“It should be obvious, but a secret ballot allows workers to anonymously, and without intimidation from either the employer…”

Please stop lying.

In fact, I don’t support EFCA. I mentioned the odd focus on card check in this special election because I don’t think most voters understand Republican objections to the legislation, and I am fairly sure that voters who get most of their information about this legislation from unions will see die-hard opposition to card check as nothing less than opposition to the rights of labor to organize. As commenter jamie notes, the GOP does not exactly have a reputation of defending the interests of labor. Emphasizing how hostile their candidate was to card check ensured that Scozzafava and her husband could drive labor voters into the Democratic camp very easily.

Perhaps I’m missing something here and someone could help me out. Does Mr. Larison support the EFCA and it’s awful arbitration and secret ballot destroying provisions?

As a union brother, I cannot tell you how touched I’ve been over the past year to hear Republicans to passionately defend the rights of workers to hold a secret ballot to decide on union representation, when for the last thirty years Republicans have fought tooth and nail to prevent any kind of ballots on union organizing whatsoever.

This is similar to the recent vociferous Republican defences of the Medicare program(!), and indicates the extent to which progressives are succeeding at framing the issues.

Any careful look at recent elections in these districts would have shown that the real federal level partisan voting split in both had narrowed to very little. Both districts had long time Republican House incumbents who would normally win 65-35 against token challengers. But U.S. Senate and Presidential elections statewide weren’t terribly competitive either the other way. The consistent higher federal Democratic performances in those and subtle Democratic trends in the districts got discounted.

Apparently a few Democratic analysts looked closely at all the numbers and saw that if/when there was a hard partisan shakeout, the Democratic and Democratic-leaning percentage would add up to at least the middle or mid-high forties. That meant opportunities for a win against an incumbent gone bad (Gillibrand/Sweeney), an opponent with illusions of having a safely Republican district when it was actually already 50/50 (Murphy/Tedisco), or a split Republican field (Owens/Hoffman&Scozzafava).

It’s assumed because it’s true! The problem is employers routinely break the laws currently on the books. And just how do union organizers intimidate their fellow workers without any power to do so? The dreaded union evil eye?

Great analysis, you need a booking agent to get on TV.

NY-23 is a perfect example of the merits of Instant Runoff Voting – that we in St. Paul, MN approved for municipal elections on Tuesday.

To put it in a way that follows your own logic precisely, If 50 percent of the employees can’t be persuaded to vote anonymously and safely for something that is so overwhelmingly to their advantage, then why have card check, other than to give the unions time for intimidation?

Most of the argument for card check seems to be based on the assumption of heavy-handed employer intimidation. If this is so out of control, then why not refine the laws that define what an employer can and cannot claim or say to its workers.

Card check, union favoritism, and the various ways that todays discredited unions are trying to achieve their goals of more money for workers and more power for union stewards aren’t worth ignoring for the sake of convenience. One needs look no further than the Transit Workers Union in Philly shutting down the city in spite of a generous offer, UAW’s repeated strong arm tactics to extort unfundable health care benefits, or the Boeing machinists unions antics to see why unions can no longer persuade normal people to join or the public at large to support their cause.

It is patently preposterous to do away with the secret ballot.
It does a lot a good at companies that like to fire and intimidate union supporters prior to votes. The cards do have to be verified. If 51% of the employees have signed cards, then why should they have to vote, other than to give the employer time for intimidation?

I don’t think the Democrats realize how mainstream they have become. They need to lose their trepidation and move forward with their agenda. The American public largely supports it.

Whatever one wants to make of the election, it has forced the NRSC to disavow involvement in open primary campaigns, as it has in Florida. That alone is a rather crucial victory.

As for the Club for Growth, well, they really didn’t have much to lose. Owens was arguably a better candidate for them than Scozzofava.

The one point that I think really hurt Hoffmann is his McCainish stand on immigration. I think that probably did more damage than supporting card check.