exactly whether you voted or not.
Just from what I have heard, once a ballot is called for, the employer can shut the union reps out of the building and basically control the flow of information to the employees, as well as have “one-on-one meetings” with the employees prior to the vote.
Next to Keith Olbermann, I cant think of a more ignorant and snotty monumental a_______, on TV these days.
I am relishing this…
(I know, what a meanie.)
Rachel Maddow? Shouldn’t she be cleaning a carpet somewhere? Why is this….um, woman even on TV?
I doubt any of her 60,000 viewers will read any portion of any legislation…evah!
If the “Free Choice” act passes… why do I have this weird feeling that ACORN will be doing labor union vote registration drives soon after.
I agree, unions should be illegal. They hurt businesses, consumers and workers and only help the union fat cat bosses. See what they did to the american auto industry, airlines and manufacturing. They are like a cancer on american industry and capitalism. Bush should have dismantled them when he had the legislative majorities in congress. But then again he was not very conservative.
Maybe Mushrooms, Ecstacy and Poppers make her viewers clarvoyant.
Relishing what, exactly?
I’ve been in three unions. All three screwed me over. In two, I had to work two years before I was “full-member.” Still had to pay dues during that time with no benefits. Same for the third, except it took only one year.
Unions promote laziness, raise costs, and are line the pockets of the thugs who run then.
I am proud to say that I had no idea who that woman is until today.
*Rachel Maddow and Peyton Manning, separated at birth, but split the testosterone.
*I have read just a portion of the card check bill; Spent 33 years in and around the automotive manufacturing business; Saw thousands of jobs lost because of unions; Many, many more will be lost with card check; Current labor laws in place make unions completely obsolete.
*Join a union and check your personal responsibility at the door.
*Become a nation of union membership and societal suicide awaits.
I’m not pro-union either, but those sound like management initiated contractual restrictions to me. I don’t exactly see where they’d benefit the union, what with seniority rules.
Why is Jon Stewart wearing a dress?
Ah yes…..and unions have never been known to muscle and intimidate employees to sign those cards, right?
And that, of course, is why secret ballots are important. They remove the intimidatio nfactor, just as they do for political elections.
Vargas: if it’s no big change, as you claim, then why are employers resisting it so strongly?
What EXACTLY do you have against secret elections?
Chap says, w/o evidence, that employERS can screw with secret elections, but don’t we have an NLRB to prevent that from happening?
As of now it looks like “card check” isn’t going to get out of the Senate, so this may be moot.
Still, it’s interesting to see how this issue has flushed the fascistic union thugs and their supporters.
No. I said this is what I have heard from proponents. I admit ignorance here. I am willing to learn. Initially, I think the bill sounds bad.
fulldropcup,
Seriously, you need to learn to actually read what people post without jumping to conclusions. At no point have I said I supported the EFCA, or dislike secret election–I think it’s a bad idea for precisely the reason you said, that unions can intimidate people into signing the cards without the check of a secret ballot.
As far as the evidence goes, I mentioned above that there are several studies out there re: employer intimidation, which seem to come to different conclusions. The related problem with this is that the NLRB isn’t always the most rigorous in its enforcement.
Again, as I said above, I think the new measure is a bad idea, and that increasing the actual oversight by the NLRB is the best method for dealing with any current problems with the system.
Oops, just noticed I kind of butchered your name. Not intentional, I assure you. Sorry about that.
You heard wrong. Whatever the employer may do, nothing prevents employees from talking to union reps off the premises, so the “control of information” nonsense is…nonsense.
Ditto the misleading claim about “one-on-one”: even if true there’s nothing preventing the union from going one-on-one with the employee — which is exactly what they often do NOW.
“Unions may also use the personal information provided by signers of the authorization cards to phone or visit these employees at their homes. These employees need not respond to the organizers’ inquiries, but they are free to do so if they choose.”
And the employer is contrained as to what it can do, one-on-one, before or after an election is called:
“but the law prohibits any employer interference with an employee’s right to organize and engage in “concerted activity” and employer discrimination designed to either encourage or discourage membership in a labor organization.”
Discrimination, of course, includes threats and reprisals, “unfair labor practices”. Chap, who holds himself out as a lawyer, apparently slept through his Labor Law class. (and I can’t really blame him)
Quotes are from:
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2318
(mosey around the site to get a full flavor of what union card check and elections are all about)
Essentially , the argument chap and other lefties espouse is very much akin to having ACORN “organize” a “community” and then calling for a show of hands when voting for or against Barack.
vargas: sorry if I jumped to conclusions. My bad. I DID scroll through the comments hasitly.
As for messing up my name, no prob.
p.s. you draw the best pinups ever!
Seriously fulldroopcup, are you retarded?
I have said that I am not espousing the pro EFCA arguments, yet you continue to lie and say I do. I was simply stating what their argument is and trying to get some feedback. God help me for some reason, I am trying to value and learn from some of the posters here. You are Exhibit A for why I was so foolish to think I could.
Don’t be a tool.
And, fyi, I never took labor law.
My faith in school awards or recognition is totally blown. Many students receive merits these days because of who they are, not what their abilities are. In one of my classes some years ago, there was a girl who in every class whined about how she is a single mom. She was a minority and during every discussion, she would raise her hand, have something angry to say and always started her soapbox speech with, well i’m a single mom….
She was never able to answer questions from the instructor on what we were studying, everything was just her personal opinion on how society does not give her enough. One day I came in to class to hear the instructor telling her that he had finished the letter for her recommendation. I don’t know for what, but it was apparent that any recommendation was for her “bravery” of suffering a life of not being able to keep a man and not because of any talent or application of time to her studies.
I can see Rachel beginning every discussion in her classes with, well, I’m a lesbian and let me tell you how life is not fair, oh btw, did you finish my Rhodes Scholar recommendation yet? I would hate to have to call you a RACIST.