Subscribe to Dollars & Sense magazine. Recent articles related to the financial crisis. Labor Needs a New Survival Plan (Steve Early)From today's Boston Globe, by frequent D&S contributor Steve Early:REPUBLICAN SCOTT Brown's Senate victory last week deprived President Obama and the Democrats of their filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate and made Obama's health care plan a high-profile casualty. There was also collateral damage for already-frustrated union backers of the president. The White House staffers and congressional leaders who've been assuring them that labor law reform was next on Obama's agenda now can't prevent a filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act. The act was designed to boost aid worker organizing and bargaining in the private sector, where union membership dropped 10 percent last year, the largest decline in 25 years. But employee free choice set off a firestorm of business opposition, long before Obama backed the legislation as a candidate last year. Corporate America does not want to risk heavier penalties for committing unfair labor practices, like firing union supporters. And management is particularly incensed about the bill's "card check" provision. It would trigger collective bargaining wherever a majority of workers signed cards demonstrating their support for unionization. During the health care reform process, some industry groups ended up allying themselves with the administration, in return for lucrative concessions. Even prior to last week's election, an informal Capitol Hill committee was cooking up a compromise on labor law reform to appease wavering Democrats. In this "EFCA-lite" version of the bill, employer recognition based on card check would remain voluntary. But the National Labor Relations Board—now one of the slowest moving federal agencies—would be directed to hold expedited elections, thereby reducing opportunities for unlawful tactics designed to thwart union representation. This watering-down of proposed workers' rights protections and Obama's now fatal delay in bringing the Employee Free Choice Act to a vote late last year follows a familiar historical pattern. A version of the same thing happened under Jimmy Carter and then, in worse fashion, with Bill Clinton. In 1977-'78, President Carter first pressured unions to go along with weaker amendments to the National Labor Relations Board than they originally wanted. Then, after being weakened itself during a Senate battle over the Panama Canal treaty, the White House failed to expend any remaining political capital on marshaling what was then a much larger pro-labor majority to overcome a GOP filibuster. Fifteen years later, Bill Clinton didn't even introduce NLRA changes. Instead, he placated labor by appointing a presidential commission to study the topic. The panel frittered away the only two years during Clinton's presidency when Democrats controlled Congress. Its reform proposals were dead on arrival by 1994, after voters swept the GOP back into power in midterm elections. Last June, top union leaders met with Obama and were told that health care legislation would come first and then the Free Choice Act. Since then, the administration has repeatedly dangled the carrot of labor law reform whenever labor made common cause with other critics of "ObamaCare." Unions were even pressured to accept things like a future tax on negotiated medical coverage because defeat of the president's plan would be a victory for the Republicans and, thus, the death-knell of the Act. Now, in a true case of déjà vu all over again, Americans are seeing the latest opportunity to strengthen their workplace rights, as promised by the Democrats, simply vanish. In the president's State of the Union address Wednesday, the state of unions—and employee free choice—wasn't even mentioned. In the wake of this latest rebuff, labor activists must return to the drawing board and quickly develop a fall-back strategy—for defending and extending collective bargaining—that doesn't hinge on amending federal law. It won't be easy. Steve Early, a labor journalist and lawyer, is author of "Embedded With Organized Labor." Read the original op-ed (though I actually don't recommend visiting the Boston Globe website—it has grotesquely intrusive pop-up ads, including one I just had to cope with, for Mass. gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker). Labels: Embedded with Organized Labor, Employee Free Choice Act, labor, Scott Brown, Steve Early Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). Card-Check Is Dead (Liza Featherstone)From Slate's The Big Money blog:Card-Check Is Dead Unions are surprisingly bad at politics. By Liza Featherstone | Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 - 11:18am Last Thursday, President Obama pronounced "card check" dead, saying that the current Employee Free Choice Act didn't have the votes to pass but that a "compromise" could work. By compromise, the president meant a version of the bill without card check, the provision obliging employers to recognize unions after a majority of workers have signed cards, rather than after an election. On the same day, Sen. Arlen Specter, newly "D"-Pa., a key swing vote, said that he, too, would support a "compromise" on EFCA: card-check-free, of course. These twin announcements sealed what most observers had understood for a while: Card check isn't happening. The provision has always been imperfect, but its death is a sure sign that the labor movement needs a more effective approach to politics. Card check was devised as a solution to a simple yet intractable problem: Workers who want to join unions do not get a fair shake. Elections take too long, giving employers plenty of time to hire high-priced union-busting law firms, fire union sympathizers, intimidate and spy upon workers, and do whatever they can do, legally or illegally, to keep the union out. Many people now work for companies like Home Depot (HD), Rite Aid (RAD), or Wal-Mart (WMT) that have plenty of resources to wear unions down and every incentive to do so since their business models depend on underpaid, short-term labor. Specter opposes card check but does support speeding up elections, allowing workers to campaign at their work sites without retaliation, and imposing stiffer penalties for violations of organizing rights. Click Here! Not everyone committed to labor-law reform is mourning card check. Columbia economist Jagdish Bhagwati, one of EFCA's most prominent sympathizers, told TBM earlier this spring that he regretted the card-check provision of the bill: "I think that it was a mistake for us who are supporters of unions and unionization to go for card check. I agree that some employers intimidate workers who wish to unionize, but those who do not wish to unionize can also be intimidated by union organizers." Bhagwati strongly supports secret ballots and thinks it would have been better to try to reform enforcement mechanisms to ensure that illegal intimidation by employers would be punished. Bhagwati also points out that U.S. labor law makes it cripplingly difficult for unions to strike: "If unions cannot strike effectively they become paper tigers, more or less. I would have concentrated on this rather than get diverted into the card-check provision." He adds, "The card-check provision has unnecessarily cost us some credibility and also some votes, I fear." Sandy Pope, president of Teamsters Local 805, which is headquartered in Long Island City, Queens, thinks labor law reform is needed but says she's "not sad about card check going away." Pope explains: "I would prefer an expedited election to card check. It's important for workers to do something as a group. In order to go into bargaining in the strongest possible way, you have to campaign. You have to really want" the union. Pope argues that if unions "treat people like babies" by bypassing the election process, workers won't build effective organizations that can stand up to the employers' aggressive behavior at the bargaining table. A shorter election would bypass much of the employers' current strategy of intimidation and firings, Pope thinks, while preserving the possibility of debate in the workplace and allowing employees to organize, if they choose to do so, rather than passively assent to a visiting bureaucrat. Read the rest of the article. Labels: card check, Employee Free Choice Act, Liza Featherstone, unions Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). Don't Believe the Hype About Union IntimidationVia Politicalaffairs.net:In the battle over the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, right-wing opposition to the bill has centered on the claim that if a majority sign-up (sometimes referred to as "card check") process of certifying the union is used, union organizers will pressure and intimidate workers into joining the union. This claim is unfounded, a new study by the University of Illinois released earlier this month revealed. The study examined a six year period in the state of Illinois where more than 21,000 public workers joined unions through majority sign-up. Currently, federal law provides two methods of certifying a new union in a workplace: majority sign-up and a voting process (sometimes referred to as a secret ballot). As it is currently written, the law gives the employer the power to decide how workers will certify their own organization. If the employer is magnanimous enough to allow workers to use the majority sign-up methods, the process is simpler and requires fewer taxpayer resources to complete. All the workers have to do is sign a union membership card, which are then verified by the National Labor Relations Board and negotiations for a first contract begin. According to the University of Illinois study of this process in that state between 2003 and 2009, not s single proven case of union intimidation of an employee could be documented. The report proves that workers not only want to voluntarily join unions but that right-wing opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give workers the right to decide how to certify their union (rather than the employer), based on claims of union intimidation is false, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a press statement this week. "Workers form unions to bargain for a better life, not because of outside intimidation. Workers need the majority sign up provision because it gives workers the choice of how to form a union, not corporations," Sweeney stated. Further, the report indicates that when employers are not hostile towards workers who favor a union in their workplace and the right to join a union is is left undisturbed, the process of certification of a union is less rancorous and less costly to taxpayers. The truth is that employer intimidation of workers who want a union is the reality, not union intimidation. Other surveys have revealed that when employers fight workers on the issue, employer harassment and intimidation of workers is rampant. According to various studies and surveys, as many as 30 percent of companies will fire pro-union employees. More than 90 percent of employers will use some kind of tactics to intimidate employees when a union organizing drive is discovered. Labels: Employee Free Choice Act, unions Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). Corporate America: The Serial Job KillerSam Pizzigati writes that the biggest job killers in America are corporate CEOs. Will Obama stand up to them, and for workers?
Read the full post here. Labels: closures and layoffs, Employee Free Choice Act, Larry Ellison, Oracle, Sam Pizzigati, Sun Microsystems Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). Singing the Same Old Song: An EFCA GameThis is from vivaelbund at the Labor Nerd blog, via Talking Labor, a project of the DSA Labor Network. Hat-tip to Ben C.Let's play a game! Below are six quotes from various conservative politicians, business representatives and other organizations. Three of them are from the 1930s and were aimed at the Wagner Act. The other three are about the Employee Free Choice Act. Can you guess which are which? Answers at the bottom. 1. "Specifically, the provisions of the bill will operate to provoke and encourage labor disputes, rather than diminish them . . . Its real effect will be to serve as a vehicle for the advancement of the selfish interests of minority labor organizations." 2. "Unions want it because it would make it easier to recruit dues-paying members, not because it would somehow defend workers' right to choose freely to unionize." 3. "To support labor in this objective by enacting this bill would permanently close the door to recovery." 4. "The act is a poison pill for our ailing economy, which is why every major business organization from every industry sector has come out in strong opposition to it." 5. "My general criticism of the . . . bill is not so much that it supports unionization as that it will in operation result in enforced unionization." 6. "Labor unions are supposed to protect workers' rights, yet union bosses want Congress to pass a law that actually robs workers of their democratic right . . . through a forced unionization process." 1. Walter Harnischfeger, National Association of Manufacturers, March 21, 1935 2. Heritage Foundation, April 23, 2007 3. Guy Harrington, National Publishers Association, March 29, 1935 4. Brian Worth, Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, February 25, 2009 5. J.M. Larkin, Bethlehem Steel, April 5, 1935 6. Senator Orrin Hatch, June 26, 2007 vivaelbund is nomme de blog of a member of the Labor Nerd blog, an exciting new blog by young union staffers, academics, and activists, where it originally appeared. Labels: Employee Free Choice Act, financial crisis, labor, recession, unions Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). Two Items on the Employee Free Choice ActEconomist Dani Rodrik had this nice post on his blog last week:What do Philippe Aghion and Dean Baker have in common?You will notice that the link leads to a petition sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute of prominent economists in support of the Employee Free Choice Act, the legislation before Congress that promises to level the playing field somewhat for workers trying to organize unions. (Thanks to Dani for reminding us about Arrow and Solow winning on American Idol.) And there's this new video from SEIU: I love the bit about how EFCA will (horrors!) turn us into France or Germany. It reminds me of Mitt Romney's speech to the conservatives when he quit the presidential race and fretted that the liberals were going to turn the United States into "the France of the 21st century" (to which John Stewart responded: "Isn't France the France of the 21st century?"). Labels: Dani Rodrik, Employee Free Choice Act, France, John Stewart, Mitt Romney, SEIU, unions Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). Employee Free Choice Act Info PageThe Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) has put together an excellent resource page on the Employee Free Choice Act. The page has links to the bill itself, a summary, a list of academic research directly related to the bill, blogs, news reports, policy briefs, etc.Click here for the resource page. PERI is also hosting an online sign-on for scholars in support of the bill. Click here for the sign-on. Labels: Employee Free Choice Act, PERI Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). CEOs Want To Use Bailout $$ To Bust UnionsGreat post from In One Ear and Out the Other:Regardless of how you feel about the Employee Free Choice Act, you should be outraged that recipients of the bail-out are using that money to lobby Congress against the measure. For the full Wikileaks transcript go here. Labels: bailout, Bank of America, Bernie Marcus, Employee Free Choice Act, Home Depot, Rick Berman, Wal Mart Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). EFCA: Missing the Forest for the Trees?Interesting Washington Monthly piece, courtesy again of LBO Talk. Here's the conclusion (one that reinforces much of what we said in a September, 2007 piece "A Lazy Man's Labor Policy" in the print edition of D&S, concerning the notorious lack of enforcement of labor law and the onerous burdens it placed on strictly legal union organizing), but the whole article is well worth reading (especially its portrayal of the typically tortuous Rite Aid unionization drive):The Little Unions That Couldn't Card check is worth fighting for--except for the "card check" part. By T. A. Frank The question, then, is how much of a fight the card check provision merits. And the answer is probably a little, but not a lot. What most undermines the secret-ballot process is that employers can violate the law in numerous ways without consequences. Under EFCA, however, every illegal action has the potential to be costly, so firings, spying, threats, or other forms of intimidation would be less likely. Also, there is an alternative way to preserve the secret ballot while guarding against company malfeasance: expedited elections. Under current law, months can go by between when NLRB announces the results of a card check vote and when a secret-ballot election is held. If, however, this campaign window were reduced to just a few days, employers would have less opportunity to intimidate union supporters into changing their minds. Workers I spoke to in Lancaster seemed content with this alternative. And some savvy people in the labor movement I spoke to feel the same way--provided that employers either refrain from captive-audience campaigning or else grant union members equal access to the workplace during a campaign. Given that card check is substantively minor, why has it come to define the entire debate about EFCA in Washington? Because it is the one element of the bill that its opponents can object to and still seem principled--it's easier to stand up for "democracy" than for the right of companies to break labor laws without consequence. And all of this factors into the gamesmanship that's likely to take place on Capitol Hill over EFCA. Commentators like Marc Ambinder have called the fight "a quandary" for Democrats, one that carries a risk of disastrous failure. But must it come to that? Deploying political capital wisely means fighting over what matters most, not what matters least. Perhaps the bill's proponents in Congress intend to stand firm in their defense of the card check provision of EFCA. But if they strategically retreat, at just the right moment, like a matador lifting his red cape, will liberals accuse Democrats of selling out labor? Or will they realize that, with or without card check, EFCA will still accomplish what's most needed--finally, at long last, restoring the rights of workers who seek to organize? Read the rest of the article Labels: Employee Free Choice Act, labor law, LBO Talk, T.A. Frank, Washinton Monthly Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). A 'Kinder, Gentler' Ruling Class? NOT!At least if this Nation article is any indication, crisis or no. Tidbits:"I get the sense that this is more important to them than even taxes or regulation," says the AFL-CIO's director of government affairs, Bill Samuels. "This is about power. And the business community is not going to give up power willingly." Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said as much to a meeting with analysts in October. "We like driving the car," he told them, "and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us." In the lead-up to the election, the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus, called Employee Free Choice "the demise of civilization." But the business lobby Obama once railed against is now giving him a taste of its wares. The Chamber denounced the bill in op-eds as "payback" to "union bosses" that would signal the end of "workplace democracy" and the advent of "Soviet-style thuggery." All the big industry associations called press conferences to declare war. "This will be Armageddon," one top Chamber official said of the battle ahead. Can Labor Revive the American Dream? By Esther Kaplan This article appeared in the January 26, 2009 edition of The Nation. January 7, 2009 The financial markets are in tatters, consumer spending is anemic and the recession continues to deepen, but corporate America is keeping its eyes on the prize: crushing organized labor. The Center for Union Facts, a business front group, has taken out full-page ads in newspapers linking SEIU president Andy Stern to the Rod Blagojevich scandal. The Chamber of Commerce is capitalizing on the debate over the Big Three bailout to claim that "unions drove the auto companies off the cliff," while minority leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators insist on steep wage cuts. A December 10 Republican strategy memo revealed their central obsession: "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor," the memo read. "This is a precursor to card check"--a clear reference to the Employee Free Choice Act. This simple amendment to federal labor law, which would, among other things, allow workers to unionize when a majority sign cards rather than requiring a bruising election, has galvanized the business community in a way even the $700 billion bailout couldn't. "I get the sense that this is more important to them than even taxes or regulation," says the AFL-CIO's director of government affairs, Bill Samuels. "This is about power. And the business community is not going to give up power willingly." Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said as much to a meeting with analysts in October. "We like driving the car," he told them, "and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us." Read the rest of the article Labels: Employee Free Choice Act, labor, labor law Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). Obama Abandoning EFCA? Not yet.Longtime labor activist Steve Early wrote an op-ed in Sunday's Boston Globe questioning President-Elect Obama's commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act. Says Early: "Rahm Emanuel [Obama's soon-to-be chief of staff] has declined to say whether the White House will support the Employee Free Choice Act."[You may have read Early's article about EFCA in the Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of Dollars & Sense.] Many union activists believe EFCA will make it easier for workers to organize and to engage in collective bargaining. Ever since the election, left-liberal bloggers have been questioning whether Obama will make EFCA a priority, as he pledged during the campaign. Last week, the Huffington Post seemed to put those fears to rest. Sam Stein wrote on Dec. 3: Some have wondered whether Emanuel, with his warm feelings for the corporate world, might try to push Obama away from the labor movement. But according to the Communication Workers of America, Emanuel voted for EFCA in the House last year. So it looks like the Obama administration will support EFCA. But there's nothing wrong with the labor movement keeping the pressure on. Labels: Barack Obama, Employee Free Choice Act, Rahm Emanuel, Steve Early Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!). |
