In the previous piece, What is card-check, and why is it so bad?, we discussed the dangers of card-check, focusing specifically on the intimidation factor. If you want to see just a glimpse of how bad bad can be, read it . . . and then know that it barely scratches the surface of what has happened over history, and what could happen if this law were ever to pass.
We know that Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords support this bill, because they voted for it. So how about Ann Kirkpatrick? She wasn't in Congress the first time it came up, and the EFCA redux hasn't made it out of committee. However, there are indications that the Democrats may attempt to ram it through in a lame-duck session. So how would Kirkpatrick vote if given the chance?
It is known as "card check," or, officially (and ironically) the Employee Free Choice Act. It is a measure coveted by unions, for which they have shelled out over $48 million this year to help elect Democratic candidates.
What is "card check"? Despite all the Democratic interest, it is, without question, the most undemocratic federal proposal in the history of American labor relations. It is the antithesis of "free choice."
And nearly every Democrat in Arizona running for Congress, including newcomers Ann Kirkpatrick and Bob Lord, is foursquare behind it.
and
It is in the best interests of unions, certainly. But not even current union members consider that the same thing: 78 percent of union workers oppose any form of voting that does not afford them privacy and anonymity, according to a 2004 Zogby poll.
Despite that, Democratic District 1 candidate Ann Kirkpatrick (over $100,000 in contributions from unions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics) is committed to supporting card check . . . read more
Oh dear.
Of course, Kirkpatrick has strong union backing, which is also an indicator of her likely support.
In Arizona, the state AFL-CIO has announced endorsements in races for the U.S. House. In addition to incumbent Reps. Ed Pastor (D-4th District), Harry Mitchell (D-5th District), Raul Grijalva (D-7th District) and Gabrielle Giffords (D-8th District), the Arizona AFL-CIO has endorsed three challengers. State Sen. Ann Kirkpatrick is endorsed in her race for the open 1st District seat
U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords, are Democrats headed into their first or second terms in districts previously held by Republicans. The trio was backed by labor unions in the 2008 campaign, though Mitchell has taken some pro-business stances such as opposing increased capital gains and dividends taxes.
Ann Kirkpatrick is still hooked on union money, to wit:
Kirkpatrick has accepted $10,000 from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and $10,000 from the United Food & Commercial Workers Union for her re-election campaign. (Arizona Republic) (Opensecrets.org).
So, it's pretty safe to say that she would vote for card-check, if given the chance. Especially in a lame-duck session, in which we would no doubt be given a glimpse of a lot of Democrats' true colors.
Well heck, if card-check passes, there will no doubt be bright new careers opening up in the field of union enforcement. Maybe some of these Democrats won't have so much trouble finding new jobs after all.
First, we have to tell you that anything less that full-throated opposition to it is deeply troubling. Why?
Because Card-check ranks as one of the most deeply troubling pieces of legislation the Democrats have pushed, and given their record, that's hard to do. The Workforce Fairness Institute describes it thusly:
The Employee 'Forced' Choice Act is Bad for Workers, Businesses and the U.S. Economy
The Employee 'Forced' Choice Act (EFCA) is a Big Labor-supported bill in Congress that, if passed and signed into law, would have dire consequences for American workers, businesses and the economy. EFCA would:
Take away the secret ballot vote from workers in union organizing elections.
Force employees and employers into unions whether they support them or not.
Insert a federal arbitrator after just 90 days of collective-bargaining negotiations, a federal bureaucrat will have the final say on a small business' wages, benefits and workplace conditions.
EFCA Is Bad For Workers
Despite its misleading title, EFCA would actually diminish worker freedom by taking away the secret ballot vote in union organizing elections. Under EFCA, instead of using secret ballots, a worker could be approached at any time or place by a union representative and asked to sign a card to support unionization. The secret ballot is . . . Continue reading
Brett Joshpe at Forbes wrote this at the start of 2009:
Ending secret ballot elections, which first emerged in the U.S. during Reconstruction to protect recently freed slaves, will provide significant opportunity for voter intimidation and greatly strengthen the labor bloc during a time of historic economic vulnerability. In addition to depriving workers of the right to vote by secret ballot, the EFCA also would mandate binding arbitration in the event management and labor are unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement.
The economic impact and the threat to the precious secret ballot—a brief history of which can be read here—are bad enough. As are the underlying motivations in this. But when you add in the intimidation factor, you get something even more disturbing. And the risk of intimidation is very, very real:
Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama’s teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago. Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka. Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?
A federal jury convicted one of Trumka’s UMW captains on conspiracy and weapons charges in York’s death. According to the Washington, D.C.-based National Legal and Policy Center, which tracks Big Labor abuse, Trumka’s legal team quickly settled a $27 million wrongful death suit filed by York’s widow just days after a judge admitted evidence in the criminal trial. An investigative report by Reader’s Digest disclosed that Trumka “did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.”
In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation (pdf), the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities … organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.” read more
Thinking about this intimidation this morning, I was reminded of a scene from The Sopranos. As programming goes, The Sopranos was a bit hard to take; in spite of the terrific acting and writing, the lack of likable protagonists and the hideous violence were such that I gave up watching after a time. But one scene really stuck with me, probably because of its political implications. Indeed, it was specifically about union intimidation, mafia style [note: one instance of bad language removed]:
Bobby Baccilieri: You're Teddy Genaretti, aren't ya? The shop steward for local one-eighty-four?
Teddy Genaretti: Guilty. You a joint fitter?
Bartender: What can I get you?
Bobby Baccilieri: Wild Turkey neat. I saw your Caravan in the lot. It's a nice car for a family.
Teddy Genaretti: Do I know you?
Bobby Baccilieri: Jim Blake.
Teddy Genaretti: What local you in?
Bobby Baccilieri: Bad back. It's just that I follow these things, you know, this election coming up. Dick Hoffman for president? I heard he's got one-eighty-four's vote. I think it's a mistake.
Teddy Genaretti: Pension's been ripped off for the last twenty five years.
Bobby Baccilieri: Hey, I'm sure you guys got grievances, but Dick Hoffman? What do you owe this guy? It's all talk. He's out of touch with reality, Dick. You think if push came to shove he'd give a ---- about you?
Teddy Genaretti: I know what you're trying to do.
Bobby Baccilieri: You look like a smart guy. I can see why your local puts their faith in you to do the right thing. I'm just saying, if it was me? I got kids that depend on me, like yourself. And to waste my votes on somebody like Dick Hoffman? I might as well put a bullet in my head — here, here and here. (pointing at his head)
Needless to say, that last line is a lot more sinister and disturbing with the visual of Baccilieri making a gun with his fingers and pointing, very deliberately, to three different spots on the back of his head. (The actor does a great job of being threatening, without going over-the-top, which actually makes it even more sinister.) Baccilieri says, tacitly, vote our way on this union thing, or we will kill you, execution-style, with a triple-tap to the back of the head.
If only that sort of thing were exclusively the realm of fiction.
However, before I pat my memory on the back for recalling this scene, which is oh-so-apt for this conversation, I have to point out that someone else already had the idea (though I swear I didn't know about it until just a few minutes ago!) and used, for the idea, no one less than Johnny Sac:
The actor who plays Sac is in fact a moderate Democrat, but he strenuously opposes card-check. And he's not the only Democrat who does. Even George McGovern (yes, THAT George McGovern) opposes card-check, and part of his reasoning is because of the risk of intimidation:
As McGovern warned with this system: “there are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked or intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.”
I wonder if one of them will come to my door, speak in concerned tones, and tacitly threaten me with harm if I don't let our cat and our little boy form a union.
First, the most striking thing to note is the generics for Districts 1, 5, and 8:
A plurality of voters prefers a Republican on the generic ballot test. While each of these ten districts have Democratic incumbents, voters in these districts prefer a Republican to a Democrat as their next congressman by a 41 to 34 percent margin.
A seven-point gap. That's pretty big, and when added to the Republican registration advantage in these districts, it's an indication that these Democrats have a tough climb ahead of them.
PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.
These results are based on aggregated data from registered voters surveyed Aug. 23-29 as part of Gallup Daily tracking. This marks the fifth week in a row in which Republicans have held an advantage over Democrats -- one that has ranged between 3 and 10 points.
The Republican leads of 6, 7, and 10 points this month are all higher than any previous midterm Republican advantage in Gallup's history of tracking the generic ballot, which dates to 1942. Prior to this year, the highest such gap was five points, measured in June 2002 and July 1994. Elections in both of these years resulted in significant Republican gains in House seats . . . read on
The wind is blowing in the face of all Democrats right now. Vulnerable Democrats such as Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, and Gabrielle Giffords may soon need to be thinking about new careers.
If the election for Congress were being held today and the candidates were (ROTATE: Paul Gosar, the
Republican, and Ann Kirkpatrick, the Democrat) for which candidate would you vote?
A six-point lead is not insurmountable, but given her status and advantages as an incumbent, this is not a promising result for Kirkpatrick. Especially given this:
FAV -- UNFAV -- NO OPINION -- NEVER HEARD OF
Ann Kirkpatrick — 42% 37% 16% 5%
Paul Gosar — 23% 6% 16% 54%
More than half of those surveyed still haven't heard of Paul Gosar. Those who have give him a favorability spread of 17 points! Thus, Kirkpatrick will have to put a lot of effort into negative campaigning to portray Gosar in a bad light to the 54% who don't yet know him.
On the other hand, 95% of those surveyed know Kirkpatrick, and her favorability spread is only 5 points. She's already been defined, and there's nowhere to go for her. Given the registration and mood advantages enjoyed by Republicans right now, again, her only choice is to go hard-negative, to attempt to define a mild-mannered, well-liked dentist as something terrible. How well is that going to sit with an already disgruntled electorate?
Nothing is in the bag, but unless something drastic changes, this race is definitely trending GOP.
If the election for Congress were being held today and the candidates were (ROTATE: David Schweikert, the Republican, and Harry Mitchell, the Democrat) for which candidate would you vote?
Once again, we have a six-point lead. However, things are much worse for Harry Mitchell:
FAV -- UNFAV -- NO OPINION -- NEVER HEARD OF
Harry Mitchell 42% 46% 9% 3%
David Schweikert 33% 18% 26% 23%
97% of respondents know who Harry Mitchell is, and he has a favorability rating of -4%. He has nowhere to go there. By contrast, Schweikert enjoys a 15 point favorability rating, and he's pretty well known already (77%). Harry Mitchell has his work cut out for him. He will need to change a lot of minds, both about himself and his opponent.
Again, this race is not won by either party, but it is also solidly trending GOP.
If the election for Congress were being held today and the candidates were (ROTATE: Jesse Kelly, the
Republican, and Gabrielle Giffords, the Democrat) for which candidate would you vote?
This is the only relatively bright spot in a grim picture for the Democrats. However, even here, the news is not great for the incumbent. She is tied with a comparatively unknown challenger, in spite of her high name ID:
FAV -- UNFAV -- NO OPINION -- NEVER HEARD OF
Gabrielle Giffords 52% 41% 6% 1%
Jesse Kelly 33% 25% 19% 22%
She also has this hill to climb:
13. Do you think Gabrielle Giffords deserves reelection as congresswoman, or do you think it is time to give
someone else a chance?
DESERVES REELECTION..............................................44%
TIME FOR SOMEONE ELSE...........................................50%
DON’T KNOW/NO OPINION............................................6%
Giffords is doing better than Kirkpatrick and Mitchell, but in a climate like the one we're in now, close races are going to swing the GOP's way.
Hat tip to Intellectual Conservative for this nugget:
When Mitchell’s 2001 opponent called him out for voting for a program that cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, Mitchell and his wife ‘broke the law’ and took down his opponent’s signage:
“’I did it,’ Mitchell said. The signs in question belonged to Gary Richardson, who opposed Mitchell in the District 27 state Senate race. Richardson wanted to point out that Mitchell voted for the alternative-fuels program that is costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars. Richardson did this by putting small signs in front of Mitchell's, with a narrow pointing to his opponent's name and the words ‘Voted for alt-fuels fiasco.’ Mitchell and his wife drove around the district the next day taking the signs down...On the other hand, there's no question that Mitchell broke the law. He says, however, that he had no alternative because the message of his signs was being usurped.” read the rest
Really? No alternative but to break the law? Interesting.
We now continue with Part 3 our look at Ann Kirkpatrick's actual record on illegal immigration and border issues, which stands in stark contrast with what she has been saying. To see just how large the gap is between what she says and what she does, start by reading Dressing up as a border hawk does not make you one andKirkpatrick's real record: giving illegals whatever they want, and then continue reading here. It's a fairly shocking picture of disingenuousness and election-year scrambling.
First, we have Ann Kirkpatrick, in a dutiful display of support for the Obama Administration, praising the wonderful job Department of Homeland Security is doing on the border. From a Kirkpatrick release on 3/24/09:
"This plan will devote our resources where they can be used best, taking advantage of 21st-century technology and programs that have proven effective in making our borders safer. This is an important and much-needed step towards stopping the drug-related violence in northern Mexico from spilling onto American soil."
and then
"I have worked closely with Secretary Napolitano on border security issues since my time in the state legislature, and I believe this new plan demonstrates the value of her experience in dealing with this issue. I look forward to working with local, state, and tribal law enforcement as well as the administration to address this crucial challenge to Arizona and to our national security in the future."
But then, fast-forward to an election year:
"With this rancher being shot, we've got to launch a comprehensive effort to secure the border. I don't think this (homicide) is a political event. I think we need to really be serious about making it safe for the people who live on the border." – Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. (“Migrant reform unlikely this year,” Arizona Republic, 4/6/10).
"…. I, along with many Arizonans, have spent years calling for more boots on the ground - it is about time Washington started listening to us. Deploying the National Guard is necessary to protect Arizonans right away. However, much more needs to be done." – Ann Kirkpatrick. (“U.S. troops will be sent to the border ... again,” El Paso Times, 5/25/10).
So which is it, Rep. Kirkpatrick? Is the federal government doing a great job, or not?
Cross-border violence has been escalating for years, including actions and incursions by both criminal and official elements from Mexico. The way things have been going, the borders will one day be leakier than Rome's were under Honorius. And just like it was in the 5th century, so it is today—it does not happen all in a day. It's a process, and you'd have to be blind not to see the process taking place.
But Ann Kirkpatrick isn't blind, she simply doesn't care. Nothing substantive changed in the federal government's handling of the border between spring 2009 and spring 2010. The only thing that changed were Ann Kirkpatrick's words.
The only thing that changed is that now we're in an election year, so it's time to crank up the border-hawk language to satisfy us silly country country rubes. You know, the folks who think that a country should be free to police its own borders all the time—not just during an election year.
Watch for this movement to continue. Virtually every race in the country has been trending Republican. People considered untouchable once upon a time are actually in serious jeopardy.
So join the union while you may,
Don't wait till your dying day,
For that may not be far away,
You dirty blackleg miner.
You consider it a right. Perhaps you even hold it with a measure of reverence: your right to vote, and your right to keep that vote secret.
Well, Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell do not agree. No, they haven't yet gone after your right to a confidential vote in elections, but when given the choice, they went after the right of workers' right to keep their vote secret when voting on unionization.
They voted to subject workers who don't vote the right way to potential harassment, intimidation, or worse. And given the history of unions, that threat is very, very real.
But Mitchell and Giffords don't care. Unionization is a part of the leftist project. It has been for over a century. They are just doing what they are told to do, by Nancy Pelosi, or by their own ideological impulses, or both. THAT is what you need to remember in November. The vote may have been in 2007, but they have not changed. This is who they are. This is what they do.
Mitchell, Dems snap to when union bosses call in their markers
New U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., recently got one of those calls politicians dread. A major political support group is conducting a loyalty check.
This time it was the labor unions and they wanted the freshman Democrat’s support for HR800, the “Employee Free Choice Act.” The problem is that this “card check” bill has nothing to do with providing “free choice” for workers in union organizing elections. In fact, it does the exact opposite. The card check, when signed and returned to a union representative, would replace the right to a federally supervised secret ballot for deciding whether to unionize.
With their folks back in control of Congress, unions are addressing their most pressing problem: union membership has been steadily declining for more than 50 years. Even though federal labor law assiduously protects the right of workers to unionize if they wish, union membership peaked back in 1958, when 39 percent of private sector employees belonged to a union. The percentage of unionized workers has fallen each year since, until today just 7.78 percent of private-sector workers become union members, the lowest level since 1901.
Big Labor, weary of this lack of success, is demanding a change in the rules. Thirty percent of the workers signing a card check is currently sufficient to require an election to unionize. But the AFL-CIO knows that it takes about a 75 percent card check response to assure an even chance of victory in the election. The reason is obvious. With card check, union organizers and co-workers all know which individual employees do (and do not) want to be represented by a union. Standing in the way of union organizers is often foolhardy.
Americans instinctively understand this isn’t right. We know the right to a secret ballot is one of our essential political freedoms. We have often urged other nations to assure this for workers as well as for voters . . . read the whole thing
