Kuhl states ‘Employee Free Choice Act’ is bad for Workers
Congressman Randy Kuhl (R, NY-29) fields a question on the Employee Free Choice Act. Kuhl (again) never answers the question and uses strong arm tactics to supress speech.
You heard Congressman Randy Kuhl. Support a workers’ right to organize in the workplace to bargain collectiviely and you are a Communist.
Kuhl is on the defensive early and its not even 2008. Randy resorts to intimidation tactics, fear mongering and character smearing to reduce debate to a zero-sum game.
Red Scare Randy?
You should be more concerned about the growing voices of discontent and becoming the rubber stamp of a lame duck President. Voting consistently anti-union and suppressing workers’ rights does not help middle class families put food on the table or receive quality healthcare for workers and their loved ones.
As the son of a union member, you should be ashamed of claiming to carry the banner of workers rights and demeaning an honest dialogue on workers’ rights.
Action Item: I urge everyone to call Kuhl’s office and request he submits a press release to retract his above comments (at the Henrietta Town Hall on March 3rd) on the ‘Employee Free Choice Act’.
Call Randy!
DC Office: 202 225-3161
Fairport Office: 585 223-4760
Bath Office: 607 776-9142
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.
Great example
Body language is so telling.
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.
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
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?