Not-so-secret Secret Ballot

For those of you who have been as confused as I have been over the Government’s support of the Union’s desire to do away with the “secret ballot”, I believe I found the answer this morning.

Up until now, there did not seem to be any rhyme nor reason why President Obama would be so much in favor of killing the secret ballot. This morning as I watched the news over coffee, the answer became more obvious. Unions raised and contributed more than $67,500,000.00 to the Democratic Party in 2008. Sounds like it’s their turn for a back scratch.

Last Saturday morning I listened to John Rutlidge, a respected financial analyst comparing the move to something that would happen in North Korea. He spoke from experience as he had just returned back from a trip to North Korea. In that country, citizens must appear in front of the Politican running for office and openly state if they vote for or against them. Do you think there there may be a slight chance of intimidation there?

There is no doubt that Unions have done a lot of good over the years. They have helped downtrodden workers to fight for better pay and conditions. That is admirable. Bullying, intimidating and ruling with an iron fist is not.

Workers should be able to vote in secret whether or not they want to have a Union. If this goes through, will we one day have to stand in front of politicians and point out the one we want?

Security companies in Washington D.C. became unionized recently. Some security companies are known for paying bad wages and not treating their employees very well. Union involvement there most probably helped a lot of security officers who were not getting a fair deal.

Unfortunately, the banning of the secret ballot does not seem set to help anybody – except the Unions who are probably expecting an influx of new (paying) members. There is talk that many companies will either close down or outsource their manufacturing to Asia if Unions are forced on them.

Do we really need to risk more jobs in these terrible economic times? Apparently those who handed over more than $67.5 million dollars seem to think so.

Is this a case of; "Do as I say, not as I do"?

I think it is a shame when a Police Officer acts like a Politician. It seems like this might be what happened to the Police Chief in San Francisco.

It has leaked out that Chief Heather Fong has not qualified with her service weapon in years. She actually admits to it but blames the lapse on her busy schedule. This poses two really pressing questions. Firstly, what would she do if she was getting into her vehicle going to or coming from work and she witnessed a grievous felony taking place? If she pulled her weapon, she would most definitely not be able to respond in a manner befitting a trained Police Officer who had undergone requalification every 6 months as is her Department’s policy. Would she even be qualified/legally covered to use her weapon after going years without re-training?

Secondly, how is she able to administer punishment to other officers who have failed to re-qualify when she herself is facing disciplinary charges? What kind of message is she sending out? Apparently, in San Francisco there seems to be one law for the street cops and another for high ranking officers. This must do wonders for morale.

Of course we know that you have a busy schedule Chief, but it is hard to believe that you couldn’t find an hour once every six months to run out to the range and “pop a few off”. You would hardly have to wait in line like everyone else. Have you forgotten what every Police Officer (and armed security officer for that matter) is taught, that using a weapon is based upon muscle memory? In other words, if you don’t use it, you lose it.

People like Chief Fong are supposed to lead by example and shame on them when they don’t. Do the right thing Chief, bring a sandwich to work with you and go out to the range on your lunch break. You shouldn’t put yourself above the law.