Quelle Surprise!: Warren Buffett opposes the Employee Free Choice Act

[marmar]

from THinkProgress:



Warren Buffett Comes Out Against Employee Free Choice Act: ‘I’m Against Card Check’

This morning on CNBC, billionaire investor Warren Buffett — who is a progressive on many economic issues — struck a decidedly non-progressive stance on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA):

CNBC: Some say that EFCA and card check would narrow the disparity (between the haves and have-nots). In other words, having unions have more of a say, have more companies unionize. Is that a good idea, or do you think as a business owner, it would be a negative for the economy?

BUFFETT: I think the secret ballot’s pretty important in the country. I’m against card check to make a perfectly flat statement.

CNBC’s Joe Kernen gleefully declared that he “liked” Buffett’s answer. Butffett did concede, however, that “by and large, the people who are in unions have not been well-treated by the tax code that we’ve had over time.” Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/09/buffett-efca/


Unfortunately, Buffett is adopting the right-wing’s misleading talking points on the Free Choice Act. The proposed bill — as the name indicates — would not end secret balloting in labor elections, but rather provide a choice. It would offer an alternative fairer path for workers to unionize by enabling them to form a union by getting a majority to sign cards of consent (the “card check”), instead of having to undergo a full unionization campaign (which are often subject to employer intimidation).

The importance of the legislation is simple and clear. Sixty million U.S. workers would join a union if they could because union workers on average make 30 percent in more in wages than non-union workers and are more likely to have health insurance.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and other business interests have spent millions of lobbying and advertising dollars to oppose the bill, disseminating false myths about its impact and claiming it would be a “job killer.” Unfortunately, the massive public relations spin effort is having some effect. “I’m not sure we have the votes” to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said yesterday.

Update: Ben Smith writes that the corporate interests are hiring hordes of "Republican political operatives" to fight against the Free Choice Act.


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/09/buffett-efca/

[babylonsister]

1. Wait! I've just been lambasted for questioning his motives!

This can't be, 'cause Buffett is pure as the driven snow! :eyes:

[TBF]

4. Yup, all 62 billion snowflakes... n/t

[marmar]

5. LOL.....

.... Honestly, I'm shocked at the level of deference given to him here. He donates some money, says a few good things about Democratic candidates and all of a sudden he's FDR.

[babylonsister]

6. "..and all of a sudden he's FDR".

:spray:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. It's funny you should characterize the responses to that thread as "lambasted"

Also, I didn't see any references to "pure as the driven snow" or "FDR"...

[QC]

10. For some us us, "mild disagreement" = "lambasting."

I wonder how a genuinely spirited disagreement would be characterized? Worse than the Spanish Inquisition, maybe?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. Noooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!

Sorry, had to do it. It's the law.

[babylonsister]

14. Berate/censure/criticize isn't exactly equivalent to the

Spanish Inquisition, is it. You're a little dramatic.

[babylonsister]

11. Different thread, different words, dear. Do try to keep up. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. Yes, I posted in that thread. You responded to me. Pay attention.

[TBF]

2. What a shock!

:sarcasm:

[ogneopasno]

3. STFU, Buffett, when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[annabanana]

7. Oh He know's what he's talking about alright..

He just doesn't want US to know what's happening.

[ogneopasno]

9. True -- he knows exactly what he's saying, and why he's saying it.

He's got a little something for everybody. And not in a good way.

[bertman]

15. I think every worker deserves the right to vote whether he/she wants to be in a union.

But I agree that the card check is a bad idea. Having to sign a card, or refuse to sign a card, with the full knowledge of your co-workers, supervisors, union leaders, etc. is coercive in the extreme. If someone does not want to be in the union they are going to be stigmatized and subjected to the ridicule, or worse, of their pro-union cohorts. This is just as bad as the pressure, harrassment, and threats placed on workers by management when they want to stop a union.

Secret balloting is the way to go. No card checks.

Allow every employee to vote secretly when he/she comes to work. Collect the ballots, store them in a locked box in a public place with security provided to ensure that no one tampers with the ballots. When all employees have had an opportunity to vote, unlock the box and count the votes. Whatever the outcome, it becomes legally binding. If unionization is chosen, no employee who voted against it has to live in fear of his/her coworkers. If unionization is rejected, employees who voted for the union do not have to live in fear of management.

We have rules against coercion by management now. Those rules/laws are largely ignored now. We need to enforce them. Put violators in jail. Fine the companies out the yingyang. But keep secret ballots. They are basic to democracy.