Eating Their Own: Union Wants to Unionize Extremist, Left-Wing Media Matters, Website Owners Furious

Started in 2004, the left-wing propaganda website Media Matters for America has been spreading lies about Republicans and conservatives for a decade, now. Naturally the site has always claimed the center-right coalition is “anti-worker” for opposing unions, but this organization itself has never been unionized. Now the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) is agitating to organize Media Matters and the propaganda outfit is fit to be tied over the union’s efforts.

Started by Clinton operative David Brock, Media Matters for America (MM) has been programming the left-wing media since its debut and one of the organization’s repeated topics has been its blanket support for unions and for all the things unions advocate. Most especially a support for the union goal of “card check.”

Card check is a union scheme of making the unionization of a business easier–easier for unions, not employers. One of its features is to have employees voting on whether or not to allow a union to enter the workplace forced to vote their preference out in the open, without a secret ballot.

Of course, having a secret ballot where a voter’s choice is not open for everyone to see is an idea as old as democracy itself. Worse, an openly seen vote leaves a voter open to pressure and intimidation from the employer and the union alike. When a voter has a secret ballot he is more likely to vote his conscience, but when his choice is made public all sorts of pressures come to bear, pressures that might cause him to vote against his own desires.

In any case, MM has been a huge supporter of the card check idea pushed by unions as far back as 2009. MM spent many months, for instance, excoriating any Republican who opposed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in 2010 and 2011.

The EFCA died still born in Congress because even the Democrat controlled House and Senate couldn’t get it passed by 2010. Even Democrat voters were against the EFCA’s essentially un-democratic nature.

Anyway, flash forward to today and the SEIU is trying to organize the supposed union-supporting Media Matters and instead of accepting unionization with open arms, Media Matters is trying to stifle the whole thing and are acting like they hope their employees don’t get a union.

As it happens, MM has hired a high-priced, anti-union management firm to help it limit the union’s efforts as much as possible.

But, one has to wonder… why is this left-wing propaganda outfit so upset and desperate to prevent unionization of its employees? After spending ten years attacking the right for being “anti-union,” wouldn’t you rather think that such pro-union propagandists would welcome a union into its fold?

Well, you might think that if you expected such an organization not to be filled with hypocrites. But, the truth is, Media Matters for America is like every other leftist organization. They only support things they want to impose on others. When those things are turned on them, however, they want nothing to do with it.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
POLICE STATE: Feds Still Buying Tons of Ammunition
  • Lawrence Westlake

    Leftism is a mental disorder, not an ideology, and leftists believe actually in nothing for which they supposedly advocate. So of course Media Matters will fight tooth and nail to crush any attempts at NLRA organization within their own ranks. For the same reasons why wealthy leftists in gentrified burbs send their kids to private rather than to public schools. They’re not that dumb to be leftists in connection with their own lives. They’re batshit crazy, but not at all stupid.

    • jim_m

      You need to refresh your comment generator. The last few comments have all started with the same 5 words.

      Leftists might have mental issues, but at least the ones here can write something original each time they comment.

  • 914

    Bend over boys.. ha ha

  • JWH

    This is … interesting, to say the least, and it makes me wonder what’s going on inside MMFA. In my experience, happy workers don’t try to unionize.

  • Brucehenry

    So the only evidence you have that MMfA is “fit to be tied,” “so upset,” “desperate,” “trying to stifle the whole thing,” and “acting like they hope their employees don’t get a union” is this one report — that they have hired this law firm?

    Here’s a cite from FOX News telling basically the same story without all the hyperbole. Do you see any evidence there of anyone being “fit to be tied”? How about “upset” or “desperate”?

    Maybe you meant “prudent” or “covering all bases.” Yeah, sure, that’s it.

    • JWH

      Warner’s histrionics aside, I do smell something off here. I don’t know anything about MMFA’s internal affairs, but I do know that in general, the partisan “nonpartisan” DC nonprofits pay their lower-level workers crummy wages. And something like MMFA is going to be a very high-stress operation. My guess is that there’s been some kind of internal strife between management and the low-level workers, and the low-level workers got fed up with it.

      • Brucehenry

        You’re probably right, but the fact that MMfA has hired a management-side law firm doesn’t mean it’s “fit to be tied,” “so upset,” or “desperate.”

        • JWH

          You know Warner and his histrionics.

        • jim_m

          Stop for a moment and consider the fact that based on Media Mutters’ political position that they should be welcoming a union and doing their utmost to facilitate its formation. Anything less is rank hypocrisy.

          • Brucehenry

            How is the simple act of hiring a law firm impeding or limiting anything? While the firm does approach labor issues from a management perspective it doesn’t appear that it has taken any action so far.

            I think we’ll have to wait to see if anything the firm does on MMfA’s behalf demonstrates Warner’s allegations of desperation. If it takes a stance in negotiations that can be seen as reflexively anti-union get back to me. So far negotiations haven’t even begun AFAIK.

          • jim_m

            What is the need to hire a legal firm at all if you are welcoming the union? Why hire a legal firm with a reputation for fighting unionization? I’m not suggesting desperation. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

          • JWH

            To me, the law firm is a yellow flag, not a red flag. The red flag would be management consultants.

          • Brucehenry

            Two words: Due Diligence.

            Also, I don’t know that the firm does or does not have a rep for “fighting unionization,” although it does offer its services to management, not labor. Perhaps it just has a rep for thorough and fair labor negotiations.

            And while YOU may not be suggesting desperation, Warner certainly is. Well he’s not suggesting it, he’s explicitly saying that’s what’s happening, on very skimpy evidence.

          • jim_m

            Unions are an unalloyed good to left wing organs like Media Mutters. There is no need for them to have any legal representation in this matter since this is not negotiation of collective bargaining it is a straight up issue of whether or not the workers want a union. As such, the left wing line has been that this is a matter for the workers and management should have no involvement. ANY lawyering up at this phase demonstrates that MM is really interested in there not being a union.

          • Brucehenry

            Media Matters has retained Perkins Coie to represent it in any negotiations that take place with SEIU. That is what due diligence is. It has not, as far as I know (and as far as YOU know) hired Perkins Coie to try to prevent the unionization from taking place at all.

            If I own a business and am informed my workers are about to join or form a union I should hire a law firm that has experience representing management in these matters. It doesn’t mean I’m attempting to prevent the union from being formed. I simply want to be prepared for whatever negotiations that occur once the union is in place.

            Because the union, representing the workers, is going to want SOMETHING. One doesn’t join a union simply to pay dues. One wants the union to make demands. One expects the union will hire a law firm experienced in dealing with management. How the game is played, I assume. I’ve never been in a union, having lived in right-to-work states all my life.

          • jim_m

            I simply pointed out that as of this moment there is no requirement for any legal representation on the part of management.

          • Brucehenry

            Certainly there is no such requirement. But it’s not a bad idea to have a law firm on retainer, is it?

            It certainly is not evidence that anyone is “furious,” “desperate,” “fit to be tied,” or “so upset.” These are all Warner’s inventions.

          • klgmac

            Yeah, we really don’t know why the fox is in the henhouse, do we? We’ll have to wait and see! LOL!

  • Hank_M

    MMFA is resisting becoming unionized?

    Really? The group that wrote:

    FACT: Unions Deliver Positive Benefits For The Broader Economy
    FACT: Unions Increase Productivity, Do Not Reduce Business Competitiveness
    FACT: Unions Vital For Reduced Inequality, Prosperous Middle Class
    Why would anyone resist all those wonderful benefits that unions provide?
    I think we know the reason.


    • “Hey, you know how we’ve been pushing the union line?”
      “Yeah – it’s good for America!”
      “The peons here want to unionize.”
      “… Shit. You mean we’ll have to start paying them a living wage? Well, there goes our revenue model…”

  • chirisdex

    So the only proof you have that MMfA is “fit to be linked,” “so disappointed,” “desperate,” “trying to constrain the whole factor,” and “acting like they wish their workers don’t get a union” is this one review — that they have employed this law firm?