Unions protest Feinstein over “silencing” on Card Check
posted at 8:47 am on October 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Miami Herald gives an update of sorts to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s opposition to Card Check, one of a number of bills stalled in Congress by the debacle of Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul. Feinstein hasn’t moved an inch on her position, still maintaining that she sympathizes with her “friends in the labor community,” but she won’t upend business relations in the middle of the worst recession in decades. Labor has almost no chance of this coming to the floor until 2010 at the earliest, and Democrats won’t want to tackle this in an election year when they will need money from business interests as well as unions to cling to power in the House, so none of this is exactly pressing news.
However, one passage in the Herald’s report is worth highlighting:
Feinstein’s search for a middle ground has resulted in much lobbying from unions, including the California Labor Federation, the Service Employees International Union, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Communications Workers of America.
To draw attention to the issue, union activists have been participating in vigils and picketing Feinstein’s offices in California. Last month, the nurses left hundreds of red roses, accompanied with personal notes, on the doorstep of her San Francisco home.
The nurses want Feinstein to know that employers “are trying to silence us,” Burger said.
So that’s how “silencing” works? I had no idea that “silencing” involved hiring lobbyists, holding demonstrations, and stalking Senators at their offices and homes. “Silencing” must also mean telling everyone, including the media, about being “silenced.”
Unionizing workplaces is not terribly difficult. Employees who want to unionize get enough cards signed to get an election, and then the workers get to vote on the issue. Unions want to skip that last step in order to allow the opportunity to browbeat workers into signing cards in the open rather than vote in secret. They also want the government to force concessions from employers that they themselves cannot win in negotiations through binding federal arbitration. Think of Card Check as the “public option” for private-sector management decisions, and one can see why some Democrats like the idea so much.
I’d suggest that Card Check opponents keep up their “silence” too, to make sure that Congress remains reluctant to bring this debate back to the front burner.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Even amnesty has a better shot at passing than card check. I suppose the one good thing(if you can call it that) about Obama betting the house(and Senate and Presidency) on health care is that he can’t use his remaining political capital on the rest of his agenda.
Doughboy on October 15, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Well that’s pretty much the same way Bush took away freedom of speech wasn’t it? We read and saw of countless protest and appearances of people who were being denied freedom of speech. Thankfully they were able to appear in public and on the media to let us all know they were being oppressed and not allowed to tell anyone. If it were not for that we may never have known they were being denied the right to speak and express themselves.
RagTag on October 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM
I remember Dr. Hansen, giving 5 to 6 interviews a week, complaining how the Bush administration had been muzzling him.
MarkTheGreat on October 15, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Many many moons ago I worked for a trucking company that the union was interested in. The rules controlling the employer interaction with the employees were very advantageous to the union. The employer was practically gagged. I don’t know if has changed, unions need to accept that they aren’t what most want to be involved in anymore. They are obsolete.
Cindy Munford on October 15, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Racist!
Jeff from WI on October 15, 2009 at 9:01 AM
You really think you’re going to get away with this blanket BS statement with out any links or references to such an unsupported accusation?
Rovin on October 15, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Unions are not organized in opposition to management, but in opposition to non-union workers.
Unrealistically high wages and benefits -enforced by contract- are designed to limit the labor pool available to the unionized business or industry. This artificial scarcity is justification for even higher wages, and sends workers excluded from the unionized shop to look for a lower paying job: unless he can get into the union and help perpetuate the cycle.
So unions hurt workers, just like minimum wages hurt workers, just like high taxes hurt workers, you know, just like everything the Democrat Party stands for hurts workers.
Akzed on October 15, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Hey RagTag, for somepeople the /sarc tag is absolutely essential…
Akzed on October 15, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Can you link to one verified instance of denial of the right to free speech, reference any situation where President Bush “took away” freedom of speech?
You cannot, unless it is some HuffHo or DailySpew unsubstantiated rant that is not going to give you cover for this moronic attempt at an opinion. Let the ward attendant have the computer keyboard back, it’s time for your group therapy activity.
ExpressoBold on October 15, 2009 at 9:07 AM
/sarc
There, I did it for y’all.
Akzed on October 15, 2009 at 9:09 AM
“I’M A VICTIM! NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO ME!! Can I refresh my makeup during the next commercial break?”
sammypants on October 15, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Yup because I don’t answer to you nor do I have to defend or justify myself or opinions to you. If the management doesn’t like it then they can pull it.
RagTag on October 15, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Hey RagTag, wait a holdit: you were being sarcastic, right? I mean, if not, then your statement is self-contradictory in the extreme.
Akzed on October 15, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Have reading comprehension issues I see.
RagTag on October 15, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Lay down with dogs…
mankai on October 15, 2009 at 9:13 AM
I worked in a place that the union was trying to get into. A fairly large organization and I was in management. We had a very laid back workplace with plenty of free time off for good workers and things like that. I was told we had to be “benevolent” to the employees during the advertising and voting stages, and we could not talk to them about any changes that would happen if the union won. Luckily for them the union lost. We had the time clocks and everything ready to go if they won.
Johnnyreb on October 15, 2009 at 9:13 AM
No I’m not. Bush didn’t take any speech rights away. I’m agreeing with ED in that people were able to appear in the media crying about how they can’t express them selves.
RagTag on October 15, 2009 at 9:15 AM
If I missed this intent, the laughs on me. And you’re right Akzed, perhaps it’s essential to have a second cup of joe or search for the sarc more intently.
Rovin on October 15, 2009 at 9:15 AM
It’s telling that a business loses its freedom of speech -by federal law- to advantage the union.
Without federal empowerment to deny us our God-given rights, unions would be even rarer than they are.
Akzed on October 15, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Then actually you were being sarcastic.
Akzed on October 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Apparently I have to apologize to everyone.
It was my bad and I apparently misunderstood the things I read and saw.
I guess nobody ever appeared in print or TV that and complained or claimed that Bush took away or oppressed their right to speak.
As I can not provide links to people complaining I will just have to apologize to everyone here and anyone else in the world I may have offended by insinuating that some people claimed that Bush oppressed speech rights.
Sorry everyone. I humbly withdraw my first comment.
RagTag on October 15, 2009 at 9:20 AM
… Except the government workers who, for that matter, shouldn’t even be allowed to unionize.
TXUS on October 15, 2009 at 9:26 AM
That was my experience also, except we were a really small company. I think what surprised me was that the union was allowed to hold meetings att he work site but employers couldn’t say anything or have meetings. Union was defeated which was good, the company would never have survived.
Cindy Munford on October 15, 2009 at 9:26 AM
DUH! D’Oh!
But I write well. No, wait! This IS your fault!
You cannot be that incisively sarcastic, no matter what the hour, without some tip off, since we have offensive troll behavior here which occurs using the same methods (unsubstantiated, unreferenced, outright lying – see what I mean?) that you used in your rapier-sharp laser-like wit.
Have I covered enough? Should I do more?
ExpressoBold on October 15, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Fortunately we had quite a few employees that had worked in union shops before the vote came up. They pretty much set everyone else straight on what would happen if the union won.
Johnnyreb on October 15, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Sounds like it’s time for an article and liberal comments about how Democrats will become obsolete unless they move towards the middle and buck the unions on this issue…oh, nevermind, it’s only conservatives that need to move towards the ‘middle’.
gwelf on October 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM
First Afghanistan and now this. Twice this week the senior partisan whore from California has had a reasonable position.
That led me to wonder what is in it for Dianne. Bottom line she’s trying to pull an Obama and appear more centrist than her usual persona as radical San Fran California pond scum. Why? Potential run for Governator next November or reelection to the Senate in 2012. This is the campaign Dianne, not the real deal that will re-emerge shortly.
highhopes on October 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM
I await the unionization of Crazy Charlie’s commenters at Little Green Snotballs.
Of course, I only say that cuz I’m so raaaaacist.
OhioCoastie on October 15, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Now that’s called aristocratic farcicality. Well done RagTag. :)
Rovin on October 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I have that because I fence epee.
I wasn’t being sarcastic.
Ed said:
I was just pointing out that people claimed Bush had been “Silencing” them in the same manner. They were able to tell everyone including the media that they were being silenced and why.
Which means they were not being silenced in any manner of form which I believe was Ed’s point.
RagTag on October 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM
We got it!
ExpressoBold on October 15, 2009 at 9:50 AM
The democrat coalition of parasite thugs and aging hippies is going to collapse soon.
jhffmn on October 15, 2009 at 9:52 AM
The waning of the Baby Boomers’ influence can’t come soon enough.
OhioCoastie on October 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Gosh, hope you’re not thinking of Dianne, wife of Richard Blum, boardmember of URS, as an “aging hippie”. War profiteers really aren’t “hippies”.
Are URS employees, specifically Lear Siegler of the EG&G Division, union?
Doorgunner on October 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Are Are you sure?
Were you elected to represent everyone here?
Why wasn’t I asked to vote?
Is it because I’m a minority?
RagTag on October 15, 2009 at 10:07 AM
We can only hope. I’ve always told my wife that the earth will be a better place when the hippies fade into history. My kids, 18 and 21 despise the hippies and blame them for the current PC social climate that has in their opinions prevented them from having a prosperous future. They feel they will have to struggle and will not even achieve a level of living comparable to their grand parents.
RagTag on October 15, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Any way you compare it, quality of life and standard of living for our kids will be less than our parents or even we had.
highhopes on October 15, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Silencing = secret ballot
Not silencing = let me tell you how to vote
Some people don’t mind that, I guess.
SnowSun on October 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
After spending many years talking to lots of nurses I know that the vast majority of nurses can see through ‘card check’ and do not want it. In fact, most nurses do not want to be unionized.
snaggletoothie on October 15, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Her husband told her this is not good…besides doesn’t she own a non-union vinyard?
right2bright on October 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM
These are the same idiot nurses who want government control of healthcare. Wait til some low level government pencil pusher decides that nurses make too much money. After all, why should they make more than $25.00 an hour? Nurse’s need to take a collective hit for the healthcare team.
bloggless on October 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Unions have become so corrupt, and evil. It’s sad that workers can’t see this. When it comes down to it, will unions support you, when you get laid off? ummmmm NO!!!
This isn’t for the workers, it’s for control, and power for union bosses.
capejasmine on October 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM
A local company had unions…and they were going bankrupt. The union went on strike, spread through the willing press how the company’s management were such bad people and beat children and kicked their dogs, etc. The company said, “We need help from our workers to restructure ALL our costs or there will be no jobs”. Management was downsized and their pay was cut. Union wouldn’t budge on anything (including FREE healthcare). A lot were on strike for 1 year, then crossed so they wouldn’t lose their houses, etc. THREE YEARS LATER, the union big shots are no where to be seen, the workers who stuck with the union lost everything (still on strike) and the company survived. Bottom line, Unions suck the life out of companys and it’s not even debatable.
search4truth on October 15, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Bloggless
Nurses have fought for many years to bring down the nurse-to-patient ratio. With 0Care, the nuber will increase and not tort reform for protection. Texas has a nursing shortage that will make things worse. Idiots.
meMC on October 15, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Unions’ help will make this a two way conversation between union and gov. Nice.
meMC on October 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM
When the union organizers show up at your workplace remember organize a “union” you can live with first.
Slowburn on October 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM
It seems that Feinstein has grown some cojones. She is one weird woman because she can be quite tough on some issues then do something completely stupid…. but she would be a lot better POTUS than Barry
maggieo on October 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Her husband told her this is not good…besides doesn’t she own a non-union vinyard?
right2bright on October 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM
You’re thinking of Pelosi….oh, and she has non-union hotels….oh, and a non-union golf course….oh, and she won a big award for being so union-friendly….the cesar chavez award I think it was….
runawayyyy on October 15, 2009 at 4:33 PM