In response to the introduction of the Secret Ballot Protection Act, many EFCA proponents claim that the bill’s supporters are “lying.”
Webster’s dictionary defines the word “lying” as an intransitive verb:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Simply because one disagrees with another individual doesn’t necessarily mean that they are promoting lies. The “Think Progess” blog asserts that the supporters of the Secret Ballot Protection Act are “liars” because they argue the Employee Free Choice Act would result in devastating harm to small businesses. Referring to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), the blogger writes:
DeMint took to Fox News to describe why he thinks his firewall is necessary. Amidst the usual false rhetoric about Employee Free Choice eliminating the secret ballot, DeMint also incorrectly claimed that the act would harm small businesses:
And this is not just for big auto companies, this is for small electrical contractors, companies with 10 or 15 people. It would change the business model of the United States to the same model the U.S. auto industry has in Detroit.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) excludes non-retail employers whose interstate commerce is less than $50,000 and retail employers whose gross annual volume is less than $500,000; there are various other size exemptions for all sorts of industries, from newspapers to taxicab companies. These exemptions would not change under the Employee Free Choice Act.
In fact, Senator DeMint made no untrue statement. The Employee Free Choice Act would definitely harm small businesses as there is no minimum employee threshold for employers under the bill. And look at the small dollar figures in the threshold of interstate commerce, which most manufacturers engage in. Of course small business is affected. As Senator DeMint highlights, the bill could very harm employers of even 10 or 15 people. Or even less. Is he a “liar” when he contends the legislation would change the basic U.S. business model during tough times, when manufacturers are struggling to remain competitive?
One could go back and forth on the rhetoric, but current law and the proposed legislation are both very clear in whom the bill would harm – INCLUDING the very smallest of businesses.
To all these accusations from the groups who prefer name-calling to debating substance, we are forced to offer a rock ‘n roll retort:
Latest posts by Keith Smith (see all)
- NLRB Continues to Hear Cases That Would Radically Change Labor Law - March 4, 2011
- Employees Continue to Not Join Labor Unions - January 21, 2011
- AFL-CIO Joins NAM to Back OSHA On-Site Consultation Program for Small Business - January 7, 2011