Herman Cain - Unions
Summary
Herman Cain strongly opposes the Employee Free Choice Act, and has written numerous articles expressing his belief that the legislation is nothing more than payback to unions by Democrats. He has stated that the legislation itself is unconstitutional as it removes the right of a secret ballot. He notes that such legislation would make widespread intimidation the norm as union officials would be checking the votes of every potential union member.
Employee Free Choice Act
In November of 2008, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the Employee Free Choice Act and the Fairness Doctrine.
November 24, 2008
Employee Free Choice? Fairness Doctrine? Most Absurd Names EverThe “Employee Free Choice Act” is an insult to anyone with an IQ greater than zero. Let me get this straight: Take away a worker’s right to cast a secret ballot for labor union elections and that’s free choice. That’s just plain stupid, which is also what the Democratic leaders in Congress think of the voters who elected them.
The union bosses want to replace the secret ballot with a “card check” system, so the union officials can see how people voted as they collect the cards. I think that’s called open intimidation, but they probably have a cutesy name for that also.
If a worker votes to not unionize, the union officials would be able to let all the other workers know who voted against unionizing. This would allow pro-union workers to harass other workers on the job until they changed their vote the next time around, or until they quit.
How can it be all right to vote with secret ballots when we vote for public officials, but not when the unions want to unionize a business? How can it be all right for our country to encourage the rest of the world to use secret ballots for their elections, but for the unions be exempt from this practice, which started with the founding of this nation?
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was asked these questions recently on Fox News, and this was his response: “The percentage of union workers has dropped from 25 percent of the workforce to 6 percent of the workforce, because employers have gained too much power.”
I am not making this up.
Sen. Schumer and the Democrats cannot conceive of the fact that maybe a lot of employers are doing something right, and their workers are happy. So they want to increase the power of the unions by intimidating the workers to unionize.
That’s not democracy. That’s communism, except in communism the workers don’t even bother to vote.
Here’s another cutesy gem of Democratic deception. It’s called “The Fairness Doctrine”. A more accurate name would be “The Censorship Doctrine”. The anti-free-speech Democrats believe conservative talk radio has gained too much influence over how the public thinks. Too many people are thinking for themselves with facts and better information, and the Democrats do not like that.
Democrats do not want people to think at all. Just do as they say.
Since the Democrats won the White House and a larger majority in both houses of Congress, one might wonder why they would want to pass these two silencing laws. I offer two possibilities.
First, it is partial payback to the labor unions for their unwavering, consistent and solid support of Democratic candidates at all levels of government. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want to oblige the unions even if the payback stabs the American people in the back.
Second, if the Republicans ever recover from their political crash landing and present state of wandering in the wilderness, then these two stupid bills would make it harder for Republicans to regain control of Congress and the White House.
Therefore, keep the public intimidated, uninformed and in the dark, and the Democrats might be able to keep control indefinitely.
Oh yeah. Don’t forget to throw some manure to the people every once in a while. Just like mushrooms, it helps them to survive in the dark.
What a brilliant strategy with two stupid ideas!
Card Check Fear
On December 15, 2008 Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the Employee Free Choice Act and fear associated with the legislation.
December 15, 2008
No Holiday Cheer, Just ‘Card Check’ FearThis is supposed to be the time of year when writers come up with happy holiday articles. Many writers will succeed, but I did not.
I cannot stop thinking about what might happen after the holidays. President-elect Obama will be sworn in, and we will have a new Congress with a larger majority of Democrats in both chambers of Congress.
That fact in itself is not my nightmare. Their fast track liberal and pro-union agenda is my nightmare. My November 24, 2008 column warned you of the falsely named “Fairness Doctrine” and the “Employee Free Choice Act”.
But I discovered last week that the “Employee Free Choice Act” is worse than most people know. It not only eliminates the secret ballot of employees to determine if a vote to unionize should be held at their place of employment, it eliminates a vote altogether.
The existing “check card” authorizes holding a vote if 30 percent of the workers say yes. The new “check card” legislation authorizes a union with 50 percent plus 1 vote. Remember, no secret ballot.
Very clever, misleading and dishonest!
With the current process, many employees would sign the “card check” to get the union representatives out of their hair, and sometimes literally out of their homes. With the secret ballot, they could then vote no to unionizing.
By eliminating the second step in the process, the union representatives will get a bigger bang for their intimidation buck. As a result, they hope to increase the size of their union membership through intimidation.
Over the last 20 years, the number of union workers in this country has gone from 38 percent to 8 percent of the workforce. Sen. Chuck Schumer and other liberals attribute that decline to too much power by employers.
Employers have the power to create jobs and keep employees happy, but liberals can’t stand happy employees.
During this same week of “Employee Free Choice Act” enlightenment, I attended two corporate Board meetings with some of my CEO peers. I did not even have to raise the subject, but it came up in the course of conversation.
So I asked them what they thought the impact on business in America would be if the “Employee Free Choice Act” passed in Congress.
Unanimously, they predicted that the proposed legislation would be the end to manufacturing and production in the United States of America.
Now, that’s a nightmare!
When I asked why – as if I did not already know the answer – they said it was because they would never build another plant in the USA. Total unionization in America is not competitive with the rest of the world.
The proposed “Employee Free Choice Act” gives excessive opportunity to the unions to intimidate. And it eliminates the opportunity for the employer to present the pros and cons of unionization after the union representatives show up.
So employers, get proactive if you are not already and then talk to your people about the pros and cons of “to unionize or not”.
One of those cons is to shut down the business if they can not accept the union demands, and the workers do not even get a chance to vote on those demands.
No secret ballot and no vote.
That’s my holiday fear.
I will try to come up with some happy holiday cheer next week.
Card Check Unconstitutional
On December 22, 2008 Herman Cain wrote an article stating that Card Check was unconstitutional, but that Democrats were pushing the legislation anyway.
December 22, 2008
‘Employee Free Choice Act’ May Be Unconstitutional, But Dems Will Try AnywayOK! I said last week I would try to find some holiday cheer for this week, after sharing with you the depressing discovery that the union payoff legislation, or “Employee Free Choice Act,” from the Democrats in Congress would eliminate secret ballots and a vote altogether.
Under this proposed legislation, if union organizers can persuade a majority of a company’s employees to sign cards supporting unionization, the union is automatically certified and no vote is taken.
Well I did find some cheer! It is Richard Epstein’s article in the Wall Street Journal last Friday – “The Employee Free Choice Act is Unconstitutional”.
Epstein’s legal analysis is so clearly presented that even a non-lawyer could make a successful argument in court. But that does not mean the Democrats would not try to pass the legislation anyway. They have to be able to show the labor unions they tried, even if it is unconstitutional.
Now back to the bad news. Epstein’s analysis is encouraging and clearly establishes a strong court challenge if the EFCA passes, but imagine how many businesses will be targeted and ruined before the legislation is thrown out in court.
Court challenges can take years. Businesses do not have that long if they are forced to unionize while waiting for the courts to resolve a law that never should have been passed in the first place.
The current economic downturn and financial credit crunch has made the window of survival for many businesses even shorter.
But at least there is hope.
There is hope that enough legislators will wake up and oppose the proposed legislation. This could happen if enough businesses become vocal and apply some heat to their members of Congress.
There is also hope that millions of voters will become vocal against this proposed legislation. Voters are the workers who will be most impacted with job losses, while the union representatives move on to destroy the next business.
Many Democrats have for years blamed the exodus of jobs from this country on greedy corporations and stockholders. They are consistently in denial that the two biggest causes are non-competitive corporate tax rates and non-competitive union demands.
All we have to do is look at the current situation with the U.S. automakers who are struggling for their economic survival.
Earth to liberals! We are in a global economy!
With an increased majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress, it is unlikely that corporate tax rates will be reduced anytime soon. Nor is it likely that the Democrats will acknowledge the senselessness of allowing the current tax rates to expire at the end of 2010.
So let’s put a death nail in the U.S. economy with forced unionization and unreasonable union demands with an unconstitutional law.
Now that’s change we can believe in, it’s just going to be faster.
Let’s hope that I am dead wrong.
Oh, I almost forgot! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, while it is still a recognized constitutional right to say in public.
Before and After Card Check
In February of 2009, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing what would happen if Card Check was enacted, and comparing that to statements about the legislation.
February 9, 2009
Card Check Lies
When someone takes the time to actually read the proposed "Card Check" legislation (H.R. 800), and cut through the intentionally confusing legalese, you will discover that many of the proponents of this legislation have lied. Review the following side-by-side comparison of the rules for unionizing a workplace now versus what the rules would look like if the legislation passes, and you make the call.
Currently, the employees vote directly twice, one of which is the secret ballot, and a third time through their bargaining representatives. Under the proposed rules, the employees would sign a card and then they are totally out of the process from that point on. Proponents think that's "free choice," and one spokesman appearing on Fox News said flatly that employees do not lose the secret ballot. Where is it on the right side of the comparison?The next most often used ridiculous argument for support of the legislation is that "employers have become too powerful". Yes, I actually heard Sen. Chuck Schumer say this when asked directly by a reporter. His evidence of this was the number of workers who have chosen to not unionize over the last 20 years. Maybe employers are doing something right, but that's an impossibility in the minds of die-hard liberals.
Proponents have also alleged that employers intimidate employees into not joining a union. That's ridiculous, because most employers work at trying to keep their workers happy for competitive reasons and because it enhances employee morale.
I personally know of many more stories of union intimidation of employees than instances of employer intimidation.
Proponents of this legislation are in denial of businesses that have left this country or been forced to shut down because of unreasonable union demands. The union bosses do well, because they move on to the next business to put the squeeze on and collect union dues, while thousands of workers are unemployed. Ask the people who used to work for Eastern Airlines, or the workers who have been the casualties of closed automobile plants.
Workers have every right to unionize if they choose to do so, but it is not right to establish rules that expand opportunities for union intimidation, take away their right to a secret ballot and eliminate workers' right to even vote on the final contract.
Employers have some rights also. They have the right to simply shut the doors and let the union bosses figure out how to feed people's families.
South Carolina Debate
On May 5, 2011 Herman Cain participated in the Republican debate in South Carolina. He is asked about the NLRB and Boeing and it's affects on the Republican party.
New Hampshire Debate
In June of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the New Hampshire debate. He stated that he opposed actions being taken by the NLRB to enforce rules on private companies.
KING: All right. Maybe we'll come back to that.
Mr. Cain, I will let you in quickly on this one. As a businessman who says your strength in this campaign is someone who's created jobs, the question of right-to-work?
CAIN: Yes. I do believe that the states should have the right. I believe in right-to-work, and I hope that New Hampshire is able to get it passed. And I agree with the speaker and the others who believe that if the federal government continues to do the kinds of thing that this administration is trying to do through the back door, through the National Labor Relations Board, that's killing our free market system, and the free market system is what made this economy great. And we have to keep the free market system strong.
2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements
Chapter Two: Unleash Economic Growth
America has long been a beacon of prosperity throughout the world. The American Dream has been attained by those who were willing to think, work and sacrifice to achieve it. Each dream was different, but each dream was made possible due to the freedoms this country provides. The role of the federal government should be to encourage economic growth by ensuring conditions that will allow businesses to thrive, not just survive. That means less legislation, less regulation, lower taxes and business friendly policies.
The federal government should not be in the business of picking and choosing industries they support financially. This happens in the form of subsidies, and special tax breaks in which the government “plays favorite” with one industry and in turn, hinders the competitiveness of another. There are some exceptions, but in Washington it has become the rule. The federal government also impedes economic growth by interfering in the employer and employee relationship. While labor unions once provided a representative body to lobby for fair wages and safe working conditions for employees, they now principally serve as a political mechanism for the Left. Forced unionization through the dishonestly named “Employee Free Choice Act,” or “card check,” would drive up the costs of goods and services, cause hundreds and thousands of jobs to be lost and ultimately, a more powerful system of liberal fundraising to be maintained.
Currently, the federal government taxes too much and too often. Meaningful tax reform should be implemented immediately to alleviate that suffocating tax burden placed on businesses and individuals in America. This means across-the-board tax cuts to provide long-term relief, including reducing the capital gains tax, suspending taxes on repatriated profits and permanently eliminating the death tax.