This 2008 election has been called several different things. Many Republicans and center-right activists are calling this the “401(k) election” due to the different tax and investment treatments the two candidates are proposing. Those on the left, who are tired of the Bush Administration, are referring to this as the “Take Back the Flag” election.
While both are valid catch-phrases, neither captures the direct attacks on democracy that could occur as a result of an Obama administration. This is why the 2008 election should be referred to as the “Worker Freedom Election.”
Labor unions comprised more than 35 percent of the American workforce in the mid-1950s. Today, they account for a mere 12 percent of the total working population and are falling. As a result, Big Labor bosses are becoming increasingly ferocious in their efforts to keep and increase their free-flowing stream of union dues.
That hasn’t stopped unions from spending an exorbitant amount of money supporting their anti-worker causes. Since the 2000 election, unions have given close to $300 million to Democratic candidates across the country, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Labor unions have already contributed a total of $52 million in the 2008 political cycle. Ninety-one percent of that went toward Democrats, with only 9 percent going toward Republican candidates. The largest 527 contribution in 2008 cycle was from one of the most ferocious unions and a staunch Obama supporter, the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), at $18 million. Just this year, the AFL-CIO and the “Change to Win” Federation (both Obama supporters) have promised to spend well over $300 million to ensure their agenda is part of the "change" America is being spoon-fed.
With this type of money and force being thrown behind Democrat candidates and Obama, they must be expecting something in return. They are — votes.
Specifically, they want votes for the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” commonly referred to as EFCA. Possibly the most anti-democratic legislation ever introduced, EFCA will disenfranchise millions of workers by taking away their right to vote on union membership using a private, secret ballot, as current law affords them.
Obama, in keeping his allegiance, moved where the sting-pullers commanded and cosponsored and voted for EFCA. In a press release on June of last year, he stated this act “will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card-checks” and that the “choice to organize should be left up to workers and workers alone.”
A NAFTA compliant truck could soar through the loophole in that type of reasoning. Make no mistake — if EFCA is passed into law, the choice to join a union will not “be left up to the workers” as Obama thinks.
Here is a more likely scenario:
John Doe is a Republican who was born and raised in North Carolina, a right to work state. This means that Mr. Doe was never forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Mr. Doe wakes up on November 5 to learn that Sen. Obama is now President-elect Obama. As president, Mr. Obama keeps his promise to the Big Labor bosses and pushes his left-wing friends in Congress to reintroduce EFCA. After passing the House and Senate, Mr. Obama proudly signs this bill into law with SEIU president Andy Stern (who is being sued by thirty of his own SEIU officers in northern California) and AFL-CIO president John Sweeney standing by his side.
Mr. Doe goes to work the next day, and there are very large, no-necked men telling the workers to sign a union card. Before EFCA, the union would have had to get at least 30 percent of the workers to sign a union card to trigger a federally supervised private ballot election.
Now, the private ballot has been replaced with a process known as “card check,” which allows a union to officially be formed if a majority of workers do nothing more than sign a card. Every single vote under the Obama “card check” administration is made public to the employer, the union organizers, and to all co-workers. Mr. Doe is the deciding vote against unionization.
The union bosses will know how Mr. Doe voted. The wives of the union organizers, who teach Mr. Doe’s children, will know if he opposes them. The organizers’ sons work at the grocery store where Mrs. Doe shops. His best friends at work, originally from Michigan and who play on his basketball team and play poker every Thursday night, will all know how he voted. Mr. Doe knows there is no way he can safely protect his family and even himself if he opposes the union, because everyone will know it was he who prevented their workplace from being unionized.
His friends know Mr. Doe is a Republican because the sticker on his Jeep says “Republican: Because Not Everyone Can Be on Welfare.” They tell their sons that Mr. Doe opposed the union, and Mrs. Doe no longer gets help with her groceries to her car. His sons are personally singled out in the classroom. His “friends” trash his new poker table when he expresses reservations about joining a union. He gets a nice little note tied to a brick on his seat that says “Remember, we will know how you vote.” This all happens because unions will know exactly how he voted, and that makes the intimidation more than an empty threat.
Mr. Doe reluctantly signs a union card. And that’s all it takes. No election, no federal supervision; simply a couple of rough union organizers and some cards.
This scenario will repeat itself over and over again all across the nation. Unionization will at least double. Right to work laws will be inconsequential as a crowbar replaces democracy as a tool for the union organizer.
The two candidates for president both talk about change.
McCain speaks about change in terms of his presidency being different than the current administration. His record shows that he butted heads with the most conservative members of Congress and adamantly disagreed with the current administration more than occasionally.
However, Obama talks too about change, about a change that we can believe in. His record shows he and his party are completely bought up by Big Labor and that he will pander to their wishes even if it sacrifices the basic democratic freedoms and principles this country was founded upon.
I am not sure who falls into Sen. Obama’s definition of “we” or how much it costs to be part of that club, but I do know this — that is not change that I can believe in.