« FAIL: TEAM FRANKEN’S EMBEDDED BLOGGER AT MN PUBLIUS TRIES TO AMBUSH COLEMAN ON MPR | Home | MCCOLLUM REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IF DEBATE IS TELEVISED ON BROADCAST TV »
FRANKEN AND DFL PARTY CHAIR SKIP DEBATE ON EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT
By Michael B. Brodkorb | October 13, 2008
Minnesotans for Employee Freedom invited Al Franken and/or DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez to room 125 of the State Capitol to debate the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. As of 1:08 p.m., neither Franken nor Melendez have shown up for the debate. I’m at the event and I’ll let you know if anyone shows up for the scheduled debate.
UPDATE: I don’t think folks are going to wait around much longer. Team Franken and the DFL didn’t event send a representative. Why are they afraid to debate the EFCA?
Topics: Uncategorized | 60 Comments »
60 Responses to “FRANKEN AND DFL PARTY CHAIR SKIP DEBATE ON EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Funny stunt. The campaigns already agreed to their five debates. Hope you enjoy your time at the capitol.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
ROFLMAO!!!
So, Michael – you actually showed up for that??!?
ROFLMAO!!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Aaron: This isn’t a campaign debate between the three campaigns…this actually isn’t a partisan issue. Why wouldn’t Franken nor the DFL even send a representative? Seems like they are afraid of a debate about a non-partisan issue.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Tommy-
Well, his blogger/radio host buddy King also just happens to be a spokesperson for the anti-EFCA group holding the faux debate stunt.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Maybe Franken could at least offer a rebuttal to Sen George McGovern’s anti-EFCA ad.
Or, with all the money that unions are funneling into the Madia campaign, Ashwipe could try to explain why the secret ballot is a bad thing.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Micahel – if MoveOn.org hosted a “debate”, and mailed Kline an invite, think he’d show up??!?
Michael – this was a stunt; and one that wasted your time.
But, I appreciate the laugh!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Non partisan….yeh, right. Let’s see, the Chamber of Commerce is against it because they want to continue to stiffle workers organizing and prevent unions from representing workers. We know you all hate unions, but let’s remember who’s responsible for the 5 day 40 hour work week and retirement benefits, etc. The unions are for middle class Americans and the GOP has never supported them, but go ahead and continue to tell your right wing agenda about how it takes away the worker’s right to a secret ballot…NOT!
October 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Franken and gang are backed into a corner on this one. There’s really no way to stand in front of people and tell them that you want to destroy their right to a private ballot and expose them to endless harassment and violence by union thugs.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Nut- Um, the debate is over. Especially the end of this video. Damn.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“…backed into a corner…”
While DFLers are heavily involved in GOTV, ‘Cons are staging stunts like this!!!
Way to prioritize scarce campaign resources, GOP!!!
Next thing ya know, the GOP will be wasting more money by sending a pitch for dough to me – AGAIN!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Aaron, dip shit, um… you can create all the propaganda you want to, but the EFCA has only one purpose — to eliminate the private ballot in union efforts and expose workers to threats and violence from union thugs if they refuse to join the union.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
At the point in time when radical liberal socialist George McGovern sides with pro-capitalists to fight new rules that eliminate Democracy in the work place, you know you’re on the wrong side, Aaron… you dumb s.o.b.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“While DFLers are heavily involved in GOTV, ‘Cons are staging stunts like this!!!”
Tearing up lawn signs is what you DFLers consider “GOTV” activities?
Huh.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Three comments in a row, nut!
October 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Okay folks simple question:
Why do you support a law that doesn’t allow a person to step into a private booth and cast a ballot for or against a union. The reason why the unions want this is because they want to know who supported or who opposed the union.
More importantly it’s get the union created before the people who might not want an union get their say and a chance to campaign against it. If I should sign a card my card will be counted even if I later change my mind.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
October 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
A perfect example of why Franken does not represent middle America. If it weren’t for his Hollyweird creepy supporters, and far-left fringe of Minnesotans he would be grasping for straws. His terrible performance at the debate and his ducking the issue on why he supports eliminating the secret ballot are just more examples of why he will be living in his new home on Martha’s Vineyard full time and jet-hopping to his SNL gig with his campaign chestful of money after November.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
For all the same reasons I’ve stated again and again, you people are all idiots. The EFCA does not strip anyone of a secret ballot. Workers can choose to have a secret ballot if they want.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“The EFCA does not strip anyone of a secret ballot.”
Yes it does.
“Workers can choose to have a secret ballot if they want.”
No they cannot, and especially after the union threatens and harasses 50 percent +1 to sign their card.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Even the radical socialist, George McGovern recognizes the anti-democratic intent of EFCA. Even he recognizes that it is a bad thing to eliminate anyone’s right to a vote about issues concerning their livelihood.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Plymouth
QUIT LYING!!! The bill allows the union to be counted if 50% plus sign a card. The board doesn’t have to call for an election!
SO QUIT LYING!!!!!
And if it’s such a good idea why is that famous liberal George Mcgovern opposed to it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
October 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Walter,
You are the leaders of the idiots. Yes, if a majority of workers want a union, surprise, they get one.
If workers, however, want a secret ballot, hell, if less than a majority want a union on card check, guess what you get Walter? What is it, go ahead and say it… a secret ballot.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Between EFCA and ACORN, one has to wonder why liberals are so intent to destroy the democratic process.
Where they aren’t outright committed to stripping the right to vote, they’re engaged in activities intended to defraud election results.
It’s clear that liberals truly hate democracy.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“Yes, if a majority of workers want a union, surprise, they get one.”
This is just fine, but under EFCA, those workers have no right to declare their intent in anything other than a public process that subjects them to union harassment and violence.
“If workers, however, want a secret ballot, hell, if less than a majority want a union on card check, guess what you get Walter? What is it, go ahead and say it… a secret ballot.”
This statement not only confusing, it is a lie.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Plymouth:
* You don’t have a guarentee that if somebody is organzing an union that my signature is geniue. Somebody could sign my name on a card without my knowing about it. Yet it would count as a yes vote.
* You get people to show up to get them to sign the card and put pressure on them. There are people who do this.
And Plymouth you’re forgetting the spirit of the secret ballot. The union doesn’t know if I voted yes or no. Counting the cards without that secret ballot the union knows who voted yes and who voted no.
So if 50% of the people will support the union by signing the card they will support the union in the secret election. The point of this law is that the union can get people to sign cards, but than lose the secret ballot because the people who oppose the union have had their say in telling people why it’s not wise. Or are you also against freedom of speech?
That’s why George McGovern a liberal saw the light like he did on other issues when he tried to run his own business.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
October 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“This is just fine, but under EFCA, those workers have no right to declare their intent in anything other than a public process that subjects them to union harassment and violence.”
What crap. They can refuse to sign the card either way. And, a majority of workers can say “let’s take this to the secret ballot box.”
Face it, absent a majority of people saying they want a union and they want it now, workers have access to a secret ballot.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Let’s dissect that confusing statement:
““If workers, however, want a secret ballot, hell, if less than a majority want a union on card check,”
Mouth is partially correct in saying that there technically can be a private vote. If less than a majority sign their union cards, there can be a private vote. However, under EFCA, this will never happen, because the union will never submit its union cards unless they have harrassed and threatened the simple majority into signing them.
Once this has happened, under EFCA, there is no re-course. And under EFCA, workers have NO RIGHT to a ballot where they can privately declare their intentions with regard to the union question.
MouthDem is severely dishonest in this discussion. Severely dishonest.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“* You don’t have a guarentee that if somebody is organzing an union that my signature is geniue. Somebody could sign my name on a card without my knowing about it. Yet it would count as a yes vote.”
Bull shit, the board needs to authenticate any signatures on the cards. You can’t just fake signatures, I think people would figure out if they didn’t actually sign a ballot.
“* You get people to show up to get them to sign the card and put pressure on them. There are people who do this”
Again, complete fluff. You can have intimidation at any point in the process. You can get intimidation in the process for actually initiating the secret ballot. Your crap about the poor workers are going to be scared by union bosses is crap. A worker is not going to submit to a union unless they want a union.
“And Plymouth you’re forgetting the spirit of the secret ballot. The union doesn’t know if I voted yes or no. Counting the cards without that secret ballot the union knows who voted yes and who voted no.”
Again, complete crap. Guess what, they’ll know if you were willing to sign up to be the 40% willing to initiate a ballot in the status quo as well.
“George McGovern”
This is such a dumb talking point. Who the hell cares what he said? He’s just a big of an idiot as you because he can’t read the legislation. So, if I can find one whack job conservative that says he’s not voting for McCain you are going to vote for Obama? That’s the logic you’re trying to peddle.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“They can refuse to sign the card either way.”
Depends on how much they like their knees. Depends on how much they want to replace the windows in their car and house. It depends on whether or not they have children whose safety is a consideration.
“And, a majority of workers can say “let’s take this to the secret ballot box.—
But that will never happen, because the union will never advance the organizing effort until they’ve threatened and harassed employees into signing their cards.
Face it, EFCA is about eliminating any chance that employees can voice their conscience. Face it, liberals hate democracy and democratic processes.
If the majority REALLY wanted the union, then the current process is good enough. The only intent of the EFCA is to eliminate individuals right to privately voice their consicnece.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“Again, complete crap. Guess what, they’ll know if you were willing to sign up to be the 40% willing to initiate a ballot in the status quo as well.”
Yeah, well… the thing is… without EFCA, there’s no petition to force the secret ballot. So here again, EFCA subjugates employees to threats and violence from union thugs.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Between ACORN and EFCA, one has to wonder why liberals are so intent to destroy the democratic process.
Where they aren’t outright committed to stripping the right to vote, they’re engaged in activities intended to defraud election results.
It’s clear that liberals truly hate democracy.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“under EFCA, this will never happen, because the union will never submit its union cards unless they have harrassed and threatened the simple majority into signing them.”
Again, complete B.S. Under the current law and the ECFA “an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees” want to unionize an election is triggered. A union is not the only organization that can decide whether and when a secret ballot will commence.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
The reason unions want to eliminate the private ballot is because fewer and fewer employees are choosing to unionize. EFCA eliminates not just the right to vote, EFCA eliminates the risk that employees can say no.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“Under the current law and the ECFA “an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees†want to unionize an election is triggered. A union is not the only organization that can decide whether and when a secret ballot will commence.”
You’re a pretty good liar, Mouth. The current law says no such thing. In fact, under the current law, employees have a right to forgo the private ballot. There is no automatic triggering of anything.
And under EFCA, no election is triggered upon receipt of the union cards.
Your a goddam liar, Mouth. A severely dishonest liar.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
EFCA serves only to eliminate employees right to declare their intentions with regard to the union question, in private. EFCA serves only to subjugate employees to threats and harassment by union thugs.
EFCA is unnecessary, anti-democratic and wrong.
There is no defense for anyone’s support of EFCA, other than that they hate democratic processes and that they wish to deny workers the right to privacy.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Plymouth:
Oh so the commission is going to send people to the DEF company for example and ask each person if they actually signed a card and they did it with nobody pressuring them? No they will just count the cards and see if there is a signature. So Plymouth Dem can sign my card and I might not even know until after the union was formed that I voted for the union when I never signed a card. They won’t care just like ACRON doesn’t care that Terrell Owens, Tony Romo, Pacman Jones, and the rest of the Dallas Cowboy decided to register to vote in Nevada.
Since the union can sign Walter Hanson or Plymouth Dem and submit it without it being properly checked that’s why the union wants it. Because when there is that secret ballot election which they are trying to bypass it’s an honest vote.
What do you have against a “100%” honest vote to form the union. I’m the member of a union and I want it to be a “100%” honest vote.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
October 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
It’s clear that liberals truly hate democracy.
Their favorite color is brown. They like to sling a lot of stuff that color. They also enjoy this color as their favorite color of shirt.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Average Dipshit, make up your (cheney)in’ mind, ya dumb(cheney).
October 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Average Dipshit, make up your (cheney)in’ mind, ya dumb(cheney).
Must have hit the nail on the head to get a response like that.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I love this stunt. Really. First, it’s easy to say someone skipped a debate when you don’t invite them. In fact, Cullen Sheehan skipped a debate with me this morning about the privatization of social security.
Also, how were they going to debate with one podium? HUM. So how many people attended there… Yeah. Nice crop on that photo.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Here is the relevant portion (again, since you people can’t read I’ll have to explain it again as well)
(1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board –
(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in subsection (a) of this section, or (ii) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in subsection (a) of this section; or
(B) by an employer, alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in subsection (a) of this section;
the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.
———
So, an individual (or group, or union, or whoever) but certainly not limited to the union can file a petition that alleges that a substantial number of individuals at a company want to unionize. The board must investigate the claim and hold a hearing if it looks credible. If it finds the claim credible, they MUST (that’s what SHALL means) hold a secret ballot. Nothing in this provision goes away under the EFCA.
So, Chestnut, you’re dumb. A union cannot block employees from triggering a secret ballot.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Average Dipshit, you republiCons have been callin’ us commies on this thread; then along comes a no-brain bootlicker like you tryin’ to be cute and infer we’re Nazi’s.
What a stupid (cheney) you are.
But on the bright side, you’re the GOPer base – which of course explains why the GOP is getting spanked and the GOP “brand” is below the rim.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
That’s great Mouth, but the FACT is, employees and the employer can forgo the private ballot under current law.
Beyond that, EFCA does nothing to improve the process for employees. EFCA only serves to eliminate the private vote. EFCA serves only to subjugate employees to threats and harassment from union thugs.
EFCA serves no other purpose.
Once the union has threatened and harassed enough signatures, it HAS ALREADY BLOCKED ALL OPTIONS OF A SECRET BALLOT.
So Mouth, you are dumb and severely dishonest.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“A union cannot block employees from triggering a secret ballot.”
Bullshit. Once the union threatens and harasses enough signatures, EFCA has already blocked the private vote.
EFCA exists only for that purpose… to eliminate the private vote.
You’re so fucking stupid and dishonest, MouthDem, it’s unbelievable that you work for a law firm.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
If the union goons weren’t afraid of people voting their conscience, they would insist on a secret ballot. But…
October 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
This is from the site AMERICAN RIGHTS AT WORK http://www.americanrightsatwork.org
What is the Employee Freedom Action Committee?
EFAC is a new anti-union front group that attacks Congressional candidates who support the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for workers to form unions. Behind the scenes, the group is a corporate-funded campaign against workers’ rights.
Though it often purports to be “pro-worker,” or at least “not anti-union,” EFAC serves no interests but those of anti-union corporations afraid of their employees having a voice at work. EFAC and its allies plan to spend tens of millions of dollars into early 2009 in attempts to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act.
What does the Employee Freedom Action Committee do?
EFAC established itself in several states with contested Congressional campaigns; in addition to a national 501(c)(4) group, EFAC created at least a dozen shallow state-based spinoffs to appear as localized groups. Its apparent intent is to prevent the election of candidates who would vote for the Employee Free Choice Act in the next Congress.
Armed deceptive print and radio ads and aggressive associates who track candidates with video cameras, Berman’s EFAC aims to kick up dust in political races at the behest of anonymous anti-union corporations. EFAC targets races and attacks candidates it wants to portray as vulnerable on workers’ rights issues. EFAC does not air its own ads on television, as its 501(c)(3) arm, the Center for Union Facts, puts up general anti-union advertising on TV almost everywhere EFAC goes.
Why is the Employee Freedom Action Committee wrong?
EFAC’s main line of attack – that the Employee Free Choice Act somehow takes away so-called “secret ballot” elections for joining a union – is blatantly false. The Employee Free Choice Act not only strengthens the current process for workers forming unions, but also provides for a more fair and democratic method for men and women to join unions.
Local media outlets in Berman’s target states have done well in exposing the lies of his out-of-state interference campaigns. A Minnesota publication called EFAC “fake,†and its ads “smears,†while an Oregon paper did its homework and said the group attempts to “mislead voters.â€
EFAC has also attempted to claim that the majority sign-up process would open the door to union coercion and intimidation. However, exactly the opposite is true: workers in NLRB elections are twice as likely (46 percent vs. 23 percent) as those in majority sign-up campaigns to report that management coerced them to oppose the union. Further, less than one in 20 workers (4.6 percent) who signed a card with a union organizer reported that the presence of the organizer made them feel pressured to sign the card.
In Minnesota, the state’s Democrat-Farmer-Labor party filed a formal complaint against EFAC’s ads that suggest the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates “secret ballot” elections to form unions. The party asserts that EFAC’s ads break Minnesota law that prohibits “spreading false information.”
Who funds the Employee Freedom Action Committee?
As with all of Berman’s front groups, EFAC refuses to disclose its funding sources. But in discussing his first anti-union campaign in 2005, Berman was blunt, acknowledging that “All of my clients are corporations.†United Press International noted that “the group’s spokesman refused to release the names of its donors or say where its funding came from.”
At the first group’s inception Berman said that he had raised about $5 million “from companies, trade organizations and individuals,” whom he declined to identify.
Where is the Employee Freedom Action Committee active?
EFAC has thrown itself into a number of races in the 2008 election cycle, setting up state-based front groups for a local facade. EFAC and its entities have attacked these candidates for supporting the Employee Free Choice Act: [listed is Al Franken and Ashwin Madia]
October 13th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Bustnuts,
Nice try backing away from your ridiculous previous position when presented with the facts.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
What a stupid (cheney) you are.
Do you wear fashionable brown shirts, or do you stick with the plain UPS-like button down?
Commies, Nazi’s – you crazies are all cut from the same freedom-hating cloth (brown, of course).
October 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Average Dipshit, why do you hate America, you bootlickin’ lemming?
October 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
MouthDem,
The fact is that EFCA eliminates workers’ right to a private ballot. Nothing you’ve said counters that fact.
Under current law, employees can forgo the secret ballot. Under EFCA, that choice is made for them.
EFCA is bad law, and is indefensible, except by those who wish to subjugate employees to threats, violence and harassment by union thugs.
I’ve backed down from nothing. And you’ve given no reason to believe that EFCA is anything other than anti-democratic, anti-worker garbage.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Plymouth Dem:
Look who’s talking. I asked you do want a 100% honest election and you refused to answer. The only way to have a 100% honest election is the secret ballot which the union is trying to stop from happening.
Oh you don’t care about honest elections. It figures!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
October 13th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
PlymouthDem:
Since you are obviously having a hard time understanding this, I will help you out.
Under current law, if my coworkers and I are coerced into signing a “check card”, a secret ballot is still held to determine if we actually do want to form a union.
Under the EFCA, if my coworkers and I are coerced into signing a “check card”, a union is formed, regardless of our actual wishes.
Most workers think that would be bad. Why don’t you?
October 13th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
” Look who’s talking. I asked you do want a 100% honest election and you refused to answer. The only way to have a 100% honest election is the secret ballot which the union is trying to stop from happening.”
What crap.
If a company has 40 employees, and 21 of them get together and say, let’s unionize with no involvement of an outside union, you get to unionize under the EFCA without all of the extra hurdles under the current law. How again was there any coercion there?
I understand you think the Sopranos are real, but, in reality, the risk of coercion is non-existent, and, where it exists, it permeates the secret ballot just the same.
Face it, there is one reason that republicans are so hot to trot on this issue and it has NOTHING to do with protecting workers. It has to do with making it more difficult for workers to unionize.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Troy,
Let me help you out. If one person, ONE PERSON, petitions the board alleging a substantial number of people want to unionize, they can trigger a secret ballot.
The reality is that if workers want a secret ballot, if they really fear coercion, they can request it.
The secret ballot goes nowhere under the EFCA. It’s clear, however, that republicans are too stupid to understand this simple fact.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“Under current law, employees can forgo the secret ballot. Under EFCA, that choice is made for them.”
Again, total crap. The choice is only made for them if a majority of them make the choice to do so.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
If a company has 40 employees, and 17 of them get together and say, let’s unionize, all they need to do is intimidate 4 of their co-workers into signing union cards before they can force their will on everyone else without recourse.
EFCA allows that. Whereas under current law, they can still intimidate the four co-workers, but there’s recourse via a private ballot.
Unions, through EFCA, are working to eliminate that right.
Funny thing is, EFCA is unnecessary, because EMPLOYEES CAN CURRENTLY FORM A UNION USING THE CHECK-CARD METHOD, AND THEY VOLUNTARILY FORGO AN ELECTION.
EFCA creates ZERO new ways to unionize. EFCA only ELIMINATES the private vote.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“The reality is that if workers want a secret ballot, if they really fear coercion, they can request it.”
Under current law, yes. Under EFCA, no.
After the simple majority is coerced into signing their PUBLIC check card, there is no secret ballot no matter if 75 percent of employees want one.
EFCA only exists to eliminate workers right to a secret ballot. That is the only function EFCA serves. It offers NO new methods to unionize. EFCA only strips employees of recourse from coercion.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
“The choice is only made for them if a majority of them make the choice to do so.”
And when the majority “chooses” to do so under threats of violence by union thugs.
You’re so fucking stupid MouthDem, it’s unbelievable. Hard to believe you work for a law firm.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
PlyDim, George McGovern would like to slap your lying, punk-ass to the floor.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Eighty-eight percent of workers reject unions, and those ranks, particularly in the private sector, are growing. The only place union membership is sustaining or growing is in government work.
When workers have a chance to vote their conscience regarding union membership, they vote no. So “Big Labor” and Democrats concocted EFCA to ensure workers don’t ever get the opportunity to make that choice ever again.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Norm Coleman has sold top secret nuclear weapons technology to the Iranians, Al Queda and Donald Trump.
(Since Walter, Average Joe, Swiftee and Chestnut have declared through their actions that truth is no longer required to post anything on this site, I stand firmly behind the above statement).