http://mediamatters.org/items/200901310006?f=h_popularSummary: On Forbes on Fox, Forbes national editor Mike Ozanian declared that the Employee Free Choice Act "should be called the anti-free choice, pro-slavery bill," and Ozanian, host David Asman, and others advanced a common distortion employed by opponents of the legislation -- that it would, in the words of on-screen text that ran during the segment, "Ban Secret Votes at Work." In fact, the bill would not "ban" secret-ballot elections; rather, it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization.
During a segment in which Forbes national editor Mike Ozanian declared that the Employee Free Choice Act "should be called the anti-free choice, pro-slavery bill," the January 31 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox featured remarks by Ozanian, host David Asman, and others advancing a common distortion employed by opponents of the legislation -- that it would, in the words of on-screen text that ran during the segment, "Ban Secret Votes at Work." As The New York Times has reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization"
. Also during the discussion of the bill, Forbes.com contributor John Rutledge said, "Banning secret ballots, that is a terrible idea. This is a Gestapo tactic."
Asman opened the segment by asking: "Why are unions still pushing to end secret ballots at the workplace?" After Ozanian referred to the Free Choice Act as "pro-slavery," Asman asked: "Would it eliminate the secret balloting?" Ozanian replied: "Essentially, yes." Later, when asked to comment, Rutledge said: "Banning secret ballots, that is a terrible idea. This is a Gestapo tactic. Look, America is about individual freedoms, not about coercion, not about public ballots. What we need to -- I've lived in places where they don't have secret ballots. I've lived in Cold War Berlin, I've lived in Argentina and China, in the Persian Gulf. Trust me, fellas, you don't want to go there." Fox Business Network stocks editor Elizabeth MacDonald responded: "I think John is absolutely right. And you know, it's coercion, intimidation and inflammatory rhetoric on both sides of the aisle." Rutledge also later asserted: "I do not want to give anyone the right to ban open elections -- secret elections -- anywhere in America." During the segment, on-screen text read, "Union Membership Soaring; Why Ban Secret Votes at Work?" and "Unions Push to Ban Secret Votes at Work as Membership Soars."
These repeated distortions of the Free Choice Act were rebutted at one point during the segment by Forbes national editor Quentin Hardy. When asked by Asman whether there is "some way to be in favor of card check and still be in favor of secret balloting," Hardy responded:"Well, I think that's what this law's about. It's interesting to me that after I pointed out that this is just about giving workers a choice where previously management has a choice on the election style, three of you said it's about banning secret ballots. It's not. It's about giving the workers the choice of what style they want."
As Media Matters for America has noted, the House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "the Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth," and stated on its website: "The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer." Supporters of the legislation say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
FULL story at link.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
