BREWER, Maine — Calling them outright lies, officials from some of the region’s labor unions took aim Wednesday at a barrage of recent campaign advertisements claiming that the Employee Free Choice Act would take away workers’ right to a private ballot.
Singled out in the ads is U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, the Democratic 1st District congressman challenging Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins in her bid for re-election this fall.
Allen, along with U.S. Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine’s 2nd District, and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, are among the act’s co-sponsors, according to Jack McKay, president of the Eastern Maine Labor Council, which represents 35 affiliated union locals and more than 6,000 workers in eastern and central Maine.
During a news conference Wednesday, McKay and other union leaders said the myth about the federal legislation, which is stalled in Congress, is being perpetuated by three organizations based in Washington, D.C.,: Union Facts, the Employee Freedom Action Committee and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.
“They’re all backed by big business,” McKay said during the gathering at the labor council’s headquarters on Ivers Street in Brewer.
“The reason why we are holding this press conference today is there’s a huge campaign being [promulgated] by three D.C.-based organizations and their message has been [about] the same thing — union bosses are out to steal workers private ballots,” he said. “We just want to take a few moments to dissect this smear campaign and prove that this is a big lie.”
McKay said the Employee Free Choice Act would not take away workers’ right to vote by private ballot on working conditions.
According to McKay and regional union officials who joined him at the podium, the proposed legislation would make it easier for workers to organize into unions and negotiate contracts. The measure would also stiffen penalties for employers who intimidate and harass workers.
Union members “vote by private ballot all the time,” McKay said. As a matter of fact, unless you’re a union member, you never vote by private ballot about working conditions, he said. Union members vote on contracts for pay, for health care, for vacations, for job bidding.
“Union members in eastern Maine vote by private ballot all the time. Just like the sun rises in the east, this is not some big surprise,” McKay said.
“Nonunion members never vote on workplace issues ever by private ballot,” he said. “Wal-Mart workers [who are not unionized] do not vote on their wages and benefits.”
Wal-Mart and other nonunion workers never vote to elect representatives to defend their interests, McKay said.
“The idea that these big businesses are out to protect the private ballot is exactly opposite of what they are doing: They’re out to stop workers from voting in the workplace,” McKay said of the large corporations reportedly backing the ad campaign.
“This is a ridiculous campaign, and I think the people of Maine should see it as such. This is as absurd as [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] calling for a pig roast. It is as absurd as the KKK calling for civil rights,” he said.
Other union officials who spoke during Wednesday’s gathering in support of the act were Calvin Murphy of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1253, Renee Overlock of Branch 391 of the National Association of Letter Carriers, and Barbara Lambaride of the Maine State Nurses Association.
During the news conference, the labor council released a report titled “Truth and Falsehoods” detailing the extensive private-ballot voting that has been conducted by union members affiliated with the council during the past year.
A survey of 26 affiliated union locals found that 221 workers were elected to office by private ballot, including 13 presidents, 13 vice presidents, 12 secretaries and seven treasurers, 55 executive board members and 121 other union officers. During the same period, 22 contracts and other labor agreements were negotiated, the council’s study found.
On 8/28/08 at 9:24 AM,
SteveH wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
"Big Business" is at it again. Spinning facts and confusing the issue. In this article "big business" is the Unions. The Employee Free Choice Act has nothing to do with the internal process of electing officials and voting on contracts and they certainly know this. They are well aware that the Act will effectively eliminate private ballot on whether to unionize. That is what this legislation comes down to. Big business (the Unions, Wal-mart and others) will continue to spin the facts in their respective favor.
On 8/28/08 at 9:49 AM,
Mark44 wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
The only person that will ever know how I will vote, on anything is god, or the union boss that wants to join him.
On 8/28/08 at 10:08 AM,
PTORMEY wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
The ads in question clearly do not claim that these votes have to do with 'working conditions', but with votes on 'union membership'. This is unmistakably clear in the ads. So why do these Union people repeatedly say the ads are about votes on working conditions when they have to know it's not true? Talk about a "ridiculous campaign" ! They are merely trying to confuse the issue- which Ms Gagnon was all too willing to help them do. Lazy reporting.
On 8/28/08 at 12:39 PM,
grunkom wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
The workforce in a company is the backbone of that enterprise. Yet what employer gives their workers the right to vote on wages, conditions of work or who will lead them? Only in a union can a worker have these rights.
Most employers fight to keep their workers out of unions for the very reason that, with a union, the boss might have to listen to the workers, might have to answer for the "shortcuts" in pay and safety that they inflict on a daily basis.
The current system gives the employer free reign to intimidate and terrorize workers 8 hours a day 5 days a week, into voting no, while the union must stand outside the company gates and make its case over the noise of traffic and under management's watchful eye.
Free Choice is just that, a worker who wants a union signs a card. If a majority want a union they get a union. Once they have a union they can lead and speak for their coworkers, with the protections that only a union can provide.
On 8/28/08 at 9:54 PM,
Johninphilippines wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
(IN MY OPINION) There are more to ballots, and advertisements here, people. Seems that "working conditions" can mean different things to different people!!! Corporations must comply with all federal regulations, including OSHA and other laws in today's work environments. Seems, as well, that the unions have the most to lose in their infiltrations in corporations in todays world view. Naturally, union officials see things "their way" ("tunnel-vision"), simply because they have a lot to lose, too. In some recent postings, myself, as one, and some others have criticized unions as creating more harm than good in companies for the respective workforce and the company combined. The corporations' articles of incorporation, employment laws, by-laws, and other statutes are open to read, and questions can be answered by any human resources manager or other official of the corporation. Sometimes, special meetings are held within companies to answer employee workforce questions and solve employee-related issues. Unions, folks, can inhibit progress a company is trying to institute. Unions can inhibit a company's abilities to promote high profits to be passed on to employees through higher wages, better insurance plans/programs, and other benefits to the employees. Already unions have created most manufactured consumer products' prices to go sky-high...sometimes 300%+ higher cost to the consumer than what the minimal cost to manufacture a consumer product is. In a ripple-effect way, this also increases the cost of minimum-wage, and internal wage increases to its membership...(of which unions are known to do) which also increases the cost of consumer goods...an everlasting and escalating effect! Unions make money. That's their method of operation...and although they claim to "help" the worker, they really can't do too much in the real world for that worker. The same with union stewards and union officials. They make money, and just where does the money come from? The worker who joins the union, and continues to pay "dues", that's where. Unions were established on the criterias John L. Lewis made when companies' treated their workforce with (somewhat) disrespect, and conditions such as employee safety, pay and allowances, insurances, working hours, sweatshop rule, etc, was part of a "norm", as it were. A "union shop" is where some employees are already unionized under a "local", and eventually, they are forced, yes, forced or coerced, into joining the union. Nobody can tell me how a union operates that I do not know about...I worked in many "union shops" in my life, and have witnessed the problems unions can create...and have created. They have closed down companies; not the purpose intended, but as a result of their demands and increasing costs to the companies' operating expenses; no profits were made to the company. Then, unemployment for all....and the unions cannot do anything about it. Lastly, if an employee, pretend for instance, fails to do his or her job for some reason, and is given documented disciplinary action, then several more opportunities to perform and given appropriate counseling by a company supervisor, there is still little or nothing a union steward can do to protect that employee from losing their job. Even if the issue is taken to a labor board hearing, the company's documentation on this employee's employment record will remain upheld by the labor board which could lead anyway, to termination of that employee - union affiliation or not. There are always secret or private ballots held within unions. Cronyism is still alive and well, 'ain't it!
On 8/31/08 at 7:12 PM,
NarsBars wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
The employer has the right to deny our right to free speech. You can be forbidden to discuss Pro-Union topics at work. Free speech gone. Employers can deny the right to associate. You can be fired for being Pro-Union or associating with a Pro-Union worker or organizer. Freedom of association, gone.
Workers that form a Union with a majority vote (great old American tradition) can then be denied the right to bargain because the employer can fire Union members and can refuse to bargain in good faith.
Majority rule? Gone with the wind. The majority is seen as not good enough to form a Union, but if only 30% of employees want an election to decertify a Union then those numbers are "good enough".
The ads seem to claim that a weak frightened group will be pressured into joining a Union. Did you ever notice that over 90% of the police forces in the country are in Unions? Are the ads calling our police and our fire departments wimps?
Another item brought up is the charges, not convictions against Union officers. Several hundred? A couple thousand? They don't quote convictions only charges. These numbers are nothing when put up against the THIRTY THOUSAND PLUS cases where employers were forced to pay back pay for illegal firings (2005). Sure many of the rights they have taken from Americans are taken illegally but there are no teeth to the laws. Back pay only, no punishment for the employer even when it is proved that the illegal actions may have destroyed a family, costing a home, health, or even bankruptcy.
Even when it is proved that the illegal actions caused a Union election to be lost the loss is not overturned, a new election must go through the same years of threats and intimidation.
In closing I reply to the argument that a company must be free of Unions in order to increase wages and benefits for employees. In that case I expect that Wal-Mart workers are all millionaires. Will all the Wal-Mart (employees only) millionaires please stand up.
On 8/31/08 at 10:14 PM,
dananu wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Would be nice if there was some balance in this ad. Fact is, the EFCA bill will take away the private ballot. READ THE BILL! Maybe Tom Allen and Michael Michaud just saw the money that Big Labor is throwing at them to support this bill and forgot to read it. It says the National Labor Relations Board canNOT hold an election. It also makes a card-check a de facto election.
Card check is a public signing of a contract stating you want a union. I can't say what I would do exactly but I know if a bunch of union thugs came to my house one weekend with the public ballot I would be a tad bit intimidated and worried if I said no what would happen the next work day. I prefer my elections private and fair. The EFCA bill is neither.
On 9/19/08 at 7:27 AM,
David889327 wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Unions, with the assistance of environmental organizations, have played a major role in destroying Maine's non-tourist economy.
Post a comment about this story
You must be logged in to post a comment.
click here to log in.
