First organized labor argued for the Employee Free Choice Act by claiming union membership is the path to a better life. Card check would simplify the creation of a union. And that was the argument.
Realizing that they were getting hammered by the truth that the Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate secret-ballot elections, labor unions then turned up the rhetorical heat. When someone pointed out that card check would destroy the secret ballot in the workplace, labor responded, “Liar! Liar! You’re a liar!” And claim that card check would allow the unions to still call for an election, even though in any realistic world organizers would never demand a vote they might lose. (This Shopfloor post explains why.)
So when ads started running in Minnesota about the Senate candidate Al Frank’s support for killing secret-ballot elections, the Minnesota DFL (the Democratic-Farm-Labor Party) filed a complaint with the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings (Star-Tribune story). The party claimed the ads by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace — to which the NAM belongs — and the separate Minnesotans for Employee Freedom violated state law against disseminating false campaign material.
But the DFL didn’t even bother trying to argue why the ads were false. They just claimed it.
Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Nielson has now dismissed the complaints. From her memorandum accompanying the order of dismissal to the complaint against CDW.
For purposes of a prima facie determination, the Complainant must detail the factual basis to support a claim that the violation of law has occurred. Here, the Complainant has not alleged with any specificity why the statements at issue are factually false. The Complaint merely asserts that the statements are false and “contrary to the facts,” without providing any further information.
Labor strategy summarized: Deflect, deceive, bluster, abuse, litigate.
(Hat tip: Michael D. Brodkorb)
Latest posts by Carter Wood (see all)
- Farewell from a Blogger - May 25, 2011
- Activist Ignore Evidence to Back Shakedown Suit Against Chevron - May 25, 2011
- More than a Lawsuit: A Circle of Political Pressure Against Chevron - May 25, 2011