The Boston Globe's White Coat Notes contains the following, after citing my post below:
The union responded this afternoon, saying Levy "continues to parrot the Bush Administration's talking points in the way he mischaracterizes Senator Kennedy's ... bill, which was not the subject of our letter."
"Despite Mr. Levy's attempts to obfuscate what many hospital workers throughout Boston are actually asking for, our message is clear," SEIU executive vice president Mike Fadel said in an e-mail. "Hospital workers across the city are calling for free and fair union secret ballot elections, which include a code of conduct agreed to by employers to ensure their right to vote is not interfered with by hospital management."
This is really something. It appears that the nastiest thing you can say about someone in Massachusetts is that (1) they they may have said something similar to what a Republican administration has said and (2) that they might disagree with our senior Senator. In our overwhelmingly single party state, this is a way of trying to isolate (and watch for this next -- demonize) someone who disagrees with you.
For the record, I have tremendous regard and affection for Senator Kennedy and what he has done for this state, this country, and the world and -- how shall I say this politely? -- much less regard and affection for the Bush administration.
But that is not really the point, is it? These issues ultimately rise or fall on their own merit. As I mentioned below, I have seen no public reports that any person in authority at any of the hospitals in Boston has agreed with the SEIU's proposed code of conduct. Are all the hospital CEOs pseudo-Democrat anti-incumbent apologists for the Republican party? Or are there substantive and legitimate reasons for the lack of traction for the union's proposal in this city? Or perhaps someone has agreed to the code of conduct but has not made it public. If so, now would be a good time to speak up and explain the reasons for your agreement.