A Lesson in Free Speech and the Law for Corporations

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.seiu.org/2009/08/a-lesson-in-free-speech-and-the-law-for-corporations.php


9:15 AM Eastern - August 12, 2009
A Lesson in Free Speech and the Law for Corporations
By Michael Whitney

It seems the corporate fellas over at the National Association of Manufacturers are a bit confused about the difference between free speech and breaking the law as it relates to the Employee Free Choice Act.

This week we criticized a NAM adviser who defended corporate lawlessness on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. The adviser found virtually no fault with intimidating threats, and complained that corporations wouldn't be able to stop employees from joining unions without punishment. NAM responded to our criticism, raising the false specter of corporations "who express their opinions punished for that expression."

Except the Employee Free Choice Act says no such thing. Indeed, as we noted yesterday, the bill specifically sets out to punish corporations that WILLFULLY or REPEATEDLY break the law.

Let's take this difference for a simple exercise in which a boss talks to an employee about buying an apple.

Statement one: "I don't think you should buy that apple."

That's free speech!

Statement two: "If you think about buying that apple, I'll fire you from your job, you'll lose your health insurance, and we might move the apple overseas."

That would be breaking the law!

You see, there's a big difference between free speech and intimidation. One is OK. The other is against the law. The Employee Free Choice Act seeks to put teeth into the law so that when it's willfully or repeatedly broken, corporations can be punished for doing so - just like any other person who breaks any other law.

So, unless NAM is concerned its members will WILLFULLY or REPEATEDLY break the law, there's nothing to be worry about. Right, NAM?

[Laelth]

1. k&r for labor. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth