Poll v. Poll: A Response

Consultant Mike Murphy, who is working with the forces arrayed against EFCA, or "card check," e-mails to dispute my assessment of his side's polling.

Marc,

I'd argue with your assertion that the two card check polls are opposite, yet equal sides of the same coin.   Our data [note: data collected by pollster John McLaughlin and Associates]  is far more  accurate.

The AFL polling -- despite the great polling skills of my pal Peter Hart -- asks a very generic question about employee rights.  We focus  on the way a worker's life would actually change if this bill passes  and the secret ballot that is the usual situation in unionizing  efforts today essentially vanishes.  I think our more specific  question is far more predictive.   The AFL question is just a crafty  attempt to frame the debate, but in an artificial way; it is too 
generic to really have any real world force.   If the Hart question  added just three words  -- "replacing the secret ballot" --  then it  would be much more accurate.

It is like an income tax question.  If you ask "should government have the power to levy income taxes to pay for national defense, healthcare and other other government programs" most people would say yes.  If  you ask "should your income taxes go up 7% next year to pay for  government programs like national defense and healthcare" you get a different answer that is much closer to political reality.

The final proof is labor's own actions.  They are rushing this measure because they know public scrutiny is their greatest enemy on this bill.

Best,

Murphy
(Proud dues paying member of two unions)