George McGovern Chides Mark Udall for Trying to Deprive Workers of Secret Ballot

Stalwart liberal Democrat icon George McGovern has spoken out against the terrible legislation that is known as the Employee Free Choice Act:

Did you hear what George McGovern said? "It's hard to believe that any politician would agree to a law denying millions of employees the right to a private vote."

George McGovern, meet Mark Udall, co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. Udall's "serious reservations" about sponsoring the bill appear to have been assuaged by tens of thousands in campaign contributions from the union leaders who McGovern justly fears "are turning their backs on democratic workplace elections."

But ultimately, Mark Udall doesn't have to explain himself to George McGovern. What about the workers victimized by replacing the secret ballot with the card-check process? And what about Colorado voters?

Despite his best attempts, Mark Udall has yet to explain himself out of a paper bag on this issue.

Slow Learner Mark Udall Has It Totally Backwards on Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

Mark Udall never seems to learn. He still struggles to explain why he is co-sponsoring a bill that takes away workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections, opening them up to intimidation. From Tuesday's Chamber of Commerce debate, via Channel 7 News in Denver:

Udall defended his decision to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections, saying it still provides many worker protections that he supports.

He said the Bush administration and the National Labor Relations Board have been "missing in action" in ensuring that employees are treated fairly. He said the act ensures that employees won't be intimidated by union leaders or employers. [emphasis added]

That is so entirely backwards as to be absurd. Taking away the secret ballot protects workers from intimidation? Mr. Udall, do you wish to reconsider that statement?

At least it appears that Mark Udall has moved past his "serious reservations" about sponsoring the Employee Free Choice Act, "serious reservations" that were overcome by tens of thousands of dollars in union campaign contributions.

How Would Mark Udall Explain Anti-Secret Ballot Stance to Union Intimidation Victims?

Last week we pointed to Mark Udall's feeble attempt to defend his co-sponsorship (with "serious reservations") of the poorly-named Employee Free Choice Act. The examples of South Carolina materials handler Mike Ivey and Kaiser employee Karen Mayhew demonstrated the destructive consequences of Udall's support for the "card-check" process over the secret ballot in workplace union elections.

A recent National Review piece by John Motley offers more examples:

As [former ultra-liberal Democratic presidential candidate George] McGovern warned with this system: “there are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked or intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.” In hearings in the House of Representatives in 2002, Bruce Esgar, an employee of MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas described such a case when he testified that union organizers threatened that workers who did not sign union cards would lose their jobs when the union was recognized. In testimony in 2007, Ricardo Torres, a long-time organizer for the United Steelworkers felt compelled to quit his job, according to his testimony, after “a senior Steelworkers union official asked me to threaten migrant workers by telling them they would be reported to federal immigration officials if they refused to sign check-off cards.” Jen Jason, a former organizer for UNITE-HERE also testified in 2007 to the fact that they “rarely showed workers what an actual union contract looked like because we knew that it wouldn’t necessarily reflect what a worker would want to see. We were trained to avoid topics such as dues increases, strike histories, etc. and to constantly move the worker back to what the organizer identified as his or her “issues” during the first part of the housecall. This technique was commonly referred to as “re-agitation” during organizer training sessions.” [emphases added]

What would Mark Udall have to say to Bruce Esgar? What platitudes would Udall have for Ricardo Torres or the threatened migrant workers? How would Udall defend the tactics Jen Jason described? How would he explain his anti-secret ballot stance to Mike Ivey or Karen Mayhew? Even ultra-liberal George McGovern realizes how out of touch Udall is for holding this position.

But none of it matters that much, because none of these five eyewitnesses to union intimidation have lined Mark Udall's campaign coffers with tens of thousands of dollars like labor leaders have.

Mark Udall "Debunked" by Stories of Abuse from Udall-Funding Union Leaders

Mark Udall has unleashed a new "debunker" page to give his side of the story on issues where he feels his record is being misrepresented. So what does Udall do? You guessed it. He turns around and misrepresents his opponent Bob Schaffer's record -- yeah, that solves the problem.

But going further, some of Mark Udall's responses in defense of his record are just plain weak and laughable. Today I'll focus on his support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA):

Mark Udall does not support elimination of the secret ballot-- in union elections or anywhere else. Mark Udall has consistently fought for working families in this country and his support of Employee Free Choice Act confirms this.

Yes, we already know about Udall's "serious reservations" about taking away workers' secret ballots, and the thousands of dollars he accepted from labor leaders to co-sponsor the bill anyway.

In that light, Mark Udall's description of the EFCA reads like he has drunk the Big Labor Kool-Aid:

Right now, employees can form a union by conducting a secret ballot election or by having a majority of workers sign cards asking for union representation. However, right now, employers can reject organization by the card-signing method. This is problematic because employers can then delay the vote and use the time to put pressure on employees not to organize.

EFCA would change this law so that employers can't reject the card-check process if that's how workers choose to organize. This does not mean that EFCA will do away with secret ballot. Instead, it strengthens the rights of employees because it requires employers to respect a card check vote that wins over 50% of the staff.

The problem of course is Mark Udall's ridiculous assumptions: first, that unions are quite adept at pressuring employees, too; and second, that signing a card in a union organizing election indicates an employee's free will.

Perhaps Mark Udall should talk to South Carolina materials handler Mike Ivey, who testified:

Employees are told at off-site meetings that signing a card only certifies that they attended the meeting. Employees are also offered a free t-shirt if they sign a card. What they are not told is that these cards are a legally binding document, which states that the employee is pro union -- thus placing the union one step closer to their goal of complete control of the employees’ workplace life without the employee even realizing it.

In the work place, the employees running the organizing campaign for the UAW are relentless in trying to get the employees to sign union cards. This has created a hostile work environment, with employees who once were friends who are now at odds with each other. [emphasis added]

Watch Mike Ivey here:

The United Auto Workers that deceived and harassed Mike Ivey and his colleagues through the card-check process have contributed $50,000 to Mark Udall through the years (Source: Federal Election Commission).

Or, since Mark Udall touts Kaiser as the model for implementing EFCA, the testimony of Kaiser employee Karen Mayhew is especially relevant:

When we were told that 50% + 1 had signed the union’s authorization cards, and that no election would be held, it did not take long for many employees to announce that they would not have signed the cards if they had known that there would be no election. Knowing that the union had just a one-person majority in our department at the time of Kaiser’s recognition, I filed Unfair Labor Practice charges against Kaiser and the SEIU union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), based in part on the realization that some in our department had signed cards solely due to the union’s misrepresentations....

Throughout this whole ordeal, my colleagues and I were subjected to badgering and immense peer pressure. Some of us even received phone calls at home. While I let my feelings toward this union be known early on, I still was attacked verbally and in e-mail by my pro-union colleagues. I believe this abuse directed towards me was at the request of the union in an effort to intimidate me and have me back down. [emphases added]

The Service Employees International Union that deceived and intimidated Karen Mayhew and her colleagues has given Mark Udall $48,000 in contributions (Source: Federal Election Commission).

Yes, the Employee Free Choice Act technically doesn't outlaw secret ballot elections. But given recorded history, doesn't the EFCA open the door to ensure union leaders will use their "free choice" and organized clout to take the easy route of deceit, intimidation, and abuse of uncooperative workers? A secret ballot protects the integrity of workers' decisions, and Mark Udall is willing to cast the protection aside to appease labor bosses who have loaded his campaign with money--$98,000 from just these two examples alone.

Way to go, Udall. You really "debunked" that one.

Mark Udall Confronted about Cynical Sponsorship of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

Via the Labor Pains blog, Coloradans for Employee Freedom caught up with Boulder liberal Mark Udall at what appears to be the July 4 Greeley Stampede parade:

EFCA = Employee Free Choice Act. Mark Udall seems to have forgotten his cynical sponsorship of EFCA, despite (as Labor Pains points out) having taken more than $1 million from Big Labor interests. Maybe because Udall realizes how dreadfully unpopular the anti-secret ballot measure is.

Mark Udall: Blindsided again.

Communist Party Joins Mark Udall in Support of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

Boulder liberal Mark Udall, Big Labor bosses, 20 percent of the American voting public, and now the Communist Party are all in agreement. What's the issue? Why, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) - which deprives workers of a secret ballot in union elections.

What's the connection?

• Mark Udall took $75,000 from union leaders to put his name as a co-sponsor on the Employee Free Choice Act, despite admitting to "serious reservations."


• 8 out of 10 American voters, including 8 out of 10 Democrats, believe the EFCA's approach of robbing workers of the secret ballot is wrong. Opposition to this bill includes majorities "of every age, race, geographic group and both genders."


• Today's big news? Communist Party USA has given its hearty endorsement to EFCA, saying the upcoming elections "must be about working people’s vision — our vision of a new direction for our country." A new direction that apparently includes no secret ballots for workers.

I guess this website's humorous theme isn't quite so far off base, after all.

Mark Udall Puts Big Labor Unfunded Mandate Ahead of Taxpayers, Local Control

This morning, a watcher astutely points to another glaring contradiction in the rhetoric of Boulder liberal Mark Udall.

In March, Mark Udall took sides in favor of the Washington D.C. gun ban on the principle of local government control.

Now, Mark Udall is the co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act, which "would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people." An unfunded mandate that would impose unionization on local governments and make local taxpayers bear the cost? As a watcher correctly notes: "It looks a lot like local control to us, NOT."

So, let's get this straight. For Mark Udall, local control trumps the Second Amendment, but the Big Labor agenda trumps both. Does anyone else think Udall has been in Washington, DC, so long that he has confused the importance of the Constitution with the agenda of special-interest lobbyists? It sure looks like a reasonable explanation for Udall's hypocrisy and duplicity.

Mark Udall's Cynical Sponsorship of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill Out of Step

A new national poll from American Solutions finds:

We discovered that 79% of the American people support a worker’s right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union.

The tri-partisan agreement to defend this right is overwhelming, as 77% of Republicans, 82% of Democrats, and 79% of independents believe in protecting private ballots. Support for private ballots was so broad it also spanned every subgroup examined, including majorities of every age, race, geographic group and both genders.

The so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA) before the Congress last year, and figures to be again this year, would deprive workers of the secret ballot. Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's cynical sponsorship of the EFCA (he took big union contributions to put his name on the legislation, even though he claimed he had "serious reservations") already has him "out of step with Western values."

Now we have confirmation that Mark Udall is out of step with 8 out of 10 voting Americans, including 8 out of 10 members of his own Democratic Party. Currying favor with Big Labor bosses may have added money to Udall's campaign coffers, but it threatens to alienate him from many members of the electorate.

McCain and Udall Compared and Contrasted

This is in response to the Lynn Bartels article in today's Rocky Mountain News. We left a comment promising to explain why Bob Schaffer will not have a problem if Mark Udall tries to cozy up to John McCain.

We promised links. Many of the links we provide are links to other blog essays, here and elsewhere, which zero in on the issue and themselves have links to the original source. Even better than links are the "labels" at the bottom of the essay which you might want to follow.

Here goes:

Mark Udall and John McCain are two different people.

1. John McCain prides himself on running the "straight talk express." We have caught Mark Udall and his staff in lies so often that we developed a "Udall as a liar" label. We also have a "Big Blue Lie Machine" label for those less closely tied to Udall who are less than truthful. See below.

2. John McCain is a self described conservative though many moderates like him because he isn't an orthodox conservative. Mark Udall is a liberal's liberal. He calls Boulder his "touchstone" and his spokesperson has opined that being tagged as a "Boulder liberal" won't hurt him. Liberals and the msm routinely call him "liberal," reliably left wing, progressive, and twice extremist. We have documented over 40 examples of that happening. To see the documentation and our methodology, follow the bread crumbs backwards.

3. John McCain is a war hero and the son and grandson of Navy Admirals. Mark Udall has so little understanding of the apolitical traditions of the military and how they keep our democracy free from a military coup that he once sponsored a resolution that would have encouraged the politicization of military officers. Not content with politicizing the military, it would have encouraged officers to make political complaints to the congress and exhorted congress to pay heed to those complaints.

4. John McCain promoted the surge. Mark Udall promoted a Department of Peace.

5. Once John McCain learned his lesson with the Keating Five, he never again allowed the source of his political fund raising to cloud his judgement or compromise his integrity. The NY Times tried to claim that he more recently had helped a lobbyist, but that help was limited to two letters asking a regulatory commission to vote on a two year old issue while carefully telling them he was not telling them how to vote. Seems reasonable, though the NYT didn't think so.

Mark Udall is taking big bucks from labor unions and has publicly admitted that he had co-sponsored a labor bill that he doesn't like. He is taking even bigger bucks from the environmentalists who don't give a damn if the whole state burns to the ground so long as no forest roads are built that might allow the beetle killed trees to be removed, even dead trees adjacent to mountain towns.

Mark Udall is so deep in the grasp of his environmentalist paymasters that last year he proposed an amendment that would close existing roads which makes the problem worse. Even his heavily self promoted and under financed bill to remove dead trees around mountain towns didn't prompt him to speak out when the environmentalists objected to the road building that would be necessary.

6. Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson dislike John McCain. Daily Kos held a fundraiser for Mark Udall.

7. In 1971, John McCain was in a POW camp in North Vietnam and had been for years. In 1971, Mark Udall was in an Arizona court having his car confiscated and being placed on a year's probation for drugs.

8. John McCain is a man of proven courage, personal and political. We recently wrote that an appropriate bumper sticker for Mark Udall would be "Vote Udall: A Coward For Today In Every Way."

Lynn Bartels would do well to note that John McCain was praising and quoting Mo Udall, not Mark Udall. It isn't uncommon in congress to refer to one's mortal enemy as "my friend."

In the end, the election in Colorado will be about character. Udall lacks moral courage and says what he believes will get him elected. Schaffer just says what he believes.

If the subject comes up in a debate, Bob Schaffer can truthfully say "I know John McCain, John McCain is a friend of mine. You're no John McCain!"

Ritter's Order Taking the Political Heat off Udall?

Our Democratic governor's recent leap into the arms of union bosses at the expense of taxpayers has spurred a closer look at the voting record of fellow Democrat, U.S. Senate candidate, Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall.

Like Ritter, Udall earlier this year received an editorial slap from the Denver Post for co-sponsoring the inaccurately-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). On the floor of the Congress, Udall expressed the difficulties his conscience had with supporting a bill to take away workers' secret ballot election rights, yet he went ahead and supported the bill at the behest of union bosses anyway. All those contributions from union PACs can speak really loud.

Bringing it all together, fellow Colorado blogger Karl Maher gives us some insights into the Democrats' "protection racket," speculating that Big Labor may have persuaded Ritter to take the heat off Udall:

So why would Ritter give employees collective bargaining rights without going through the Legislature?

Maybe it's because the legislative debate would've put the issue on the state's front pages for a couple of weeks. It might have drawn Udall into the debate, reminding people that he co-sponsored the EFCA and that he's taking gobs of money from union PACs. Maybe the party, feeling the need to score one for Labor, prevailed on Ritter to take one for the team and spare the state further debate that might embarrass Udall.

That might give Ritter and the Democrats more credit for strategic thought than they deserve. But really, I can't figure out any other reason Ritter would do such a thing.

Is Karl right on this point? I don't know. But the fact that his argument is plausible reminds us how wary we should be of Udall's homage to Big Labor and his disconnect from the average independent Colorado voter.

Udall Undercuts Enforcement of White-Collar Crime

Boulder liberal Mark Udall has cast his lot with the Democrat caucus and corrupt union leaders at the expense of law enforcement and defrauded workers. Udall voted to defeat an attempt that would have spared the modest budget of the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) from draconian cuts.

So, apparently, OLMS was a highly ineffective and wasteful branch of government, right? The Democrats just wanted a leaner and more efficient operation, right? Wrong on both counts. As John Fund noted in yesterday's Opinion Journal:

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues.

And some other recent successes of OLMS highlighted by Fund:

Just last week Willie Haynes, a member of the Saginaw, Mich., City Council who also served as a United Auto Workers financial secretary, pleaded guilty to falsifying his union local's reports. In May, Chuck Crawley, a former Teamster's local president in Houston, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for stuffing a ballot box so he could be elected president of his union local and embezzling dues money.

It wasn't as though overall cash for the Labor Department is strapped, and that Congress was forced to make a tough decision. Rather, OLMS was the only office with its budget adversely affected, as the whole Department anticipates a $935 million boost in total appropriations. The problem for Congressional Democrats and many of their political backers was that OLMS worked too well.

Some white collar criminals who happen to live illicitly off the hard-earned money of various workers are breathing a little easier tonight. Thanks to Mark Udall and his Democrat colleagues, they're less likely to be caught and prosecuted.

If the Republicans were in charge and the budget for enforcement of corporate white-collar crime had been slashed, your ears would have bled with the piercing howl of righteous liberal outrage. And they would have a very strong case. But now, it's their silence that's deafening.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus