« MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA HOLDS FRANKEN ACCOUNTABLE FOR JOKES ABOUT CHILD ABUSE” | Home | KSTP REPORTS ON MN GOP’S PRESS EVENT ABOUT FRANKEN’S CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE JOKES »
LAWSUITS FILED BY DFL OVER TV ADS ABOUT EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT DISMISSED
By Michael B. Brodkorb | July 29, 2008
The Office of Administrative Hearings has dismissed both complaints filed by the Minnesota DFL last week over television ads discussing the Employee Free Choice Act.
Click here to read the dismissal of the complaint filed against the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and here for dismissal of the complaint filed against Minnesotans for Employee Freedom.
From the Order of Dismissal:
“Here, the Complainant [the Minnesota DFL] has not alleged with any specificity why the statements at issue are factually false. The Complaint merely asserts that the statements are false and “contrary to the facts,†without providing any further information.
The Complaint also does not identify the named individual Respondents, nor does it allege any facts to Minnesota Democrats Exposed › Edit — WordPresssupport an allegation that they participated in the preparation or broadcast of the material knowing it was false or with reckless disregard of its falsity.” Source: Order of Dismissal, July 29, 2009
Read the text highlighted in red again. The Minnesota DFL’s complaint didn’t even provide specific information as to why the ads were false. The Minnesota DFL should be embarrassed.
In a post discussing the DFL’s lawsuit (the language used in the post all but guaranteed a legal victory by the DFL), Team Franken’s embedded blogger at MN Publius wrote “Minnesotans do not deserve this kind of foul dishonesty.” I agree and the Minnesota DFL should apologize.
UPDATE: I hope some of the bloggers that wrote posts about the DFL lawsuits will post updates that the lawsuits were dismissed.
Blogs like Joe Bodell’s MN Campaign Report published posts with loaded and inaccurate headlines like “Coleman Campaign in Trouble over False Advertising” – yet this blog is now silent on the lawsuits being dismissed. The ads were not prepared and paid for by Coleman’s campaign, nor were they in any way responsible for the ads.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 38 Comments »
38 Responses to “LAWSUITS FILED BY DFL OVER TV ADS ABOUT EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT DISMISSED”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Looks like it was more of a filing problem than a matter of justifying the allegation. Here’s the The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) it amends.
You can make this determination yourself, but the part in question boils down to this part of the NLRA:
The EFCA adds this, in the same section:
The key words are “notwithstanding any other provision of this section.” These words are there intentionally to protect the right to a secret ballot as indicated in Sec. 9 [§ 159.] (e).
The secret ballot never goes away and it doesn’t change. As it is now and as it would be after the EFCA, at any time 30% of the workers want an election with a secret ballot, they get one. The EFCA protects this right. To say directly that it removes the right to a worker’s private ballot is a lie.
Now, there are some grey areas that people bring up, and David Brauer covers that really well this morning.
Either way, this looks like a filing issue, not a problem with the allegation.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:45 PM
(I have a comment that is pending approval, likely because I link my sources)
July 29th, 2008 at 5:51 PM
If you parse enough “eliminate” might have been a questionable term but that would still be a long shot.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Hmm, so the “liar, liar, pants on fire” thing didn’t work out then?
July 29th, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Leroy, Yoni, el presidente and Tommy must be awaiting instructions before posting some new talking points on this.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:07 PM
They didn’t specify why the statements are false because the statements are not false.
The EFCA unequivocally eliminates workers rights to a private ballot. What does the DFL have against voting rights?
July 29th, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Chestnut, that is incorrect. If Michael would approve the comment stuck in his spam filter, I explain and annotate using the actual bill and existing law.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Aaron is correct. The bill does not eliminate the secret ballot, and no number of ads or Chestnut posts will change this fact.
The lawsuit was tossed out not because it lacked merit, but because the DFL was unable to prove that the creators of the ad were malicious rather than just stupid. The judge gave them the benefit of the doubt that the guys in charge may just be total morons. So, I guess that is a win for morons everywhere.
The fact that the case was dismissed without prejudice indicates that the ruling had nothing to do with the merits of the claim, and everything to do with a legal technicality.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:59 PM
“…a win for morons everywhere.”
You would know, wouldn’t you?
July 29th, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Aaron, why not post your comment on MN Publius, and note that it was held at MDE.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Aaron: Your comment was caught by my spam filter. You commented twice within one minute and both comments were considered spam.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Michael-
Thanks for approving my comment. I presume it was too many links and blockquotes. I did indeed try again, causing the second comment.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Leroy:
You’re a liar. Read Aron’s post number one. The language as proposed reads, “the board shall not direct an election but certify”
Translation: If you can create 50% + 1 ballot signed you automatically get the union since there will be no secret ballot election.
So quit lying Leroy or go back to first grade and learn how to read!
Of course when everybody on your side is lying on this issue that’s why you folks probably believe that you have been telling the truth.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
July 29th, 2008 at 10:21 PM
This is just the DFL lawyers failing to meet the requirement that the complaint be filed with particularity. The court isn’t saying the ad isn’t misrepresenting the facts, they are just saying the DFL didn’t adequately plead it on the papers which is required to establish actual malice.
If they want, they’ll just re-plead with paticularity. But, to claim this is somehow the Court saying the ad is truthful is ridiculous.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Why doesn’t the DFL want to allow working people to have a secret ballot? Is it because they know when they can’t intimidate people they will vote against the financial backers (read as unions) of the DFL party? Just follow the money people.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Is it the GOP who claim that there is NO FREE LUNCH but, that you should have a free vote to hear them claim that indeed there is NO FREE LUNCH?
July 29th, 2008 at 11:03 PM
As usual, the libs are against free elections if they may not win. How can any good American be against free and fair elections? I guess it shows where the dems loyalty lies.
God bless America!
July 30th, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Walter, Pete and all the other idiots-
The card check will create a union if they public drive is the manner chosen by the workers. But they can also still, as always, use the secret ballot that has been used for years.
What your pulled quote says is that on the card check, once you reach a majority of employees, they union is recognized. Don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but that is the same number of employees who need to vote in the affirmative on the secret ballot for the union as well.
The amendment would create an ADDITIONAL system of voting. The workers asked for it, and they are going to get it. And Wal Mart is going to spend $15 million on lies to try and keep Norm around to own his vote on this anti-worker measure.
I can’t imagine I am alone in being repulsed by the idea of Wal Mart spending $15 million to buy this seat for Norm.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Leroy read the language. It said “the board shall not direct an election”
THAT MEANS THAT A SECRET BALLOT WON’T BE USED. THAT IS WHY THE UNIONS ARE PUSHING THIS SO HARD!!
They are trying to avoid the secret ballot elections which they have been losing. If they have been winning they will be eager to get rules to get to the secret ballot! They have been doing the exact opposite. They have been trying to get rules to avoid the secret ballot.
WHAT ARE YOU FAILING TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
July 30th, 2008 at 5:01 AM
“notwithstanding any other provision of this section” means “regardless of any other provision of this section”. The intention of EFCA is to
destroy or eliminate Sec. 9 [§ 159.], not preserve it. EFCA states “the board shall not direct an election”, regardless of any rights granted in Sec. 9 [§ 159.]. Coleman and his allies are correct insofar as any judge or mediator resolving the legislation meaning, were
this to be enacted and then misapplied, would see the intent of EFCA is to destroy the intent of Sec. 9 [§ 159.] not preserve it.
So Al Franken or Brian Melendez are lying when they say a secret ballot can be directed if 30%-50% of the workforce vote yes publicly. Even if
a secret ballot can be directed at 30-50% it would be a pointless misapplication to interpret the proposed legislation like that.
But I wouldn’t put it past the unions to mis-interpret their own legislation.
Thanks Walter.
And thanks for showing us why we should distrust the unions, Brian Melendez, and Al Franken, Aaron.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:12 AM
Leroy, you keep talking out of your ass son. A secret ballot is all that is needed unless you are trying to manipulate the election. It makes zero sense to do anything that could impact the right for workers to have a secret ballot. Are you so far gone that you can’t look at anything objectively?
July 30th, 2008 at 6:37 AM
Despite the obvious talking point about “not being able to establish malice”, it had nothing to do with that. It had EVERYTHING to do with not being able to provide ONE FACT as to why the ad was wrong. In the end, the DFL couldn’t provide anything wrong wit the ad except they just didn’t like it telling the truth about Angry Al.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Average Joe-
Perhaps you got a different version of the ruling than the rest of the free world. In no place did the judge say that the case lacked merit or fact. It simply said that the malicious intent was not proven against the creators of the ad.
You are allowed to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Aaron,
Please tell me what happens when 50 percent plus one employee PUBLICLY sign their card AND when 30 percent demand a secret ballot.
The EFCA eliminates the right of the 30 percent to have their vote. Period.
“If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).”
July 30th, 2008 at 12:13 PM
as you would expect from a lib, they are one-sided. aaron addresses only workers, not the other side of any labor negotiation–the employer.
if i understand labor law now, an employer can request a free, secret-ballot election. how can that be harmful to labor unions if the majority want to join?
the card check bill also provides penalties for employers that do not follow the law, but no penalties for unions that do not follow the law.
finally, which is better for an employee: to make a decision about their job in private where they can consider all the facts/circumstances, or be forced to make an immediate decision in front of union organizers which have a history of coercion and threats.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:17 PM
“a history of coercion and threats”
Could be the subtitle to a documentary on the Democrat Party.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Chestnut-
If a majority of the workers already want a union, and signify such on a public card check what purpose would a private ballot serve?
You are aware that a majority vote on a private ballot has the same result as a majority vote on a public ballot, right?
You do understand that, don’t you?
July 30th, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Leroy, what part of a private ballot don’t you understand? If either option will bring in the union why bother to change anything. Sounds like a waste of time for the goverment to be working on this if it won’t make any difference. You should be telling them to leave it alone and to start dealing with real problems.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:16 PM
why not hold all elections the way the union wants?
cuba anybody?
July 30th, 2008 at 1:20 PM
So what you’re saying, Leroy, is after the slim majority of employees have been cajoled and coerced in to signing their Union cards, then the EFCA eliminates their right to a secret ballot.
The fact is, a public vote is NOT the same as a private vote. The EFCA ensures union toughs can run rough-shod over employees. Nothing more.
Thanks for helping me to prove the point that the EFCA eliminates the secret ballot for employees.
Ask the citizens of Zimbabwe whether they believe a public vote and a private vote are the same thing.
What does the DFL have against voting rights?
July 30th, 2008 at 2:19 PM
The fact is, a public vote is NOT the same as a private vote. The EFCA ensures that employers can not run rough-shod over employees as they try to bring together the 30 percent of employees needed for a secret ballot. Nothing more.
Honestly, who is more of a threat? An employer who can fire you if you get to involved in an organizing effort, or a union who wants to help you get a better deal with your employer?
The card check lets workers put their name on the line and protect themselves from union-harassing employers. If you sign the card and are fired the next day, you have a pretty solid case against your employer. If you are operating in private trying to get the vote, and you are fired, it is a lot harder to prove causation. EFCA simply protects workers who are trying to unionize.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:25 PM
leroy you should read the current law. i agree with you that a pro-union person should not be fired if he is attempting to organize a union. that, of course, is already the law.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:29 PM
[...] with the Minnesota elections board accusing the two groups and me personally. Yesterday, that suit was thrown out. They may refile the complaint against us; we’ll [...]
July 30th, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Leroy, so long as you agree that EFCA eliminates workers right to a secret ballot.
And it appears you do.
Not sure what you have against voting rights, but that’s your problem, not mine.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Leroy is supports organized crime’s right to bury non-compliant workers in cement.
Yeah, no threat there.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Leroy you don’t get it:
Under the system you support somebody can forge my signature and the union can be formed without my consent and the consent of others. That is why you hold a secret ballot.
Under the system you support a couple of people can come and scare somebody into signing a piece of paper that counts as support for the union. Keep in mind people who said they did this for unions in the past have been in these commercials.
The point is the union tries to say since 50% + 1 signed the sheet we don’t need the secret ballot so lets not hold it. You don’t know if truly 50% support unless you have a secret ballot.
If you the union thinks they can get 50% + 1 using a public sign up they should easily be able to get the same votes in a secret ballot unless they don’t want the secret ballot because they know they have been cheating to get their votes to begin with.
That is why you have to have a secret ballot. Something which you don’t support Leroy!
We live in the United States where unions should have to have a secret a ballot election. What are you so afraid of. I’m an union person and I see no problem in demanding that secret ballot election every single time!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
August 19th, 2008 at 12:40 PM
[...] The Office of Administrative Hearings has dismissed both complaints filed by the Minnesota DFL over television and newspaper ads discussing the Employee Free Choice Act. Last month, similar complaints were also dismissed. [...]
February 10th, 2010 at 7:05 AM
That’s very easy to find interesting information and buy custom essay papers at the paper writing services about this good topic.