Comments on: Kuhl states ‘Employee Free Choice Act’ is bad for Workers

By: Rottenchester

Rottenchester — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:48:29 +0000

You’re right, LB, it’s OK for Kuhl to hold that position, and he defended his position pretty well. I also have concerns about the bill - I don’t think it’s the most onerous requirement that unions be elected by secret ballot. And you’re also right that he didn’t say that someone’s a Commie for supporting it, he just said the CPUSA supported it.

But his response raises three questions: First, and least important, who cares if the worn-out, yesterday’s news Communist Party supports any piece of legislation? They’re just not a force anymore, and dragging them into the conversation doesn’t add anything. I’m sure there’s a slew of stuff that Kuhl supports that the CPUSA also supports. Second, and more important, if this bill is as evil as Kuhl says, why did he co-sponsor a bill that was only four words different in the last session. Third, and most important, why did he withdraw that co-sponsorship after the election, and not before?

By: optimusprime

optimusprime — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:38:49 +0000

My post is flawed slightly because I didn’t detail the positive benefits of the passage of this bill. Specifically, Majority Sign-Up. The following link below explains explicitly why Majority Sign-Up is crucial for collective bargaining in empowering the rights of workers.

http://araw.org/takeaction/efca/cardsummary.cfm

By: LB

LB — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:04:25 +0000

Kuhl’s response was clear and to the point. The bill abolishes the requirement for a secret ballot vote to unionize. So he’s against it. Of course union organizers like being able to collect and sometimes coerce “votes” en masse, and a secret ballot is an impediment. I didn’t hear anything about “support this and you’re a Communist” in there either. The only thing this is an example of is blogs and citizens regurgitating talking points to cast their pet issue in the most favorable light.

By: stlo7

stlo7 — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:11:42 +0000

Great example

By: Brighton Resident

Brighton Resident — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:03:24 +0000

Body language is so telling.

By: Rottenchester

Rottenchester — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:49:05 +0000

That was an interesting exchange - I thought red baiting went out of fashion in the 70’s. Also, so much for “not debating”.

Here’s a constructive suggestion to those asking questions: If you disagree with Kuhl’s vote on an issue, it’s also worth taking a look at the process behind the vote. This is a good example. The questioner could have asked the question like this:

“I support the right of unions to organize freely, so I was sorry to see you vote against HR 800 last week. I also noticed that you co-sponsored HR 1696 last year, which was four words different from HR 800. You withdrew that co-sponsorship after the election. I would respectfully ask that in future you support pro-labor legislation, and also that you withdraw co-sponsorships before the election, so your constituents can see where you stand when they go to the voting booth.”

If Kuhl knew that she had done a little digging and uncovered his flip-flop, the exchange would have been re-framed. I doubt, for example, the CPUSA would have been involved. I’ve got a post detailing the differences between the two bills, which also links to the original source materials to see when he withdrew his co-sponsorship.