Rubio’s 3-2-1 Strategy Sounded Great; But Does 3-5-4 Work?
Marco Rubio’s strategy was 3d in Iowa, 2d in New Hampshire, and 1st in South Carolina. His disappointing finish last night calls that strategy into question.Read More »
With Washington’s unemployment rate hovering near 9%, workers and small businesses in the state need advocates in Congress who will stand with them as opposed to special interests promoting a job-killing agenda. But unfortunately, just the opposite is true in The Evergreen State. Senator Patty Murray has decided the union boss agenda supplants the concerns of employees and employers in her state.
Murray supports radical legislation titled the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) even though there is nothing free about it. In reality, the bill should be called the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act. EFCA eliminates the secret ballot in the unionization process by forcing a public vote, known as card check. As a result, workers focused on making a living and feeding their families are placed under enormous pressure by union bosses and organizers and even bullied into supporting a union, whether they want one or not.Secondly, once a union is formed through intimidation and coercion, union bosses can then bargain for the collective unit and unless a small business cedes to their demands in just 90 days, the federal government inserts itself and mandates a contract on the employees and employer alike without their consent. There is no appeals process. If a small business can not live with the terms of the bureaucrat-written contract, which affects everything from wages, benefits and workplace conditions, it can be forced to close or move overseas.
In fact, economists that have studied the impact of the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act have come to the conclusion that it would result in over 600,000 lost jobs the year after it is enacted with millions more to follow. So, this leads one to ask, who benefits from this dangerous and ill-conceived legislation? There is only one answer, Big Labor.
The same union bosses who bankroll candidates’ campaigns – like Senator Murray – are expecting “payback.” And that’s not an assumption, they have said as much, explicitly.
In fact, Murray hasn’t just been a supporter of EFCA; she had led the effort to make the job-killing bill the law of the land. In 2007, she stated she was proud to be a co-sponsor claiming that it restored workers’ “freedom to choose” when it comes to unionization. And just last month, Murray claimed that an increase in access to organized labor is “critical” to rebuilding the middle class.
Unfortunately, it appears Murray is either confused or completely out of touch with the small businesses she represents. Employers across the state of Washington oppose EFCA because they understand the burdens and costs associated with it would produce higher unemployment.
The Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act is a job-killer, plain and simple. If Senator Murray can’t take the word of the state’s top creators – small businesses – than one might argue she shouldn’t be in a position to make decisions on their behalf in the United States Senate.
The reality is that a bi-partisan group of Senators oppose EFCA and understand it would further threaten any recovery in a very challenging economic environment.
As this election cycle progresses, Murray should be posed questions about her support for Big Labor’s top priority and why she believes it would help create jobs in spite of being told otherwise by employers in Washington State.
If she proves unable to give an explanation that is both serious and rational, voters who would be negatively affected by her injudicious actions might consider taking their business elsewhere this November by supporting a candidate who stands with them as opposed to national union bosses.
Katie Packer is the executive director of the Workforce Fairness institute.