August 6, 2008 - 2:20pm
AFL-CIO: Anti-EFCA ad with Sopranos star a smokescreen
By Jessica Alaimo
Category: US Senate, HouseTags: Vincent Curatola, Tom Allen, The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, Susan Collins, Mike Michaud, Johnny Sack, Employee Freedom Action Committee, Employee Free Choice Act, Ed Gorham, Chellie Pingree, AFL-CIO
In a new ad, a mob boss from the Sopranos makes a guest appearance with cardboard cutouts of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Bangor) and U.S. Rep. Tom Allen (D-Portland), who is challenging Collins.
The ad is part of a campaign opposing candidates who support the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation intended to make it easier for workers to organize by eliminating the requirement of the private ballot.
Collins opposes the bill. Allen is a co-sponsor, along with Rep. Mike Michaud (D-East Millinocket).
Vincent Curatola, who plays mobster Johnny Sack on the popular HBO show, has starred in several ads by The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. Another group, the Employee Freedom Action Committee, also has an ad criticizing Allen for his support of the bill.
Other labor issues including measures on payment discrimination are expected to come into the spotlight as well, The Hill reported yesterday, but so far the EFCA is the most prominent.
Members of the AFL-CIO, a pro-union group, will spend $200 million in the 2008 elections across the country, the Hill reported.
Ed Gorham, president of the AFL-CIO in Maine, said his group supports the EFCA, and candidates who support the bill, including Allen and Congressional candidates Chellie Pingree, who is running for the First District, and Michaud.
Gorham said that when it is easier for workers to organize, it makes for a better workplace.
“We’re not doing a whole lot in terms of buying ads,” Gorham said, “But we’re engaging our own members, doing leafleting in the work site, and our members are giving them background on the issue.”
He said AFL-CIO members are also asking workers to sign postcards in support of the act which will be delivered to the officeholders after the election.
The private ballot argument is a smokescreen and a misrepresentation of facts, he said.
“For our opponents, it has nothing to do with the secret ballot,” Gorham said. “They don’t want workers doing better. They don’t want anything to do with unions.”
The Allen campaign has denounced these ads, and urged the Collins campaign to denounce them as well. Earlier this week, Carol Andrews, communications director for the Allen campaign, called the ads a “nasty, negative attack on behalf of Senator Collins.”
The campaign has also posted this fact-check on their Web site of a previous radio ad by Employee Freedom.
Andrews added: "These radio and television ads portray Maine's 67,000 union members and Congressman Allen as having connections to organized crime and intimidating workers. They have no place in this campaign. Senator Collins knows this is wrong, and we once again ask her to denounce this ad campaign designed to harm Maine's working people and Tom Allen. We realize that Senator Collins cannot talk to this group working on her behalf personally, but she can publicly call on them to stop this destructive campaign.”
Article Tools
Contributors
Wally Edge
What can you possible add to the LaMarche departure from the Oxford County casino campaign?
I got three words for you DI SAS TER!
Sure it was a ... >
Rob Tornoe
To view more cartoons by Politicker.com editorial cartoonist Rob Tornoe, click here. >
Poll
| Politicker INTERACTIVE | |
 |
The Pindell Report Keep up with the races in your state |
 |
Lawmaker Profile Follow the funding of your representatives |
 |
270 to Win Predict the road to the White House |
Top Tags
Most Active Stories
- 2010 gubernatorial prospects take wait-and-see approach
- Termed out, President Edmonds looks back on time in office
- Pingree skipping convention
- How many houses? Maine’s Obama fans ask Dems to guess
- Allen to address Democratic National Convention
- More bad news for the Oxford County casino
- Do Bush and Cheney really believe McCain was tortured?
- Hoffman decision denied by U.S. Justice Souter
- Commission questions $2K in MCEA purchases by state Senate candidate
- Senate coasts through nomination process
- Brokeback Sheriff
- Campaign: ‘Huckabee has not wavered’
- Kucinich fans encouraged to continue their support
- First day back in the House: 5 sworn in
- Ron Paul supporters?
- Cianchette commits to free trade, reducing narcotic supply and re-learning Spanish in confirmation hearing for ambassador post
- Attack of the Ronulans
- The Republican Response - The Unabridged Version with Translation
- Small island, big names: How North Haven produced two prominent politicians
- Allen v. Collins: Interesting thing about interest.
Quote of the Day
August 21, 2008
“That was too easy.”
-- State Sen. John Martin (D-Eagle Lake) to former gubernatorial aide Ryan Low after the state Senate unanimously confirmed Low as commissioner of the Department of Administrative and Financial Services.
-PolitickerME.com, 8/20/08
Recent Press Releases
- Aug 14 2008
- Aug 14 2008
- Aug 12 2008
Syndicate
Cut the spin, Carol Andrews
The TV ads, and opponents of EFCA have nothing against Maine workers. It's your beloved Tom Allen and Chellie Pingree who are targeting them by trying to take away their right to a private ballot. What flavor Kool Aid did you drink this morning?
Augusta Charlie: Would you
Augusta Charlie:
Would you be so kind as to point to the section of the EFCA that eliminates the secret-ballot vote? In case you have never read it, the bill itself, H.R. 800 (as passed by the House), isn't very long and can be found here.
Sec 2(a)(6)
is the section that refers to "card checks"
Card check
bikehammer:
Yes, I understand that. I'll remind you that card check was ruled constitutional in 1969.
But I didn't ask about that though did I? No, I asked for Charlie to point out where the EFCA eliminates secret-ballot voting, which is what this ad claims.
Can you do that please? Thanks.
He can't do that.
Because it ain't in the bill.
However! He can distract you with Johnny Sack!
Johnny Sack!!! He was once a TV mob guy! Boo!
Check this
Check this out:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg2027.cfm
Right...
We're supposed to believe the Heritage Foundation? Please post from someplace that doesn't have an agenda. The blatant spin in that article is grossly misleading.
But, but
Anonymous4:
Have you read the EFCA? I have. It is actually surprisingly short. Why don't you take a moment, follow the link that I provide above, and read it.
Of course, your going to have to have access to the NLRA, since the EFCA effectively revises it. I'll provide a link to it here - it is from a union site, but that is understandable.
If I may, I'd like to direct your attention to National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 151-169):
This is the existing law, which the EFCA does NOT revise, and that has been on the books since 1935 (as modified by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947). You'll note that it only takes the signatures 30% of the unit to force a secret-ballot vote administered by the NLRB. Now we can quibble of 30% is too high a threshold, but I think we can both agree that workers that oppose unionization can demand an free vote.
So again I will ask Charlie, and now you:
Please, point out where in the EFCA the secret-bllot vote is eliminated. I look forward to your erudite response.
Show me the part
of the EFCA that guarantees the right of a worker to a secret ballot election to certify the union?
It seems to me the the union can use either a secret ballot or card check to obtain a majority of workers to meet the NFCA standards for the NLRB to certify the union.
I meant EFCA not NFCA
my bad
The Real Question
Is a private ballot vote more or less likely to occur in an organizing campaign if the EFCA became law?
With all spin set aside about who gets to call for the private ballot vote, the honest answer is that private ballots would be less likely under the EFCA. Under EFCA if the organizers can coerce 50% of the workers to sign cards, the union is automatically recognized. At that point, the only option for a private ballot is for the workers who oppose the union to organize a decertifying petition.
Under current law private ballot votes are a virtual certainty prior to recognizing the union without employees having to jump the hurdle of petitioning for a decertifying election. That is a good thing because it takes coercion and intimidation out of the process regardless of who calls for the private ballot vote.
asdf
Anonymous625:
Why is it an "virtual certainty" that a vote will be held, as you describe? I'll tell you - under current law, the OWNER can demand such a vote, and the EFCA REMOVES that right that ownership now enjoys. Why would ownership be opposed to this?
As I tried to explain to Bikehammer, currently employees can demand a vote by collecting the signatures of just 30% of the unit - the EFCA does not change this.
As I continue to write, I welcome arguments from those that oppose the EFCA - just don't rely on the LIE that it takes away the right to a secret-ballot vote. It doesn't - it is a right that has been in place for decades, and will be there when the EFCA is signed into law.
Those that claim that the EFCA removes the secret-ballot vote are LYING. There really is no other way of putting it. Prove me wrong: show me the text of the bill that does that.
I've even given you the links.
Why shouldn't the owner be
Why shouldn't the owner be able to call for a secret ballot? After all, the union is claiming that it is the sole bargaining agent for the employees at that point. Shouldn't the owner be able to request the NLRB to come in and conduct an independent secret ballot vote to verify the validity of the unions claim prior to engaging in negotiations? Anyone can see why labor unions would want this law. Quite simply, it makes it easier to add members to the union rolls. The company certainly has some skin in the game though, so I think that demanding the owner to blindly abide by the union organizers card signing effort without a secret ballot vote verifying it is unfair to the owner.
There is just too much potential for intimidation without the worker knowing he or she will cast a secret ballot regardless of who’s right it is to request it. This EFCA legislation just feels wrong to me.
asdf
Anonymous625:
My first point: currently, and under the EFCA, those wishing to organize a union can do so using a secret-ballot vote. They can also use card check, or call a successful strike vote.
But why didn't you simply ask your question to begin with? Why is the ad that is featured here (and the others that Susan Collins has yet to denounce) ask that question?
Would you agree that the ad campaign is using lies to argue its point?
You state that it is almost a certainty that a vote will take place after card check is used to form a union - do you know how often this vote occurs due to workers collecting the signatures of 30% of their mates? I don't. Of unions that are formed, do you know how many do so using card check? I don't. Do you know how many times the union loses the secret-ballot vote? I don't.
Those of you that want to read more why owners oppose the EFCA so vigorously, I urge you to read this from the NYTimes; it does provide an answer to the question, "Why shouldn't ownership be allowed to demand a vote?"
Gerald
This happens in every single thread. We prove them wrong, and it becomes not about the secret ballot lie (since it gets disproved every time), but how big labor is the problem, and Wal-Mart doesn't need unions, and union leaders are bad, and all they want is your money, and it goes on and on.
The EFCA allows a union to
The EFCA allows a union to be certified by a majority of the workers through card check and removes the requirement of a secret ballot.
By removing the requirement, it takes away the right.
Gerald...
Gerald, why are you so concerned with EFCA?
Are you a union member? A business owner?
Seriously, I want to know. I only ever see you blogging in support of Tom Allen. Are you on his payroll, and if so, are his employees unionized?
Tom & Chellie sell out Rank & File Union Members
As a rank & file union member we know that Tom Allen and Chellie Pingree have sold us down the river by supporting this bill. The union big wigs keep telling us its OK, but we know better.
Mark my words Tom & Chellie may have the support of those with the purse strings, but they have lost the support of the workers with this traitorous act and we will not vote for either of them in November.
asdf
ABH:
Why should I answer questions from someone that isn't brave enough to post using their own name?
Where in the EFCA
does it repeal this??
Having a hard time finding it? It's 'cause you can't. EFCA DOES NOT take away private ballot. Read the law. Learn something. Stop lying.
Gerald
ABH are my initials. Angela Harrison is my name.
Now, are you going to answer my questions?
Ms. Harrison: I have never
Ms. Harrison:
I have never been a union member, nor worked for a union. I have never been employed by a political campaign. I own my own business.
I am from the Detroit area: two of my uncles were union men, as were both of my grandfathers. While my family never spoke much about unions or politics, I have come to understand the importance that a united voice can provide.
While I certainly am supportive of the EFCA, a careful reading of my posts will show that I have kept my arguments to the lie promulgated by the opposition that the EFCA removes access to a secret-ballot vote.
As I, and others, have demonstrated, the EFCA does no such thing.
The provisions of the EFCA that owners find so abhorrent are the increased penalties imposed on them for union-busting, and the increased ease in which card check can form a union.
They are using the bait and switch of secret-ballots - which many in the press can't be bothered to check - to obfuscate things.
So, I welcome your arguments against the EFCA, so long as they are not based in lies.
Now if you don't mind: please answer the same questions that you asked me, but fill in the parts if you are anti-union. All in an effort to be fair.
"I have come to understand
"I have come to understand the importance that a united voice can provide."
I agree, but does EFCA seek to take away the united voice or does it just seek to take away the individual's voice by exposing their secret ballot? This issue is confusing.
George McGovern disagrees you, Tom Allen and Chellie Pingree
"My Party Should Respect Secret Union Ballots"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html?mod=opinion_main...
Not all Democrats support eliminating workers' right to a private ballot!
Post new comment