George McGovern, Union Buster

David Weigel | October 7, 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen, George McGovern.

If you need a refresher on EFCA, and how unions expect President Obama and his congressional supermajority to get 'er done, my mid-year take is here. McGovern's involvement isn't a surprise to anyone who's been following his recent career, though. In March, he blasted "economic paternalism" that was making it harder to run a small business. In the summer he started attacking EFCA. Hence his appearance in this ad by the Center for Union Facts.

But... is it an effective ad? As Barack Obama might say, he was 11 years old when McGovern ran for president. This is more of a curiosity than a blistering attack, but it gives me the cover to post some of these gonzo ads from his 1972 race and performance-art 1984 race.

Comments

|10.7.08 @ 1:34PM|#

A very large pig just flew past my window! Maybe there's still hope for Jimmy Carter, too.

BDB|10.7.08 @ 1:39PM|#

JohnL--

McGovern was probably the most libertarianish Democrat ever nominated.

BDB|10.7.08 @ 1:40PM|#

Yeah yeah, I know, prettiest house in the trailer park, but just saying.

|10.7.08 @ 1:46PM|#

I was a six-year old during the 1972 election, and I distinctly remember laughing at some kid whose parents were McGovern supporters. McGovern's power to lose was so great that even a first-grader could detect it.

This is not a comment on who McGovern is today, of course.

Naga Sadow|10.7.08 @ 2:08PM|#

Union buster? Is it like the old days when strikers and busters would riot and beat the hell out of it? Like Henry Ford used?

Naga Sadow|10.7.08 @ 2:08PM|#

Out of each other. Not it.

Nigel Watt|10.7.08 @ 2:20PM|#

My parents were convinced they had voted for Anderson against Nixon. I eventually convinced them that this was impossible, and they had in fact voted for McGovern.

classwarrior|10.7.08 @ 2:20PM|#

It's worth noting that EFCA doesn't mandate the card check, but allows it as an alternative to the secret ballot. The professed concern by employers for democracy and worker's rights would be touching if it wasn't such obvious BS, and the Act also stipulates some meaningful penalties for employers who fire or therwise try to intimidate their employees as is often the case now. The way things currently stand, they face only a slap on the wrist years after the offence.

|10.7.08 @ 3:07PM|#

It's worth noting that EFCA doesn't mandate the card check, but allows it

If that is true (it's hard to convince sans credible link), at whose option?

|10.7.08 @ 4:03PM|#

ooh classwarrior, verily you speak the truth!

Which union do you work for? Maybe the SEIU?

Check out these videos of my senate candidate, Jeanne Shaheen, dodging questions and eventually siccing the cops on some guy for asking her about the EFCA:

http://www.youtube.com/employeefreedomNH

|10.7.08 @ 4:06PM|#

Added bonus: in this one, an AFL-CIO goon smudges the guy's camera and the head of New Hampshire's National Association of letter carriers informs him that "a hundred years ago we woulda thrown guys like you in a river"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9b56oZCQnk

|10.7.08 @ 4:27PM|#

J sub D,

Here is a link to a July Washington Times story that says, "Under current law, once a majority of workers submit cards requesting union certification, an election is held in which workers vote by secret ballot on whether to ratify unionization. The pending bill, called the Employee Free Choice Act, does not require the secret ballot vote unless at least 30 percent of workers call for it."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/obama-supports-union-organizing/

|10.7.08 @ 4:40PM|#

It's worth noting that EFCA doesn't mandate the card check, but allows it as an alternative to the secret ballot.

Would you support a bill allowing, e.g., ballot propositions to become law if enough signatures were obtained on petitions, without a vote? Or if enough votes were cast on American Idol or Dancing With the Stars one way or another? Why or why not?

Does the Employee Free Choice Act allow employees to decertify a union via card check? Of course it doesn't.

|10.7.08 @ 8:38PM|#

I work for a major communications provider, and this past summer, during a meeting that had nothing else to do with HR, our HR person came in to make us all aware that this act existed, and to be aware that if it were enacted, we might be forced into a union we didn't want. (A few of our individual offices prior to mergers were union shops, and our very large and very cheap employer apparently really doesn't like lawyers.)

economist|10.7.08 @ 9:23PM|#

classwarrior
There should be no law requiring unionization even if every employee votes to unionize. If the employer really would rather fire all his employees than deal with the union, that's his right. However, I have nothing against the voluntary formation of unions and collective bargaining per se.

economist|10.7.08 @ 9:24PM|#

Isn't it funny how some things turn out?. P.S. There is no hope for Jimmy Carter.

|10.7.08 @ 11:51PM|#

John Thacker

Would you support a law that said before a ballot proposition can be put to voters a secret ballot must take place in order to determine if the voters wanted that ballot proposition be put to voters?

cartographer|10.11.08 @ 10:20AM|#

Don't be so surprised. I guess it's a little-known fact that McGovern has never been a supporter of organized labor -- for example he voted as Senator against repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act's provision permitting "right to work" laws -- and in 1972 the AFL-CIO returned the favor by refusing its endorsement of his presidential bid.