That's kind of odd coming from someone who represents a "right to work" state.

Americans for Prosperity recently shook their finger at Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth for her vote on a bill to allow union representatives to collect signatures to form a union without a secret ballot.

In other words, they're going to know exactly who might have voted yes and no - leaving hard feelings for the worker from either the employer for saying yes, or the union for saying no.

Representative Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) votes to support H.R. 800 card-check procedure which would force workers to accept unions they don’t want.

Under current law an employer can request a federally supervised secret ballot for workers to decide if they want to unionize. The current system allows both unions and workers to present both sides of the debate and allows workers to weigh the merits of each argument while protecting workers' privacy with secret ballots.

H.R. 800 would allow unions to organize via so-called “card check” campaigns, in which union representatives can collect signatures to form a union without any privacy protections.

AFP State Director Duane Sand said "I am disappointed that in a Right to Work state like South Dakota that Rep. Herseth would vote to eliminate secret ballots for workers. Secret ballots are necessary for workers to freely determine if they want to unionize without fear of intimidation."

Recent polls show workers favor the current system. A recent McLaughlin poll found that 89 percent of the general public prefers the current system of private ballots to the card-check procedure.

A Zogby poll found that 78 percent of union members prefer the current law to a system with fewer privacy protections in place for workers.

"Instead of siding with free market principles, unions looked to Congress to fix the game in their favor and Rep. Herseth went along with the idea. In the meantime, South Dakota workers will lose privacy and could be forced into unionization without privacy protections," said Sand.

If you want to find out more about the whole measure, the National Review did an article on the measure, which you can read here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
And this from a representative of the party that supposedly care most for the little guy! This vote I'll remember when she is up for re-election! And I hope others do too.
Anonymous said…
What they didn’t tell you in this press release is that during those ‘secret elections’ if an employee doesn’t vote they count that as an automatic no. There is almost nothing secret about this and in principal it is very un-democratic. Herseth was right to try and change the system. I too will remember how she voted to support the working man.
Anonymous said…
Two sides to the secret ballot issue.

Everybody knows that employers do their share of intimidating right up until it's time to cast your secret ballot. The signature method bypasses the employers' opportunity to intimidate.
Anonymous said…
I say let's get back to the good old days of union proliferation. Then unions can do for every industry what they've done for the automotive industry.
Anonymous said…
I have not read all the article and i have not read all the post BUT,

You people knew this day would come and who else do you think is putting money in her pocket...the UNIONS. No Brainer

Yes, people need to be looked aftercared about in the work place but, where do you suppose all the money really goes that people pay in dues.

This stinks and will place the wroker at risk in more ways than one.
Anonymous said…
Yea, aren't the US automakers going broke. Governmental bailouts.
Anonymous said…
Businesses have had a stacked deck for a long time. In an election to unionize, people who don't vote are counted as "no" votes instead of just not being counted. And being a secret ballot, nobody would know who voted and who did not.

Imagine if we ran all of our ballot issues that way and people who chose not to vote were counted anyway. Nothing would pass, would it? If you're against a measure, you might like a system stacked against anything passing. But when you're on the other side, it's no good.

The new law just levels the playing field. Those who show up get to be in the ballgame. Those who don't show up get exactly as much say in the issue as they want - none.
Anonymous said…
The reason why H.R. 800 is a bad bill is because the bill changes the current law which states that a secret ballot must be used to form a union.

If there is no secret ballot workers could be singled out for refusing to sign the card to form a union.
Anonymous said…
Unions are VERY HEAVY handed!

As a college student in a non right to work state (MN) some years back I whined about my first check after union dues were taken out - yes dues were over half of my check! And I was only working for 10 weeks at just slightly above minimum wage.

The union steward and his goons met me out back that night after work and warned me to never say a bad thing again about the union if I knew what was good for me.

I learned early in life that unions are about intimidation and bullying. Secret ballots are a good thing or this intimidation will be encouraged. In a right to work State, Herseth's vote was inappropriate.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over