Card check

There seems to be a problem with military absentee votes in Fairfax, Virginia. From A Soldier's Perspective:

The Fairfax County Registrar—and possibly other Registrars in Virginia—is rejecting most Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB) cast by our men and women in uniform.

The FWAB is a federally mandated write-in ballot that allows military servicemembers and their dependents to cast an absentee ballot when they have not received a ballot before the election. It is a safety net that allows a servicemember to vote even if the mail truck hasn't reached his or her remote base in Iraq or Afghanistan in time to cast a regular absentee ballot.

I have talked to several people involved in this process. They are not in fact, yet, rejecting the absentee ballots. They have not been counted and are picking a procedure for doing it. And the current procedure would result in rejecting military absentees.

The basic idea is that if military voters do not get their absentee ballots in time, they can fill out a "Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot" that all election officials are required by federal law to accept. Virgina's instructions are here. The ballot is here.

The position of the Fairfax Registrar is that the sealed (outside) envelope has to be witnessed. The thing is that there is no location to witness, and the instructions are unclear.

Furthermore, this is in violation of the US law, which pre-empts in this case. ASP continues:

Federal law does not allow this type of disparate treatment of servicemembers. The Uniform and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (UOCAVA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff-2, requires states to process FWABs "in the manner provided by law for absentee ballots in the State involved." (emphasis added). In other words, the FWAB must be treated like any other absentee ballot under state law and may not be subject to more restrictive requirements. Yet that is precisely what is being done here.

No other kind of absentee ballots are required to be witnessed in Virginia. So the county registrar is improperly implementing federal law and "suppressing" the military vote.

Two final points:

First, I look forward to the squealing from the lefty groups. Somehow, I predict silence.

Second, there was a solution to these problems proposed earlier. Rep. Kevin McCarthy introduced HR 5673 to expedite the delivery of military absentee ballots. The unions opposed. Here was the operative bit, where they complain about the private sector:

NAPUS is deeply concerned about HR 5673, particularly the provision that sanctions private contractor conveyance of overseas and military ballots.

When the unions opposed the measure, all actions stopped in the House. Nancy Pelosi and Chairman Robert Brady (also chairman of that pristine Philadelphia Democratic Party, whose Secretary has been convicted multiple times of violating election laws) didn't seem to care about preserving voting rights. Somehow, putting unions ahead of voting rights will be a pattern in the Democratic House.

There will be many sad and deplorable stories to come out of this bailout farce. One of them has been the brazen opportunism of the Labor Unions. The magnanimous bailout proposal from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was, in fact, just a rent-seeking wish list.   Take this proposal, for instance:

An Economy That Works for Everyone

Following the longest period of wage stagnation in American history, we are in an era of historic income inequality. Between 1980 and 2004 CEO pay went up 700% -- but American workers’ wages saw little change.

By enacting The Employee Free Choice Act at no cost to taxpayers, government has the opportunity to set a framework for the private sector to ensure we have an economy that works for everyone—not just those at the top. American workers should have the chance to freely choose whether to join together in a union at their workplace so they gain a voice on the job, wages that support a family, and better benefits.

Never mind that the "wage stagnation" is largely a myth (among many other things, wages are only one part of total compensation). The Employee Free Choice Act (aka: Card Check) isn't about "free choice", it is about lower barriers for Union organizers. It is far easier for them to pressure people, on the spot, to sign a card than it is to persuade workers to sign a secret ballot.

You might expect that the SEIU would lobby to tilt the playing field to their advantage, but the really shocking thing is this: the SEIU claimed removing the secret ballot would cost $0.00.

Of course, we know what they really mean: it won’t cost the government anything; the costs of this regulation would come out of someone else’s hide.

That is a bailout alright, but it had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage problem. It was a cynical ploy to get the government to bail out the increasingly desperate unions.

One month ago today, the Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece pointing out that the ironically-named Employee Free Choice Act actually makes it “more difficult for [Americans] not to join a union,” while states that resist this kind of regulation have higher growth in per-capita income, higher rates of job creation and lower unemployment.

This is far from an exception for the Unions.  Their ongoing lobbying for "green collar jobs" - which are generally just existing jobs that have been reclassified to benefit Unions - is a farce, as well;  the Texas Workforce Commission pointed out the many ways that is a charade in a recent report.

Unfortunately, Unions see their opportunity to conscript Americans workers and manipulate jobs into Union hands.  They know the stakes in 2008; that is why they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect their stooges.  The cost of this will not be $0.00.

The logic of interest groups sometimes escapes reason. They often issue endorsements based on scored votes. They have to do that. But they shoot themselves in the foot. Jon has written about this with Don Young and Americans for Tax Reform. Certainly ATR has redeemed itself with the "rats head in a Coke bottle". But still, in a 150 vote House race, which AK-AL turned in to, that ATR award might have made the difference, giving us a venal Democrat over a good reformist Republican.

Well, the Chamber of Commerce is doing it too. In Louisana, they endorsed Mary Landreiu over proven vote-winner State Treasurer John Kennedy. She empowers union thugs. She voted for card-check, the "Employee Free Choice Act." But get this. According to the Chamber's CEO, defeating card-check is their highest priority:

"The main thing is that we want to keep enough people in the Senate to maintain the filibuster," he said.

They want 40 people. But they endorse someone for it who is running against someone against it. John Kennedy can actually win this race, if he gets some support.

But righty groups play defense for his corrupt opponent.  Corrupt? Where did that come from. Today, CREW, an unimpeachably lefty organization, declared Mary Landreiu one of the "most corrupt members of Congress". Why?

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is a second-term senator from Louisiana.  Her ethics issues stem from inserting an earmark into an appropriations bill to benefit a large campaign donor.

Just like ATR, acting totally rationally, may have delivered us a venal Alaskan Democrat, the Chamber may have delivered us an economy-crippling card-check bill by backing a corrupt politician who votes against them when it counts.

Thanks guys.

A friend of mine is on the bus that is hown in the linked video:

http://www.wgme.com/News/story_detail/story_detail_8.shtml?readmore

.  Here is what he reports:

 Hi all.  I just came from a press conference held by the US Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the Maine State Chamber of Commerce.  It was held in Portland and dealt with the EFCA.  I spoke on behalf of ABC Maine and also got in a few words about FEA.  After the news conference we went on the US Chambers special bus to Monument Square in the center of Portland.  There were at least 75 union members holding a protest rally against the Chamber and in support of the EFCA.  The interesting thing is the protest was organized by the Maine Democratic Party.  There were about 15 of us on the bus and nobody wanted to get off so I led the way.  We were heckled, swore at, and called some names.  One of the young ladies from the chamber tried to set up some tables and put leaflets and information on it and the protesters kicked the tables over on the lady who was not hurt.  We then were interviewed by ABC, NBC, and CBS about the EFCA.  With the noise in the background I pointed out to the media that this protest is exactly why businesses have to work to defeat this bill.  When you disagree with organized labor they resort to bullying, intimidation, and peer pressure.  Why would any business want to subject there employees to that type of intimidation and bullying that was going on right across the street.  I will send you the clip once I get it.  They looked like morons which they are.

I sure am glad that  Maine's union workers, as few as they are, have the time to take out of their busy work days to go do a good ol' fashioned protest! 

No wait, I know, they are so productive that they actually sped up the line and finished early!  I didn't see them wearing all of their mandatory protective gear or properly warming up to avoid 'ergonomic' injuries either.  Somebody file a grievance.  You can find the shop steward asleep in the parking lot....making time and a half.

In a piece available as of Friday (August 8), liberal former Democratic presidential nominee (1972) and U.S. Senator (South Dakota) George McGovern weighs in on a proposal before the adjouned Congress to change various rules regarding the governance of labor unions. Interestingly, however, the former senator opposes the measure about which both Mr. Henke and Mr. Dayton have written and likewise oppose as presented. Perhaps this is an issue which Republican candidates in congressional races should address more generally as the autumn campaign season approaches.

Recently, Soren Dayton said we should be very wried about Democratic attempts to tilt the playing field to benefit Unions - e.g., the Card Check (Employee Free Choice Act) legislation. that would give Unions more (coercive) power to lock in workers and much more political power, as a result.  Ezra Klein, on the other hand, thinks Dayton's is "the best argument you'll ever read for Card Check" and adds "If I were the union movement, I would be sending this blog post to every Democrat in the country."

In light of the Democrat's obvious commitment to "Employee Free Choice", I'd like to make an offer in two parts:

1. Bring back Card Check legislation, which allows a Union to be created immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards in support of unionization.
2. But make it real employee free choice by allowing a Union to be decertified immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards opposing an existing Union.
3. For bonus points, let's also stipulate that an Employee Free Choice Act should give each employee a free choice about membership in a Union, and no employee can be forced to join (or leave) a Union against his will.

It's a good deal.  It's a fair deal.  It's the workplace democracy that Democrats tell us they really want.  What's not to like about it?   I think we can come to a deal.**

What say you, Democrats?

**...unless, of course, Democrats decide that reciprocity isn't they had in mind, and the Employee Free Choice Act suddenly includes a bit too much employee freedom.

I have been meaning to write about this for a while, but just haven't gotten to it. One of the more politically frightening things that I have read recently was Todd Beeton's write up of SEIU's Secretary-Treasuer Anna Burger's speech to the SEIU convention in Puerto Rico two weeks ago. I can't find the text of the speech anywhere, but Todd has excerpts. It focused on "Card Check" or the "Employee Free Choice Act" which would end the use of secret ballots in the votes to unionize shops. From Beeton:

And the key reason it is so important:

It is the fuel -- the opening -- for SEIU to change our growth curve from 100,000 to a million or more workers a year.

Which ought to be enough to scare anyone. More union members means more union dues spent on politics. It is clear that the unions get this incremental approach.  Read on after the jump.