While this blog takes no position on the Iraq war and does not in any way intend to suggest that the debate over the Employee Free Choice Act is of comparable gravity, we do note that many of the supporters of the EFCA have apologized for their vote on the war and complained that it was based on “bad information.” Here are just a few examples:

John Edwards:

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

Hillary Clinton:

"There are no do-overs in life," Clinton said. She says Congress received bad information going into the vote and that she would have voted differently given what she knows now.

Jay Rockefeller:

Our men and women in uniform are serving with distinction, but the fact is that the Administration at all levels, and to some extent the Congress, used bad information to bolster the case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war if we knew then what we know now.

Good information is important when deciding any national policy. We’ve argued repeatedly that EFCA proponents are relying on bad information. The most recent examples came at today’s Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Among the choice misstatements:

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), committee chairman, says what happened to Hohrein happens to 30,000 workers a year, one every 17 minutes.

It’s illegal, it’s unacceptable, but it happens everyday….The current system is broken, it isn’t protecting workers….The rules of the NLRB are so biased, workers never get a chance to have their voice heard.

The range of misinformation is quite broad. (Example HERE.) It covers the extent of employer misconduct, the public support for card-check, the adequacy of NLRB remedies, the likelihood of union intimidation, the impact of unionization on employee compensation and productivity, and many other topics. But, unlike the difficulties in obtaining intelligence on pre-war Iraq, the truth about the state of labor relations in this country can be found with just a little research. We recommend the following websites as a starting point:

• MYTH vs. FACT: The So-Called “Employee Free Choice Act” -- House Committee on Education and LaborRepublican website
• Card Check Bill Stripping Workers’ Rights Opposed by 91 Percent of Democratic Voters | Dem Bill A Payback for “Desperate” Big Labor Contributors -- House Minority Leader John Boehner
• The Truth About Improper Firings and Union Intimidation -- The Heritage Foundation
• Debunking the Bunkum on Card Check  – ShopFloor.org (National Association of Manufacturer’s blog)
• DID SEN. OBAMA DO HOMEWORK ON CARD CHECK BILL?  -- The Union-Free Employer (Kreitzman Mortensen & Borden blog)
• New York Times On Employee Free Choice Act -- The Union-Free Employer (Kreitzman Mortensen & Borden blog)
• NLRB Emphasizes its Effectiveness in Protecting Rights -- EFCA Updates
• Current Law Provides Adequate "Consequences" -- EFCA Updates
• Union-Friendly Press Continues to Propagate Misleading Statistics -- EFCA Updates
• EFCA Proponents Target Young Adults' Angst -- EFCA Updates
• Labor Union Numbers Game -- Public Service Research Councill
• Can You Believe Union Polls? -- Public Service Research Council
• The AFL-CIO Numbers Racket – LaborPains.org (Center for Union Facts blog)
• Fact vs. Fiction on H.R. 800-- Coalition for a Democratic Workplace

Yes, Senators, it is true that most of these sites have ties to management and are generally opposed to the EFCA. Some are rabidly anti-union. But we aren’t asking you to take the data provided at those sites at face value. Just don’t ignore the information they reference. And don’t take the labor-sponsored commentators at face value either. Those commentators have agendas too. Have your staff do some digging of its own. Decide what the true facts are and explain why you are discounting the rest of the information. That way, you won’t later have the embarrassment of relying on “bad information.”