Modern News

Mark Warner wants your vote. Yet, it seems he steadfastly refuses to say where he stands on at least one issue of great import: Card Check.

For any Virginians out there check this editorial out…
+++++

Warner On Card Check?
He Won’t Say ‘Yes’ Or ‘No’

As the polls repeatedly tell us, former Gov. Mark Warner makes an appealing candidate for U.S. Senate. But a recent refusal to commit, up or down, on an issue critical to many Virginia voters, in our mind, diminishes this appeal.

The issue to which we refer is the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which would, in essence, replace the secret ballot in the decision to organize a union with a “card check” system. The system would allow union organizers to place pressure — at times, undue pressure — on individual workers to “check” that “card” to organize a union. A secret ballot affords each and every worker, well, the secrecy of their vote on this matter. It affords them protection. So in a state such as Virginia, which cherishes a right-to-work tradition that for decades has been a foundation stone of state prosperity, Mr. Warner’s position, or lack thereof, should be political dynamite for the business community and its employees.

Asked no less than three times this past Friday during a question-and-answer session at The Winchester Star whether he would vote “yes” or “no” on this undemocratic bill, Mr. Warner admirably imitated a crawfish. He wiggled and danced, and gave explanations for his wiggling and dancing, but never did answer the question.

We find that middling odd — and much more when we note that such a committed old liberal as George McGovern has actually made a television commercial opposing this “undemocratic overreach.” Part of the script reads as follows: “Voting is an immense privilege. That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.”

We wholeheartedly agree with Mr. McGovern, but would lend a bit of nuance to his statement. While it is true that “labor” — and by this we mean individual workers — would see no benefit from this act, “Big Labor,” the unions themselves, could realize substantial succor.

For his part, Mr. Warner pledged fealty to the state’s right-to-work law and tradition, but said the process of union organization was an entirely different matter. He said “reform” of the process was necessary, and that “over the last eight years,” the balance had shifted too much toward management, at the expense of labor. Nonetheless, he did say he had certain “concerns” about provisions of the legislation in question. Bottom line: Mr. Warner said he would not vote for any measure giving an “unfair advantage” to labor or management, yet refused to commit either way on this piece of legislation.

Yet this bill would give an “unfair advantage” to labor leaders by taking away from workers the right to choose without coercion, the same right all Americans exercise in an election. What about this does Mr. Warner not understand — particularly when a liberal like George McGovern sees it so clearly? This is a right-to-work issue.