« COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “COLEMAN FOR SENATE RELEASES FIFTH TV AD” | Home | WHAT DOES FRANKEN FEAR? »
NEW AD TARGETS FRANKEN’S SUPPORT OF “…A UNION SCHEME TO HIJACK YOUR RIGHT TO A PRIVATE VOTE…”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | July 24, 2008
This new ad from Minnesotans for Employee Freedom is appearing in newspaper across Minnesota today. I’ll have more on this issue later today, including information about the DFL’s efforts to keep Minnesotans from seeing ads like the one pictured above.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 65 Comments »
65 Responses to “NEW AD TARGETS FRANKEN’S SUPPORT OF “…A UNION SCHEME TO HIJACK YOUR RIGHT TO A PRIVATE VOTE…””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Does anyone really think anti-union employers provide anything remotesly resembling fairness to employees seeking union representation?
For any employee these days seeking to organizes the workplace, Johnny Sack is the guy working for management.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Nice double talk ad. Kind of like a place I worked at recently said that Unions take away people’s right to represent themselves.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:29 AM
What does that have to do with allowing employees to vote in private? How does turning the union thugs lose on employees who won’t sign their cards help the average employee? It forces them to sign or be abused by pro-union co-workers. Unions are losing because people don’t want them taking their money and not doing a damn thing for them these days.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:32 AM
This is a shameless lie.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Mark, Unions do take away the right for people to represent themselves. You can be the best worker at a business but yet you get the same pay as the worst worker. That does not make any sense. It merely encourages people to not do their best because there is no reward for doing so. People who complain about merit pay are the ones that have the most to lose because of poor job performance.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:46 AM
I truly hope Norm keeps up with this issue. Since he started with it a few weeks back, his double digit lead has evaporated as he has gotten a taste of what happens when you give the unions a reason to rally the troops against you.
The word is out on this. Norm Coleman’s pro-Wal Mart stance does not sell well in this state.
So please, Norm. Keep it up. Al was struggling, but with this one issue, you have managed to bring him back.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:51 AM
You would have thought Coleman would have shut this down after getting whacked by the local media for the ad campaign being a complete lie.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Al Franken supports workers rights to choose unions by the same means the citizens of Zimbabwe chose Mugabe for president.
… through force and coercion.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Good job team Coleman, you have provided the motivation that Team Franken could not in getting the Unions out in the field and organizing their members to work for Al.
The only thing that will be wearing concrete shoes will be Norm’s future poll numbers.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:57 AM
What’s really odd is that Coleman supported an almost identical measure in St. Paul as Mayor. He was for it before he was against it.
There is no secret ballot in an NLRB election. The employer knows who’s voting how, and intimidates and punishes those who don’t vote against a union. It’s well documented.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Al was struggling, but with this one issue, you have managed to bring him back.
Angry Al has never been funny to me, but Leroy, you’re killing me with the stuff you post here. Man, you gotta get yourself some time at a comedy club. Maybe you can write for Playboy. With satire like that, you’re gonna make a killing.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:58 AM
PD, are you so stupid as not to understand that this ad, which accurately reflects the outcome of that stupid legislation, wasn’t produced by Norm Coleman, or his campaign?
Of course you’re that stupid. You’re a Democrat.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:03 AM
“PD, are you so stupid as not to understand that this ad, which accurately reflects the outcome of that stupid legislation, wasn’t produced by Norm Coleman, or his campaign?”
Yes, I’m sure there is zero corroboration or that Norm couldn’t call off the dogs or call them up and say, hey, we’re getting killed in the press on this.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:08 AM
PD,
Are you accusing the Coleman campaign of breaking federal election and campaign laws?
What evidence do you have to support your libel?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Chestnut-
When the legislation allows for private ballot or card check, I don’t think it is too big of a reach to call the ad a lie when it says that the measure would eliminate the secret ballot.
It would do no such thing. It would give the workers another option for unionizing, which is why Norm and his pals at Wal Mart are against it.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Chestnut,
You are an idiot. Now, go back and read both of my posts. Still don’t see why you are an idiot. Okay, I’ll lay it out for you.
I said I’m surprised Coleman hasn’t shut this down. It doesn’t break an election law for Coleman to distance himself from the ads or even call for them to stop. Did McCain break election laws when he called the GOP in N.C. to tell them to stop running Rev. Wright ads against Barrack or when the GOP was running ads against Michelle Obama?
He got slaughtered in the press when the last ad came out. He’s going to get slaughtered again for this ad.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Or.. did Bush violate the law when he tried to (well, not really) the swift boat ads?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:30 AM
So by your last post, PD, you moron, if Coleman were to “repudiate” the ads, as Bush did the Swift Boat ads (even though he shouldn’t have), it wouldn’t be enough for you to end your libel that Coleman is directing the group that is behind these ads.
Thanks for pointing that out.
And nobody got “slaughtered” for the ads, certainly not Norm Coleman, who DID NOT CREATE THE ADS.
You join Leroy as dumber than a bag of Tommy Johnson’s shit.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:32 AM
i have to believe these ads must be effective due to vitriolic responses by the libs. with less than 15% of the workers unionized i doubt there will be any backlash by union members who mostly support dems anyway. even some of them may vote for norm as i see the ford plant is going to stay open for at least three more years–an issue norm was actively involved with and had visited ford in detroit several months ago. i did not see franken involved in keeping the ford plant open.
for non-union members the right to a free election trumps any union bosses strong-arm tactics. if employers become too difficult to work for then they workers have abundant rights now to unionize. for those against the right to a free election, you make it sound like employees are prohibited to organize–a bold-faced lie.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:33 AM
And hey Leroy, how does an employee select to have a secret ballot? Is it on the card that they sign with the union rep/mob boss hovering over them?
The legislation clears the way for the environments of threats and coercion that unions are known for. It violates employees individual rights.
The legislation ensures employees get to select unions the same way the citizens of Zimbabwe selected Mugabe for President.
…. AND ON ANOTHER NOTE, LEROY:
“The poll of likely Minnesota voters conducted by Quinnipiac University has Obama up 46 to 44, within the survey’s margin of sampling error. Last month, the same pollsters put Obama 17-percentage points ahead of McCain.
Meanwhile, the same poll of 1,261 voters gives Republican incumbent Norm Coleman a 15-point lead over Democratic challenger Al Franken in the state’s U.S. Senate contest.”
July 24th, 2008 at 9:34 AM
I have yet to see anybody defend the move to take away the right to private vote. What the hell…
The only true way to protect a worker from a union intimidation AND/OR business intimidation is to allow for private votes.
If people want to unionize, great, if people don’t want to, great. The only way to protect a worker from either is allow for private voting.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Why is this measure being put forth in the first place? What is it designed to fix or improve? Why do some feel it is needed if it isn’t for identifying who voted for or against a union?
I see no up side for the worker here.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Thetruthisoutthere_
If one third of the workers ask for a secret ballot, they will get it. No questions asked. Similarly, if half plus one sign the card, they union is formed.
This legislation would make it easier for workers to unionize without the harassment and intimidation that employers provide, by giving the workers an additional avenue for unionization.
THAT is why Norm Coleman and Wal Mart stand in opposition to this bill. It increases the power of the workers while ensuring that employers do not take action against employees who are interested in their right to collectively bargain.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:48 AM
It’s being put forth MG to give unions more power to extort their dues, which they use to buy Democrats and to pay their union boss fat cat salaries.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Hey Leroy,
Assuming your analysis of the legislation is correct, what happens if “half plus one” sign the card AND 30 percent ask for a secret ballot?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:50 AM
“What’s really odd is that Coleman supported an almost identical measure in St. Paul as Mayor. He was for it before he was against it.”
Not only is this untrue, it is 180* from the truth.
During his successful tenure as Mayor, Norm spearheaded an effort to allow private enterprises to bid against the AFSCME cadres employed by the city.
Of course the union’s Democrat sock puppets danced a mad jig on their strings, but the point was made that under union control, vastly inferior municipal services are being delivered at vastly higher cost.
Today, under the thumb of the far left, the City of St. Paul is deteriorating; the parks are shabby and the streets unclean and all the city “leadership” can do is to squirt pretty tears and cry poorhouse to the legislature.
In today’s tough financial reality, hard working Minnesotan’s struggle to maintain their mortages while the public service unions demand more, more, more money and benefits in return for less, less, less productivity.
This great ad brings home the message that Al Franken is working against the best interests of hard working Minnesota families.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:53 AM
“If one third of the workers ask for a secret ballot, they will get it. No questions asked.”
Say, Leroy? If this is such a great idea, do you support allowing political parties to collect signatures to make the general election optional?
When did our franchise to vote become an option, Leroy?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:58 AM
I hope all you Wal*Mart shoppers appreciate buying products made in China by workers who cannot afford to buy the very products they make or clothing made in sweatshops in Central America and Asia.
If any of you saw the DISCOVERY CHANNEL series with Ted Coppel a few weeks ago detailing the high cost of low prices, appaling working condidtions, etc., take care.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:06 AM
By the way Leroy, your assertion that if 30 percent of workers want an election they’ll get one is a BALD FACED LIE.
The legislation holds NO SUCH PROVISION.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:10 AM
The whole purpose of the check card scheme is to take the secret ballot away. The bill was designed for that very purpose by the unions. The secret ballot option was left in to give cover for the inevitable onslaught.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Hey kathy,
That’s a sad story to be sure, but forcing more workers into unions will only send more jobs to China and the human rights abuses there.
Clinton’s determination to send U.S. jobs to China has sure paid off for the Democrat party though.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Rick, the “ballot option” rhetoric is a complete lie. There is no option in the legislation to preserve the option for a secret ballot.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:21 AM
You are correct. The Employee Free Choice Act does not include a ballot option. EFCA is an amendment to current law that allows for card check to be included as another way for workers to unionize.
The amendment also does not REMOVE the existing right to a secret ballot.
So, to say that the measure would remove the secret ballot is the only real lie currently on the table.
Norm Coleman and his friends at Wal Mart hate the idea of the working class being able to unionize, and as such, he is willing to go with the lie. A lie, I may remind you, that Pat Kessler called him on when he first started associating with the filth that is advertising this issue.
What is it that you all have against this country’s laborers?
July 24th, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Once the union gets the required amount of authorization cards the union will be certified. No federally supervised campaign or waiting period.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Thanks Leroy, you’ve validated that FACT that the EFCA strips employees of their right to a secret ballot.
It does so when 50 percent +1 employee sign a card, without any privacy.
Thanks for confirming that you are LYING.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Al Franken and his friends in organized crime and with the Teamsters hate the idea of their union base eroding as more workers reject joining unions, so they’re violating workers rights by stripping of them of the option of a secret ballot.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Pat Kessler, union member, is apparently to lazy and dishonest to report the truth about this legislation.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:37 AM
The send off of American jobs to China and the rest of the world have increased the profits of those American companies who have benifitted from GOP policies more.
Free Trade agreements have done more harm than good since the passage of NAFTA, a Clinton blunder for sure. Thus contributing even more to the number of Illegals from Mexico seeking jobs and a beter life in the US that pay more an hour than they can make in a day.
Non-Union workers have benifitted greatly from the efforts of Union workers, and they expect those benifits to remain intact.
A livable wage in which to raise a family
A 40 Hour work week
Paid overtime
Health Coverage
Paid earned Vacation time
Paid 3 Day Bereavement Leave
Safe work enviornments
Retirement Benifits
Profit Sharing
To have a voice at the workplace
the list goes on what Unions have done and continue to do.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:52 AM
You’re hilariously mis-informed kathy. Hilariously.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Kathy, I’ve never belonged to a union and I have all of those benefits. The unions did not do that, but they did cause many businesses to ship jobs overseas due to excessive pay and benefits. Now people of your ilk whine about having to clean up the shit you crapped out. We Republicans will as always bail your ass out but for goodness sakes please stop making all these messes!
July 24th, 2008 at 11:00 AM
In your twisted mind, Chesty, I am. Have you benifitted from Union worker efforts in your place of Employment in some way or another???
And about the “Go back to making costumes” comment you made months ago. Great advice!!!
I have Period Clothing commissions lined up from now through the next year already. I even have two small towns and History Centers after me to make them Period Clothing from the American Revelution and Civil War periods for events taking place in 2009 and 2010. Not to mention Cast members of Renaissance festivals all about the country who have seen my work on my online website, in ads, word of mouth, etc.
I have people now working with me, earning good money and benifits they can be proud of. Not bad for someone in business only 3 years!!!
July 24th, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Chesty-
Loving Wal Mart is not a crime. It just highlights the disdain you have for the American worker. Norm Coleman is sliding in the polls because he also dislikes the American worker, forgetting as he often does, that he needs their votes every six years.
Norm is wrong on this issue, and I hope he remembers it this fall when he is down at the bowling alley with his buddies watching Sen. Franken speak on CSPAN.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:43 AM
For clarity, the argument seems to be:
opposing this measure
equals
opposing unions
equals
opposing workers
which is rubbish.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Kathy, are your employees members of a union? If no, why not? Shouldn’t they be?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:51 AM
“Have you benifitted from Union worker efforts in your place of Employment in some way or another???”
No.
Congrats on your recent success. Have you made sure your employees belong to the union?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I’m glad you followed my advice a few months back. Let me see if I can make that work again, but this time I’ll give Leroy some advice.
Leroy, go put your car in the garage, close the garage door, roll down the windows, start the engine and take a nap.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
“Norm Coleman is sliding in the polls”
Not according to the recent polls he’s not. LOL!
The good news is, Norm is right on this issue. It’s wrong to strip workers of the right to a secret ballot.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Chesty-
Norm in bed with George Bush and Wal Mart is too beautiful a thing for anyone to imagine.
As I said elsewhere, I am still waiting for him to openly court the Alfonso Rodriguez endorsement.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:18 PM
the other issue that seems to get dismissed is what about the rights of the employers? they have no rights, just the risk of trying to make a profit? if employers offer similar or better benefits than union shops, why would you want to unionize and have to pay union dues–i’ve seen some that are 2% of wages.
let’s look at a classic example now playing out: gm/ford/chrysler workers have had uaw for 50+ years. their sales have gone down the tubes. toyota/honda/nissan have non-unionized plants in the usa and their sales have skyrocketed. which employers are going to hire more people and which employers are going to layoff more people–the union or non-union shop????
July 24th, 2008 at 12:43 PM
The reason companies try to unionize is because bad companies like Norm’s friends at Wal Mart treat their employees so poorly, the only option is to collectivley bargain.
Employers who pay good wages and benefits rarely have to worry about unionization efforts. The unions step in to help the employees of places where the working conditions are substandard.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Leroy. Only people of your ilk give a rats ass about Walmart. What does that come to, 5 maybe 10% of the voters. So you go ahead and focus on that and ignore the real issues. Good boy.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Kathy, I can’t seem to find your response. Are your employees members of a union? If not you should contact the Teamsters and get them in there to help your employees. As an employer I’m sure you will find that the Teamsters are a pleasure to work with (just make sure you give them cash not a check and you will have no problems).
July 24th, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Really Pete?
Only 5 to 10 percent of Americans care about outsourcing jobs to China? Only 5-10 percent of people care about rising unemployment figures? Only 5-10 percent care about the safety of our kids, and the toys they play with? Only 5-10 percent of Americans care about local business and their desire to succeed?
If your numbers are true, then I guess I am starting to understand why we have the President and Senator that we do.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Leroy, you seem to have difficulty digesting what you read. One more time, carefully. No one cares about Walmart. Everyone likes getting stuff cheaper. Get it? The people that the DFL supposedly “help” shop at Walmart. A lot of them work at Walmart. They like Walmart (except for a few whiners like you). Get used to it pal. Walmart and Target both buy the majority of their products from the same countries. Walmart just does a better job of selling it to us cheaper. You can play politics with Walmart all day and no one cares. So keep it up Leroy boy – it looks good on ya!
July 24th, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Kathy, you hiding? Please don’t tell me your employees don’t need a union. You are the owner and you are keeping some of the money. Unions don’t like owners to make a profit and then keep some of it. You really do need to get a union in there to ensure that you aren’t screwing your employees.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:56 PM
“Wal Mart treat their employees so poorly, the only option is to collectively bargain.”
Wrong, if you don’t like a job, leave. There are a lot of similar paying jobs out there. If no one will work at Wal-mart then they will have to change their employment practices or go out of business. It is just that simple. Or, if it sucks bad enough, the unions will eventually get in.
There seems to be a lot of arguments over semantics. I have not read the legislation but from reading the comments from those who claim to know the content from both sides I can conclude this: There can still be a private vote (so the lefties are half right) unless 50%+1 sign cards to unionize. You can throw in all the “Ya but..†you want but no one here is disputing this point. The card signing is public knowledge: Not private.
I don’t see how this is a step forward for the worker, as agued.
“easier for the workers to unionize†If the union is held in such universally high regard by all workers then it should have no problem getting in anywhere.
Yes, I will admit that the unions did get us all many of the benefits we all enjoy today but it doesn’t fit very well into most areas wit our modern free and mobile society. Nobody today is doomed to work in the town factory their father did and anybody who says they have no other choice but to work at Wal-Mart is a lying or to lazy to look elsewhere.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Thank you for not allowing partasianship to get in the way of the truth.
I highly doubt Chestnut or Pete have read the amendment either, and when Pete said that he does not benefit in his daily life from the work unions have done, well, that just proved to me that he is not all that mentally invested in history.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I have been a member of three different unions.
Leroy How many unions have you been a member of?
The only thing the unions did for me was make my paycheck a lot lighter. The union told me when I could work were I could work.
I was a truck driver for a produce company and I ran my route one day and when finished I came back park my truck. The union rep met me at the gate and asked why I was back so early? I said I was done with my deliveries and was going in to dispatch to get another trailer full of deliveries. He that explained to me that my rout was to take 7 hours to deliver and with drive time to and from the company’s yard 8.5 hours was the required time I should be away from the company. I responded that that was crazy and proceeded to go in to dispatch. I took another trailer of freight out for deliveries and the next day I was told there was no work for me. I reported to work for the next 5 days and every day I was told there was no work. After a week I was told not to report back. Two weeks later I received a letter from the union asking for there dues? I was 20 years old and this was my second job with a union. My third job in a union was with NWA.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Leroy, My wife just came home from her job. She is a member of the Teamsters. When she saw the political mailing from the Teamsters in support of Obama she tore it up and said “what a bunch of jackasses”. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Leroy, I don’t believe the unions have done anything for me since I have been in the work force. My income and benefits are completely dependent on my job performance, skills, and the demand for my skills. I make more than anyone I know of who is represented by a union. If I were in a union I expect that I would not have been rewarded for my hard work and extra effort. I would just get the same raise and benefits as the guy who did as little as possible.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:51 PM
The ads say that the legislation takes away employees right to a secret ballot. This fact is indisputable, if a union coerces a simple majority to sign union cards — a PUBLIC process.
Once enacted, employees HAVE NO RIGHT to demand a private ballot, which is the only free and fair way to poll employees choice to join a union.
50 percent, minus 1 employee could want to conduct a secret ballot, but thanks to the FECA, they would be denied.
The ad is accurate. The legislation is bad, un-American and wrong for workers rights.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:31 PM
I am not a Union Sewer, but I sew in a Union House. Close enough!!!
July 24th, 2008 at 10:49 PM
My husband is UAW, and member of the Executive Board for Southeast Minnesota Labor Council. He is very versed in Labor and Union issues. EFCA is legistlation that is needed. It’s the anti-Union groups such as Employee Freedom that have the facts wrong.
Back in December of 2006, 4 days before Christmas, new owners of the Holiday Inn Express fired 19 workers who were members of UNITED HERE ofering no severance packages or back pay. Just flat out fiored them. The new owners knew that there was a Union at the hotel. The non-Union workers, who were making the same wages, were not fired. The Union Employees allowed to reapply for their jobs, but told that they might not be considered for rehiring. The hotel was part of the Sunstone Properties that have Union Housekeekpers, maintainance people, Resturant and Bar workers. Even the Chamber of Commerce urged the new owners to take back these workers. The Chamber leases an office at the Hotel.
Had there been the EFCA, these people would not have been fired. A grievance with the Ntional Labor Relations Board wsa filed. After many months, the new owners, who live in Texas, were found in contempt of Labor violations and fined. They were to reinstate these workers at full pay, plus any back pay owed them, vacation time owed, etc. This was a case that had a happy ending with persistence from the local community, other Labor Unions, and a lot of heat from Congressman Walz.
Nor do I screw over my 2 workers. They are paid and treated well.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:27 AM
“Nor do I screw over my 2 workers. They are paid and treated well.”
Says every union-free employer.
“Union Sewer”… that was unintentionally funny. Union Sewer would be the definition of any job sector overrun by unions.
Thanks for the laugh kathy.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:39 AM
btw kathy, your sob story about the Holiday Inn doesn’t really support your argument.
The employees were already part of a union. EFCA would have had zero affect on them. Moreover, they were protected under existing law.
It’s brain dead liberal troll idiots like you who have the facts wrong. Why are Democrats so opposed to voting rights?
October 27th, 2008 at 7:04 PM
[...] article’s in Playboy, his blasphemous writings about Jesus. He wants to take away the rank and file union members right to a secret ballot.So this is a guy we want representing us? I admit I think Coleman is a RINO and closer to a [...]