« VIDEO: COLLEGE REPUBLICANS ASK PEOPLE IF AL FRANKEN’S JOKE ABOUT RAPE IS FUNNY | Home | MUST SEE TV: FOX 9 STORY ON HILLARY SUPPORTERS FOR MCCAIN »
COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “TIME FOR FRANKEN TO ADMIT HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY SECRET BALLOT, SAYS COLEMAN CAMPAIGN”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 27, 2008
ST. PAUL – The Minneapolis Star Tribune published an editorial today that validates the concerns raised by Senator Norm Coleman that the Employee Free Choice Act would take away a worker’s right to a secret ballot.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which is enthusiastically supported by Al Franken, has been the subject of intense discussion in this year’s campaign. Franken’s campaign has insisted that the act would not take away an employee’s right to a secret ballot, but as evidence adds up to the contrary, the Coleman for Senate Campaign challenged Franken to repudiate his position on the legislation.
“Al Franken has already violated the basic tenet of workers’ rights by failing to pay for disability benefits and refusing to pay his workers compensation premiums for three years. He was basically hiding from the New York Workers Compensation Board for years until the news media finally flushed him out and forced him to acknowledge that he owed $25,000 for breaking New York’s workers’ compensation laws,†said Cullen Sheehan, Campaign Manager for Coleman for Senate. “Now, he wants to violate workers rights even further by taking away their rights to a secret ballot. Al Franken says a lot of things in this campaign, most of them not believable, but this time he has a chance to do the right thing. He should reject his position of supporting legislation that would steal worker’s rights to a secret ballot.â€
Star Tribune: EFCA Would Take Away Right To Secret Ballot. “Taxes. Health care. The war. Certainly, those are some of the more obvious contenders to be marquee issues in Minnesota’s hard fought Senate race. But what has surprisingly emerged to dominate the air waves and the debate is a bill that was passed by the U.S. House but bogged down in the Senate more than a year ago: the Employee Free Choice Act. Its innocuous name belies the furor raging over it in Minnesota and across the nation. Among the bill’s key provisions: It would allow unions to be recognized without a secret ballot and would stiffen penalties for employers who retaliate against prounion employees.†(“Editorial: Proposed labor bill has fatal voting flaw,†Star Tribune, August 27, 2008)
Franken Supports EFCA, Campaign Lies About It Taking Away Secret Ballot. “Franken spokesman Andy Barr said that Franken, a member of four labor unions, is proud to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which is also known as the card check bill. ‘EFCA doesn’t take away a worker’s right to a secret ballot it prevents the corporations who bankroll Norm Coleman’s campaign from intimidating workers,’ Barr said.†(FREDERIC J. FROMMER, “Group launches anti-Franken ad,†Associated Press, July 7, 2008)
Franken Owed $25,000 For Not Providing Workers Comp, NY Trying To Track Him Down Since April 2005. “DFL Senate candidate Al Franken owes a $25,000 penalty to the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board for failing to carry workers’ compensation insurance for employees of his namesake corporation from 2002 to 2005, state officials said. New York officials have made numerous attempts to contact Franken about the matter since April 2005 but have gotten no reply.†(Kevin Duchschere, “Franken faces penalties for lack of workers’ insurance,” Star Tribune, March 5, 2008)
Paid Fine For Not Providing Disability Benefits. “Franken has been tidying up a little mess of his own. Word came Tuesday that he has paid an additional $832 in penalties to New York state for failing to provide disability benefits for employees of his private corporation. Earlier, Franken was found to owe a $25,000 penalty for failing to provide workers’ compensation to employees of Alan Franken Inc. for two years. On Tuesday, Minnesota Republican Party officials released documents showing Franken quietly paid the additional $832 in fines related to disability coverage earlier this month.†(Patricia Lopez, “At rally, Franken outlines objectives,” Star Tribune, March 26, 2008)
Claims He Didn’t See The Dozen Notices Sent To His Home. “Franken, a comedian and author, and his wife, Franni, set up Alan Franken Inc. in New York in 1991 to handle fees and residuals for his services. The Frankens moved from Manhattan to Minneapolis in late 2005. Minnesota records show that the corporation has paid workers’ compensation insurance since it moved to the state, with the Frankens, more than two years ago. McIntosh said the Frankens never received the nearly one dozen notices that New York officials had sent them since April 2005.†(Kevin Duchschere, “2nd Senate candidate failed to insure staff for workers’ comp,” Star Tribune, March 7, 2008)
Topics: Uncategorized | 41 Comments »
41 Responses to “COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “TIME FOR FRANKEN TO ADMIT HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY SECRET BALLOT, SAYS COLEMAN CAMPAIGN””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnn
August 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
“He should reject his position of supporting legislation that would steal worker’s rights to a secret ballot.â€
Speakin’ o’ stealin’, did Team Smokescreen ever give copies of Coleman’s utility bills to the media?
Mark Drake promised a coupla weeks ago, that he’d check.
I wonder if he did?
If he didn’t check, wouldn’t that make a Team Coleman spokesman a liar?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle dumbo; #1 and 2 comments.
Man, you really keep a tight leash on your two favorite beotches don’t ya, Mike?
Dance, fat boy…dance. You too, Aairhead!
HAHAHA!
August 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Say, fat boy?
Do that belly dance for us, boy!
HAHA!
August 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Wow, it’s great to see that Republicans are suddenly so concerned about workers’ rights. Coleman wasn’t concerned when he voted against increasing the minimum wage and for allowing workers to lose their eligibility for overtime pay.
You guys will go to any length to stop workers from unionizing.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Say, Jeff? Didn’t the Carpenter’s Union endorse Coleman, and ol’ Smokescreen enthusiastically accept the endorsement?
I wonder if that’s because Coleman is on record of bein’ “FOR” the Employee Free Choice deal?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The unions have brought the manufacturing capacity of this country to ruins, their former members that have re-trained themselves and have landed new jobs want nothing to do with them.
The well has run dry; union bosses are desperate so it’s time to call in the markers from their trained monkey’s in office.
This issue is poison to any candidate that touches it. That’s why Madia runs away when it is brought up and why Porn-O-Rama has nothin’ to say either.
It’s only you idiots in the Sorosphere that are touting this loser, because you have nothing to lose.
It’s disgusting, really.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I’d run any scumbag union hack that showed up at my place of work out on a rail. And I wouldn’t be alone.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Almost nobody makes the minimum wage, who cares if it gets raised? It’s a dumb policy, and raising the wage affects nobody.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
But let’s not dwell on the negative…on with Cheeto boy’s belly dance!
August 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Does the GOP really think if they say the same thing 10 times it will magically come true? Or, that it will somehow allow him to recoup the huge lead he lost in the polls?
“but as evidence adds up to the contrary”
What the hell evidence has emerged that supports the bill takes away the right to a secret ballot? The only thing the PR cites is an editorial in the star tribune. An EDITORIAL?
We already know this has been labeled as an “incomplete” and “misleading” reading of the statute.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Actually, I was pleased the Strib editors found it in themselves to post the truth about the anti-American EFCA legislation.
It’s bad law, bad policy… and it’s wholly unnecessary.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
PlymouthDem, you”re incapable of interpreting the statute. There’s nothing incomplete or misleading about the FACT that EFCA is bad policy that eliminates private ballots under certain circumstances.
EFCA forces employees to state their preference in a public forum, and opens them up to greater intimidation.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Chestnut,
At least you finally admit that it only removes the secret ballot “under certain circumstances” as opposed to eliminates the secret ballot period which is Coleman’s stance.
And, “misleading” and “incomplete” is not my language, that’s the ALJ interpreting the anti-EFCA ads.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“Under certain circumstances? What circumstances?”
“Faggetaboudit”
August 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
McCain McTrain watching too many reruns of “I’ve Got A McSecret.”
August 27th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
as with prior posts on this subject, i have never seen the answer to what is wrong with the current law?
August 27th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
The current law makes it too easy for EMPLOYERS to threaten and intimidate workers who want to unionize. So, when Norm Coleman stands with Wal Mart in opposition to this act, what he is saying is, he is anti-worker, and pro-business.
There is nothing wrong with him taking that stance. He is simply saying that he will allow business to keep buying him his seat, even if it means he can no longer represent the interests of the people of Minnesota.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
back to my question, how can employers threaten and intimidate workers when they do not know which workers are voting or not voting for a union?
regarding being anti-worker, i suggest you look at franken’s refusal to carry workers compensation for his employees. that would seem like a much bigger anti-worker issue than advocating secret elections. secret elections are not anti-worker, they are pro-worker because each person can make a decision in private without the influence of either union or employer.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
as i thought about this a little more actually employers would have much more opportunity to penalize/harrass workers if they sign a card since then they will know who the workers are–not true if by secret ballot.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Ansel, it’s no surprise Michael didn’t link to the editorial; there are parts in there that don’t suit his purposes.
Here’s the link: StarTribune
Now, if Michael is claiming this editorial is accurate for the points he wants to make, then one can assume the whole editorial is accurate.
And here’s part of what that editorial has to say:
***
That pitched national battle is why the issue is at the forefront of Minnesota’s Senate race. The Senate holds the key to EFCA’s future. Democratic contender Al Franken supports EFCA; Republican Norm Coleman does not. Both labor and business have pledged millions for their cause, with some of that well-funded battle resulting in the local ads. So what should Minnesota voters make of all of this? Seeking an opinion from outside the immediate fray, we asked University of Minnesota labor economist John Budd for his perspective. His response: “Frankly, I think it’s long overdue.” In Budd’s view, EFCA helps remedy an imbalance of power between workers and bosses, with the proposed bill giving labor a way to offset employers’ powerful influence — such as barraging staffers with antiunion info at work.
***
August 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
it would have been nice if the strib would have gotten a balanced third party view. john budd is a pro-labor instructor at u of m (that in itself shows the bias) that advocates this new order that employment needs to be given “a human face.” the trouble with all these professors is that their plans work in every book they have ever written, but then of course most of them have never run a real business.
second, budd’s primary argument is that the current system allows employers to “barrage” workers with anti-union info at work. this statement, in itself, shows his bias. he assumes that employees always want to be unionized, that there is no benefit in not being unionized. i have two clients (relatively small) where the unions have been thrown out because workers finally figured out the union dues they were paying were not worth the benefits.
since you believe that workers should be able to sign a card to unionize, would you agree that they could sign a card to de-unionize?
August 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Hey Flounder,
Is that true that you boy Al didn’t carry workers comp for his employees? Sounds like the typical hypocrite Democrat to me.
You rail against hypocrites, would like to hear you defend this one.
Oh, that’s right, you don’t defend, you deflect and lie about pretty much everything.
You are good humor though, I have to give you that. You are much funnier than rape and bestialty jokes from Franken. It is a bit disturbing though that you that you have a fixation on men and boys.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
You bet PD… and that certain circumstance when the private ballot is destroyed is when EFCA replaces it with a public process of union intimidation.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Ansel, it’s no surprise Michael didn’t link to the editorial; there are parts in there that don’t suit his purposes.
Well, let’s look at one word in this statement…I wonder what that word could mean…
ansel Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
back to my question, how can employers threaten and intimidate workers when they do not know which workers are voting or not voting for a union?
Yeah, notice how he deflects any kind of pathetic answer to an EDITORIAL from THE STAR TRIBUNE??
August 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
i’m glad you agree.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Maybe he’s actually found the definition of ‘Editorial’ and is scouring the interwebs for a ‘RepubliCOn’ conspiracy to redefine the word opinion??
August 27th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“Ansel, it’s no surprise Michael didn’t link to the editorial; there are parts in there that don’t suit his purposes.”
And it was so effective at preventing you from finding it. Damn you Michael…
LOL!
August 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“You rail against hypocrites, would like to hear you defend this one.”
There is no defense against Franken not carrying required worker’s comp insurance; just as there is no defense when Ramstad, Kline, Kennedy, Moe, Tim Penny, and yes, even the dearly departed Paul Wellstone’s organizations failed to carry the required coverage.
The hypocrisy is the venom you bootlickers direct at Franken, while giving a pass to Rammer, Kline, and little Markie.
You (cheney)ers are hypocrites – and your hypocrisy is one more reason GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Ansel, et all:
Since the law will only change the secret ballot when a public card check is initiated, why are Norm Coleman and Wal Mart worried about giving workers an ADDITIONAL way to indicate their support for unionization? If they want to use the secret ballot, they can still use the secret ballot. And since you claim employers don’t harass, threaten and intimidate, then there should be no problem with allowing it to stay as the primary option, and allow card check in cases where threats and intimidation from the employer require a more open process.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
ChinNuts, I had no problemo finding it; Michael was hiding it from the short-bussers like you.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Norm Coleman did care about employees when he voted against the minimum wage. Most employers would have to lay-off or stop hiring as they could not afford the increased wages.
Again, don’t you dems believe it’s rather communistic to not allow employees to have secret ballots?
Perhaps you should research how the public card check is to be used. How about door to door with a thug watching you sign or not sign the petition. Oh and it takes only 51% to pass.
In previous elections, Dems have either not carried or carried only 1 or 2 states that have “right to work” laws. The unions believe if they can organize in these states, they can use intimidation to turn the state Blue.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Anyway, Hate-filled Frankin needs to find another job as he will not be the Senator from Minnesota.
Hey, lefties, keep nominating these insane people.It costs less to defeat them!
August 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
“Since the law will only change the secret ballot when a public card check is initiated, why are Norm Coleman and Wal Mart worried about giving workers an ADDITIONAL way to indicate their support for unionization?”
You’re right, the law does eliminate the private ballot and replaces it with the public check card.
Where your wrong is in the idea that it creates any “additional” means to unionize.
The current law does not mandate a private ballot, but it presents that option. EFCA removes that option.
If they want to use a secret ballot, under EFCA, they CANNOT, after the public cards are signed.
Quit lying Leroy.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:56 am
“And since you claim employers don’t harass, threaten and intimidate, then there should be no problem with allowing it to stay as the primary option, and allow card check in cases where threats and intimidation from the employer require a more open process.”
Interestingly, the public card check opens up employees to intimidation not just from the union thugs who will intimidate them, but it does also make their preference public… creating MORE opportunity for employers to do the same — if you really believe that happens.
Quit lying Leroy.
The only “open process” is the private ballot. It protects workers from intimidation from anyone.
But Al Franken and his pals in the unions and organized crime don’t care for voting rights.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:21 am
So if the EFCA is so good..
Why did our local President and our steward e-mail us to contact our national union and have them scrap the notion since it took away our rights?
August 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Chestnut-
When you are right, you are right. When 51 percent of workers vote publicly to unionize, the union is formed, and the secret ballot is no longer an option.
Similarly, when George Bush was elected president four years ago, he stripped me of the opportunity to vote AGAIN on the matter, and just pretended like getting the majority of the vote was enough of a reason for him to stay in office. But I wanted to vote every month until I got the outcome I desired. George Bush took away that right.
It seems George Bush is ALSO against the secret ballot.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Leroy, George aWol Bush stole that election fair ‘n square. No need to talk about that travesty anymore; as Boy Blunder himself would say, “that’s water over the bridge.”
August 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Leroy and Tommy are holding a competition for who can write the most idiotic comment.
My bet is that it goes right down to the wire. But Tommy will win by a Cheeto
August 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Folks – let’s tone down the comments.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
The best way to inspire civility is to invite honest debate.
This site seems unwilling to seek either.