Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

CNN's Lou Dobbs Peddles Lies and Anti-Union Propaganda

Posted by Staff, FAIR at 8:49 AM on February 8, 2009.


CNN host spreads misinformation about the Employee Free Choice Act.
corporatemedia

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace in your
mailbox!

 

CNN host Lou Dobbs falsely suggested that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would "end a secret ballot" on his February 4 show.



At the conclusion of a report by CNN correspondent Bill Tucker about the Service Employees International Union's mobilization in support of the legislation, Dobbs said, "The American people voted for lots of things, but I don't know a lot of people voted to end a secret ballot."

Dobbs' claim that EFCA would eliminate the "secret ballot" in union authorization elections, which has been a centerpiece in a U.S. Chamber of Commerce-funded anti-union PR campaign (see Nation, 1/26/09), is completely false. As the text of the act (H.R. 800, 3/2/07) reveals, EFCA contains no language about eliminating the "secret ballot" enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act under Section 9 e.

Under EFCA, workers would still have the right to vote in a National Labor Review Board (NLRB) "secret ballot" election if 30 percent of the workforce signs cards, just as they do now. EFCA would change the process of union formation by giving workers seeking to join a union an additional option of winning union representation after a majority of the workforce signs cards, through a new provision to the act (section 9 c 6).

As American Rights at Work points out, this method of union sign-up, known as "majority sign-up" or "card check," is already recognized under current labor law, but only when the employer approves it. EFCA would represent a change in such union drives by removing the ability of employers to withhold recognition and to insist on an NLRB election.

In the CNN report, SEIU president Andy Stern explained this point clearly: "This is the worker's choice. They can have a secret ballot or legally affirm by a majority of them signing cards." Either Dobbs was not listening to his own broadcast, or he thinks labor leaders like Stern aren't telling the truth. Either way, we know whose side he's on--he referred to the pending legislation as the "so-called Employee Free Choice Act," and deemed labor's lobbying on the bill a "bold threat."

ACTION: Ask Lou Dobbs to stop repeating the business lobby's false charge that EFCA would eliminate secret ballot elections.

CONTACT:

Lou Dobbs
Email:lou.dobbs@turner.com

CNN:
212-275-7800

Please share your letters to Dobbs by posting them in the comments section of the FAIR Blog.

For more information on the media's role in misrepresenting EFCA, see Janine Jackson's article in the February issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!, "For Media, Card-Check Promise is One to Break."

Digg!

Tagged as: lies, cnn, corporate media, misinformation, employee free choice act, lou dobbs, efca


After 5 Weeks, 3 GOP Filibusters and 200,000 Americans Running Out of Bennies, Obama to Sign Unemployment Extension
This is how things work in DC these days.
Post by Steve Benen. November 6, 2009.
Unemployment Hits 10.2 Percent, Economy Sheds 190,000 Jobs
A run-down of the employment picture.
Post by Dean Baker. November 6, 2009.
Meet Some of the People Who Have Jobs Thanks to Obama's Recovery Act
640,329 jobs were created or saved. But the true significance of this number lies in the people behind it.
Post by Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins. November 4, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The problem with the act
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 8, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem, lies with those who don't want to be in a union. Here on Alternet, the presumption is that everyone in labor's life would be improved by a union.

I disagree.

There are those to whom salary and benefit negotions are best done by themselves. Typically, these are the employees with the best performance. Being forced to accept the pay and salary negotiations done by a union, requires that they accept the poor performance by others in the same job class, as a legitimate reason for the employer to pay them less.

A person who wishes to represent themselves, should have the right to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: RevRick
» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: larryracies
» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: Quannah
» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: herronsmith
» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: Quannah
» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: Quannah
» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: mkdelta69
» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: mkdelta69
» RE: The problem with the act Posted by: VZEQICVA
To the previous email
Posted by: Gaubladt on Feb 8, 2009 7:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With a few exceptions, employers do whatever they can to f... their employees. They rationalize and justify f...ing us. Then they do it with a clear conscience.
While some of the employees fool themselves into a frenzy of self fulfiilment, most of us realize we are being f...ed!
When I was union, we were still getting f...ed. But, my family got health care and eyeglasses and medicine when they needed them.
We didn't postpone doctors visits.
We also had someone to turn to when we were getting royally f...ed. For instance, when the boss asked me to work straight time overtime I told him no. All that gave us a degree of self respect.
My hourly wage as a prj. mgr. now is about what it was, sans benefits, when I was in the laborers union.
But my knee went out. Those days are gone. And I miss them.
Unions have done a lot of good for this country. Most of the good legislation has been supported by union lobbyists.

And, BTW, it looks like everybodies getting f...ed now days.
LONG LIVE UNIONS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: lou dobbs
Posted by: willymack on Feb 9, 2009 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neocons and their ass kissers, that's who. Dobbs is the lush limberger of the finance world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YOU SELF RIGHTGEOUS PRIC
Posted by: lorado on Feb 9, 2009 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CAN'T YOU GUESS??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unions Lifted ALL American Workers from Indentured Slavery!
Posted by: Purple Girl on Feb 9, 2009 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm Not in a union, but I have benefited from the Unions.
I would never have been afforded a decent wage. Never been afford health care coverage. Never been afforded retirment packages. Never been safe within the work place....Had it not been for the Labor movement efforts and demands on Corps in this country to End slave labor practices.
We would all be working in 'sweatshop' conditions, for Cents a day. We wouldn't have retirement commuities, we'd still have Poor Houses for the destitute and elderly.
In fact we would NOT be a Free Market Democracy - we would have been the same socio economic Feudalistic Caste system our Ancestors waged war to Free US from. Family Crests of Logo's make no difference when you are treated like a cheap disposable commodity.
dobbs and the rest of his Cronies are nothing more than modern Day Loyalists to the 'crown'. They hate Immigrants, Unless they can use them as the shadow force to threaten the Americna worker and drive down their Standard of living. Reason they hate reforming immigration laws, it would undermine their atratedgy to Devalue American workers by threatening them with hiring more illegals who can't defend themselves for fear of deportation or extended stay at one of their OTHER Gitmo prisons. Or their Standard - we'll Just HAVE to move our Corp overseas because American workers Demand too much, which cuts into Our profits and Compensation packages.
Every Non union Worker, Middle management should b ethanking the Unions for assuring the Americna Dream could be achieved. And it is All our responsiblity to assure it remains intact for Our children, and their children.
The Efforts and Sacrifies of the Union movement have been the ONLY thing that has move our country to the 'More Perfect Union' Our founders Invisioned!!"For the People and By the People"...Not the Corps! Unions Built those companies to the heights of Multinationals, and they Built this country by providing Fair and Honest Working conditions.
God Bless the Unions!! Fuck the Royal Loyal Repugs!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to get the unions back
Posted by: willymack on Feb 9, 2009 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everywhere. The ideal union is one which inculcates professional excellence in its members, and provides the training necessary for its atainment. The trade unions are a good case in point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An American Patriot..a person that emphaiszes rebuilding AMerica...
Posted by: using on Feb 9, 2009 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am unpatriotic AMerican....one who overtly or covertly works against AMerica's best interest.....which is clearly the rebuildilng of ARMeica.

well...one article on unions...and not particularly pro union at that.

So..Alternet -- you consider yourselves a Progressive web site media.......well it would seem to me that Progressives or liberals have traditionally been for main street's survival.

As such.....where are your pro Obama's stimulas package....articles..And once we have that under our belt -- where is your keeping Obama's feet to the fire?

A progressive web site would help Obama in his efforts to strenghten unions so that workers will again have a chance to negotiate fair terms..

A progressive web site would be trying to give suggestions of how its readership could help get behind the new development, new industries...how its readership can help those who are no longer receiving unemployment and have to worry about shelter and food.

THis country was strengthened in the last depression by a president who supported the workers development..and the movement itself was stronger. Today, Obama and the seemingly corp media seems to be one of its greatest champion -- where are you, the non-corp media.

So, if you are not for the rebuilding of AMerica..what are you for? Knocking, dishearting, depressing.....inciting anger, allowing those that clearly state their hatred for westernized civilization to expound on their beliefs......and to misdirect the need for all American's to focus their efforts on recovery and picking up the fallen and falling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From A Veteran Of The Labor Wars; I'm Against This Bill
Posted by: gradioc on Feb 9, 2009 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm betting I'm the only one here who has been the union representative at a certification vote. In fact, I did that twice in the early 80's, with two different unions trying to organize the same place. We lost both votes by numbers that made it clear that people who had signed cards did not vote for the union. Some may have just changed their minds, but I saw how it worked and am convinced some signed just to please their buddies. Many cards were signed at the bar after a few beers with 4 or 5 guys urging that action. One Teamsters organizer said point blank what we all knew; "You can get just about anybody to sign a card. Getting their vote when the doors are closed and nobody will know is the trick." I don't think the act of signing a card always represents the true will of the worker. Isn't that what it's supposed to be about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some companies need a union
Posted by: lionsdenmother on Feb 9, 2009 6:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
some companies need a union because they dont treat people fairly others do not,its up to the employees of that company if they want it. only they can decide

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Workers need to be protected.
Posted by: wisegalah on Feb 9, 2009 10:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Workers need to have some protection from exploitation by employers and the worse exploiters are the biggest corporations.
But freedom to join a union is only part of the solution.
What is also needed is the regulation of both employers and the unions. Without both the individual worker can be held to ransome by both or either. Unions are as capable as abusing or ignoring the rights of workers as are the employers.
I know as I have been a member of three different unions. What the union can do is to provide a general support for improvement of conditions but in my experience they are often not interested in the situation of the individual worker (like me!).
Governement regulation is needed to set minimum wages and to moderate, the often destructive, behaviour of the more militant unions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]