The AFL-CIO organized a large protest against the proposals to privatize Social Security yesterday, and the Republicans response? Make it illegal for them to protest. So much for the First Amendment I guess.
More below the fold.
Republicans seemed to suggest in the
New York Times today that by holding a protest rally against privatizing Social Security that the AFL-CIO was in violation of a ban on "secondary boycotts."
The president's supporters are firing back by accusing unions of using unfair, and possibly illegal, tactics. Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, who is chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, has urged the Labor Department to investigate whether labor's tactics violated the ban on secondary boycotts - boycotts against any party not directly involved in a labor dispute - and other laws.
"The debate over how to ensure the solvency of Social Security for future generations should be open and honest, but it shouldn't be influenced by special interests who may be breaking federal law," Mr. Boehner said in a letter he wrote along with Representative Sam Johnson, Republican of Texas, who heads the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.
Picking up on this idea, Derrick Max, president of a group favoring personal accounts, the Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security, said yesterday: "Union pension trustees are charged with one focus - the profitability of the funds for their membership. We think using the funds in a political way is a disservice to their members and potentially violates the law by breaching their fiduciary duties."
So Congress will support the Schiavo protesters to the point of passing a bill to force the Federal Courts to hear the case even though it is not a Federal issue, but they won't even acknowledge the rights of labor unions to protest a policy that will be harmful to its members.
