The worst case scenario

Fred Barnes writes about what he sees as the "Worst Case Scenario" - an Obama administration and a heavily Democratic Congress:

If this scenario unfolds, Washington would become a solidly liberal town again for the first time in decades. And the prospects of passing the liberal agenda--nearly all of it--would be bright. Enacting major parts of it would be even brighter. You can forget about bipartisanship.

Start with "card check." It would permit organized labor to unionize the private sector without winning a certification election by secret ballot. It's easy to get workers to sign cards saying they want a union, but it's hard to get them to vote that way when labor organizers aren't hounding them. Card check is labor's last hope for more dues-paying union members.

Unions simply aren't popular and neither is card check. But it passed the House last year, only to be blocked in the Senate by a Republican filibuster. In 2009, with Washington controlled by Democrats, it would sail through Congress and President Obama would sign it. After all, neither Obama nor congressional Democrats have bucked organized labor even once.

In his speech in Virginia Beach yesterday, Senator McCain took on Obama's knee jerk support for big labor:

"Senator Obama is measuring the drapes (in the White House), and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to … take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections."

CNN Political Ticker did a fact check on McCain's statement:

The Facts

McCain is referring to a plan supported by labor union leaders. Currently, workers must get a majority of their colleagues to sign an authorization form to ask for union representation — then hold a secret-ballot vote to finalize it. The change Obama supports would let a union be recognized by the National Labor Relations Board immediately after a majority of workers sign the authorization.

Supporters of the change, including the AFL-CIO and other unions, say it would cut down on the ability of employers to pressure their workers to vote against a union. Business groups, meanwhile, say the opposite — that the secret ballot allows workers who don't want to unionize to publicly sign off on the plan, pleasing union leaders, then privately vote against it.

The change is part of the Employee Free-Choice Act, which Obama co-sponsored. The plan is designed to make it easier to create unions in the workplace, and both supporters and opponents agree it would increase the number of union members in the United States. Backers say it will lead to better wages and benefits for workers and increase the size of the middle class, while opponents say it will hurt businesses by costing them more at a time when profits for many are already thin.

The bill passed the House last year by a vote of 241-185. It was also supported in the Senate, 51-48 — but that didn't reach the 60 votes that would have been needed to survive a filibuster on a final vote. That's also not enough to override a veto by President Bush, who is against it. Obama and running mate Sen. Joe Biden voted on June 26, 2007, to move the bill forward, while McCain voted against it.

Verdict:

True. McCain accurately represents Obama's stance, although the candidates disagree on the merits of the plan. Organized labor backs Obama's position, while business groups and some non-union workers support McCain's.

McCain isn't the only one upset about the effort of big unions and Democrats to take away the right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections. Even the Democrats' former presidential nominee, George McGovern, thinks it's a terrible idea.

Watch the following video, in which McGovern explains why he opposes with what the Democrats have the nerve to call the "Employee Free Choice Act:"