She said it "Herself"

You know, when I first moved to South Dakota, I thought Stephanie Herseth Sandlin had it going on.  She was a "blue dog" Democrat, one of the good Dems that would stand up to her party, especially in matters of fiscal responsibility.  However, when Obama was elected, something changed in her.  I don't know if they have threatened her in some way, bribed her, or if she just found her inner Progressive, but she changed.  Or did she?

I have a job with a company that is dependent on having a large workforce.  This industry gives opportunity to people with limited skills, but who are willing to work and learn the trade.  And, if they work hard and grow their knowledge, they can make a good living all their lives.  It is truly a good industry to be a part of.  When I discovered, back in Spring 2009, that "Herself" favored a bill that would allow unions to solicit any group to join their union, and when it was time to vote, the union would be able to view how they voted, I realized that I had to get to her quickly, since surely someone had misled her.  Not Stephanie, hero extraordinaire, defender of the people of South Dakota and beyond!

I wrote her, begging her to reconsider her position on the issue, explaining that this would hurt the people of South Dakota, and to think like a South Dakotan, and get in there and fight the party on this one.  Note:  I found out later that she not only supported the bill, but also co-sponsored the bill.  Here is what she wrote back (and I quote):

"The bill represents a fairly straightforward idea:  workers should get the right to vote whether or not to organize a union, free from pressure or fear of retribution from fellow employees, unions or their employer, and that vote should be transparent and fair.  I have co-sponsored the bill,...."  She also added"... these issues are not nearly as problematic in our state as elsewhere."

To which I replied:  "Although I appreciate your explanation of the bill, I am deeply concerned that you have very limited knowledge of the potential crisis that this bill will ultimately have on business in South Dakota and across the country.  I have lived and worked in several areas of the country, including at least one that was heavily unionized; and I know you would not like to see in South Dakota the tactics that were employed to intimidate and coerce unknowing workers.  I would appreciate your moving out of the political arena and keep in mind the people of South Dakota when you re-think your support of the bill."

To which I received her typical canned response letter:  "...and I will keep your concerns in mind as this issue is addressed in Congress."  In other words, "Herself" has sent all of the time she is going to allot on this topic.  And, who am I to question the wisdom of her co-sponsorship.

First of all, why do the Democrats need someone from South Dakota to sponsor a union-friendly bill?  Did they need someone naive?  Did they want it to try to push it through, acting as if it must be good if middle America wants it?  Or, maybe she just thought it all up by "Herself".  Surely, Stephanie doesn't really believe this would be good for South Dakota.  And secondly, if this is not as problematic in our state as elsewhere, then why is she co-sponsoring the bill?  Things that make you go "Hmmm".

Apparently, someone in South Dakota thinks it is a bad idea, because on November 2nd, at the polls, South Dakota will vote on Constitutional Amendment K, which, if passed, will guarantee South Dakotans the right to vote BY SECRET BALLOT.  You know, on November 2nd, we will still go into the voting booth, fill out our form -- in private-- with no one looking over our shoulder and no one having the RIGHT to see who we vote for, or whether we vote yes or no on Amendment K.  Shouldn't the people voting for organization of a union have the same ability?  Or maybe, this is just a precursor of things to come...maybe soon we will lose our right to a private voting booth, too.