As I wrote the other day, anti-EFCA Democrat George McGovern is going to be speaking at the 100th Anniversary of The Progressive magazine in Madison on May 1 and 2. Late last summer, the former Senator (and apparently someone who once was esteemed by the left, so my history books tell me) wrote a horribly researched opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about why he thought the Employee Free Choice Act should not be passed. He repeated the corporate lie that EFCA takes away the right to a secret ballot for union elections. He wrote:
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check."
Actually, no it doesn’t and to say so is dishonest and dishonorable. What EFCA does is give the workers the right to call for an election, not the Boss. Under the current regime, if a majority of workers sign a petition, or union cards, and present them to the Boss, the Boss has two options: recognize the union and start negotiating or call for a National Labor Relations Board election. What EFCA does, among other things, is give that choice to the workers, not the Boss. If the workers want a secret ballot election EFCA guarantees that right. But just like the current law, if the workers are satisfied with forming their union by petition they are empowered to do so.
If the Boss wants to join the Chamber of Commerce he doesn't have to ask the workers for their permission and they don't get to vote on it. Why should the Boss get the right to call for a vote if the workers want to join a union?
McGovern’s betrayal was more than dishonest; it was deliberately timed to have maximum negative affect. Published only weeks before the 2008 DNC Convention in Denver, McGovern’s piece was sure to be disruptive, especially as the labor movement was about to go all in for Obama. Could it be that he was sending a message to the Party not just on EFCA, but on the whole agenda represented by Obama?
Union organizers recognize this tactic because it comes straight out of the anti-union play book put forward by Union busters like Jackson Lewis and others. Late in the election process, when the sides seem evenly split or leaning towards unionization, the boss brings out someone, usually a well respected manager or even a retired worker who is seen as sympathetic to the workers but "respected by all sides." He gives the "give us one more chance" speech or the "you guys know me and can trust me" speech. He makes the claim that the union isn’t telling you everything, and he knows, because he has investigated it for them, and after all, you know and like him, why would he lie to you?
Why indeed?
Progressives, liberals, lefties, what ever you want to call US, are not as rigid as conservatives (at least I like to think so). So I hope The Progressive can convince McGovern to come out publicly FOR EFCA before May 1st. Redemption is possible, especially since the Senator got all of his facts wrong. Facts can be fixed and positions altered.
But if The Progressive can’t convince him he was wrong and he won’t change his stance I hope either he gets dropped from the program or the other guests change their minds about participating. It is time to send a strong message to everyone in the Democratic Party: if you are anti-EFCA you are anti-union, and if you are anti-union you can’t be a progressive.