NEMA Currents : EFCA

The Politics and Policy of Job Creation

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:00:00 GMT

This week House and Senate leaders announced that Congress will do something to respond to rising unemployment before they adjourn for the year. I don't know any economist -- or anyone else, for that matter -- who would argue that the current 10.2% unemployment rate and lack of job creation in this economic recovery is NOT a problem. Quite the contrary - workers and their families are very concerned about the availability of jobs, and employers are concerned not only about being able to keep the workers they currently employ, but also being able to grow the workforce when practicable.

What will Congress' answer to the unemployment situation be? Some of the suggestions have been out there a while: another extension of unemployment benefits, extending certain individual tax breaks, giving tax credits to small businesses, providing aid to state Medicaid programs, increased government investment in infrastructure projects, etc. And while there may be some merit and value to these suggestions, one has to wonder: what is the appropriate role for government to play in creating jobs?

The National Chamber Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute sponsored a forum this week which examined the "Challenges to Creating 20 Million New Jobs: What is the Proper Role of Government?" Some of the panelists' general comments:

You don't grow the economy by increasing taxes.
You don't grow the economy by increasing uncertainty (e.g., potential new government mandates on businesses).
Increased regulation, higher taxes, and higher costs (health care, energy) will make job creation more challenging in this recovery.
Job creation is most robust when the government limits its interference in the free market and allows the private sector to lead the way.
The American people are concerned about jobs, but they care more about freedom, opportunity and enterprise.

Over the next few weeks, Congress should give serious thought to what government policies -- if any -- would actually result in jobs being created and unemployed Americans returning to work. And while they're at it, they should also carefully consider the effects certain high profile legislation (e.g., health care reform, climate change, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act") could have on job creation.

Watch the Pots...They'll Eventually Boil

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:11:00 GMT

With every new presidential administration comes a different set of priorities and issues, and Congress' legislative agenda reflects this fact. However, while much of the media focus has been on the big ticket items--health care reform, climate change, regulation of the financial industry, and the economy, there are several other items that are simmering on the backburner. At some point, the heat will get turned up and these issues will really start bubbling.

Here is a sampling of just a few such issues:

Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act (HR 3126): expands government regulation of consumer financial products, potentially impacting business' credit agreements with customers. Click here to learn more and to send a message to Congress.
Healthy Families Act (HR 2460): mandates that businesses with 15 or more employees provide up to 7 days of paid sick leave to their employees.
Protecting America's Workers Act (HR 2067): strengthens the authority of the U.S. Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA), giving OSHA more tools for increased enforcement and penalties.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform: Congress plans to introduce/consider legislation to overhaul our nation's chemicals management system. NEMA has urged Congress to include the "Environmental Design of Electrical Equipment Act" (HR 2420) as part of such reform. For more infromation, please click here.
Employee Free Choice Act (S 560/HR 1409) or similar compromise: strips workers' of their rights to secret ballots for union organizing elections and imposes mandatory binding arbitration on employees and employers if they fail to achieve consensus on contract terms within 120 days. Click here to read more and take action.

Most of these issues won't make the front page of the newspaper or create as much debate as say, health care reform, but it is important to know that they are on the stove. Industry needs to keep an eye on these pots (as well as numerous others...this list is by no means exhaustive) and communicate to Congress on both those proposals with which we agree and those we don't. The moral of the story: we don't want the pots to boil over before we have a chance to have our say on their potential (positive or negative) impact.

"Steely" Resolve on EFCA

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:00:00 GMT

This week the AFL-CIO is holding its 2009 convention in Pittsburgh, and two issues grabbing most of the attention are overhaul of the nation's health care system and the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S 560). And the big guns are out in full force.

On Monday, U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis assured the assembly that the Obama administration would fight for EFCA, stating "I will work with the White House so that together we make the strongest case possible for the Employee Free Choice Act....My friends, we will join you in the fight."

President Barack Obama addressed convention delegates on Tuesday. In his speech, he assured the delgates that "We'll grow our middle class by building a strong labor movement. That's why I named Hilda Solis, the daughter of union members, as our new Labor Secretary. Hilda and I know that whether we're in good economic times or bad, labor is not the problem - labor is part of the solution. That's why we've begun reversing and replacing old anti-labor Executive Orders and policies with ones that protect your benefits; protect your safety; and protect your rights to organizing and collective bargaining...And that's why I stand behind the Employee Free Choice Act - because if a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union." (By the way, if you want an interesting read, check out the article "Ties between Obama and labor tested" in the September 15th issue of The Hill.)

In other EFCA news...the new chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP) Committee, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), last week said that he had the 60 votes necessary back in July to clear the card-check bill through the Senate, but that the late Senator Ted Kennedy's illness prevented him from traveling to Washington to cast a vote. Senator Harkin's comments are curious. There are still quite a few moderate Democrats -- Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and others -- who have either indicated they would oppose the bill or have not yet publicly committed to vote one way or another on EFCA or any so-called compromise. With no Republicans on board, it is a unclear on what basis Senator Harkin made this claim.

All we know for sure is that this issue is not dead. The business community, led by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, will continue to oppose any legislation that strips workers' of rights to secret ballots or forces employees and employers into untenable, government-mandated contracts. After all, EFCA, in any form, is still the "Pitts."

Labor Day 2009: Fate of EFCA

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:46:00 GMT

As our nation prepares to bid farewell to summer and celebrate Labor Day, now is the perfect time to take stock of where we are with respect to the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S560), also known as EFCA or simply "card check."

Americans don't want "card check" provisions that strip workers of their rights to secret ballot union elections. Polls have shown that approxiately 74% of Americans (including a majority of union households) do not support legislation that would replace secret ballot elections with controversial "card check" systems for organizing/membership decisions.
Despite talk of a potential "compromise" that would address the secret ballot issue, to date no alternative legislation has been introduced in Congress and made available to the public for review. All summer we have seen media reports that a "compromise" is in the works to address concerns and protect workers' rights to secret ballots elections (although presumably not address other destructive provisions in the bill, such as mandatory binding federal arbirtration). But so far, no details or specific legislation has been released.
EFCA appears to be on hold...for now, at least. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was speaking before the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce recently and commented that "we [the Senate] have too many things on our plate" to bring EFCA up for consideration in the Senate right away. However, I am hesitant to interpret that statement to mean that EFCA is "dead" for the year. If the Senate cannot get agreement and pass health care reform (the #1 priority) this fall, EFCA may percolate to the top of its agenda. After all, it wasn't too long ago that we saw reports that Senator Reid had instructed staff to look for ways to "push" EFCA (or a similar compromise) through the Senate as quickly as possible to head off opponents from organizing an effective campaign against it.
Even the AFL-CIO has acknowledged that the White House will not push EFCA until health care reform is finalized. Senator Reid's statement aside, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told a blog's webchat audience that "The President/and [White House Chief of Staff Rahm] Emanuel have both said they dont intend to bring Employee Free Choice Act up until Health Insurance Reform is done. Which gives us an additional reason to do Health Insurance Reform now!" Clearly, advocates haven't given up on EFCA...in fact, on September 10, 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act Coalition is holding a lobbying day on the Hill and expects 300+ advocates to fly in to D.C. to make the case to Congress for EFCA.

That's the state of play...will the Senate act on EFCA this fall or won't they?

It's Flip-Flop Season

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:01:00 GMT

"I will not be an automatic 60th vote. And I would illustrate that by my position on employees' choice, also known as card check. I think it is a bad bill and I'm opposed to it and would not vote to invoke cloture." -- Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), in a news conference announcing his switch to the Democratic Party (April 28, 2009)

Ari Melber: "...we'll go to the third question. In stitching these three together is it fair to say that on the climate change legislation, on employee free choice, on a public option health care plan, those will all be areas where you'll be with the majority for cloture to have these up or down votes?"

Sen. Specter: "Yes, no doubt about those three issues at all." -- Transcript from Netroots Nation's Pennsylvania Leadership Forum (August 14, 2009)

Summer may be the season for wearing flip-flops, but Senator Specter isn't wearing this one particularly well. Just three-and-a-half months after saying he would not vote for cloture to bring the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (S. 560) to the Senate floor, the senator appears to have changed his tune. But despite all the media reports that a "compromise" is in the works, nothing about EFCA has actually changed yet. So why the reversal?

EFCA in any form is a bad bill that threatens employees' rights, manufacturing competitiveness, and job growth. Pennsylvanians have the right to know why their senator has changed his position. My advice? Call Senator Specter in Washington (U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121; Direct Office: 202-224-4254) and ask.

Summertime Blues

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:10:00 GMT

Last week I wrote columns on the possible "compromise" on the anti-democratic "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S 560) and the proposed "millionaire" surtax designed to pay for health care reforms. I'd like to say that all of the problems with EFCA and the health care bill have been worked out, but this is July, not April Fools Day. Very little seems to have changed from last week, other than the fact that legislators are increasingly short-tempered and sleep-deprived from hours of negotiations.

When frustration abounds, members of Congress and Senators often say things or propose things that are questionable. Here are two such tidbits from the past week:

During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, Representative John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, apparently questioned the point of lawmakers reading through the House health care bill before voting on it: "I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill.' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"
According to a July 28th article in Roll Call, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is considering ways to speed compromise legislation on union organizing and arbitration through the Senate to head off opponents. The article quotes an unnamed leadership aide as saying, "This is not the kind of thing where we could have a long, drawn-out rollout. We'd have to say, 'Here's the deal,' and then get to the floor and get it passed before anyone can mobilize against it."

Speaking from experience as former Hill staffer, good policy does not get made when driven by tired, frustrated lawmakers scratching and clawing to cobble together the minimum number of votes required to pass major legislation. It's time for Congress to take their summer break...the work will still be there when they return in September.

Let's Make a Deal

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Compromise: 1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions. 2. the result of such settlement. 3. something intermediate between different things. 4. an endangering, esp. of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc. 5. to settle by a compromise. 6. to make liable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc. 7. to involve or affect unfavorably.

The Wall Street Journal recently published a great editorial on Senate discussions over the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” (HR 1409/S 560). The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace issued a press release on compromise discussions, both of which got me thinking: of these seven definitions of “compromise” from my Random House College Dictionary, which ones apply to the ongoing negotiations on “card check”?

Depends on whom you ask—those parties that are actively involved in the “compromise” negotiations to achieve the magic 60 votes necessary for passage in the U.S. Senate probably feel that they are settling differences by “mutual concessions.” Of course, we don’t know which parties are actually cutting the deals—are the compromise discussions limited to “squishy” Senators and union activists, or do small business owners, employers, and the employees themselves have a seat at the table?

On the other hand, die-hard opponents of EFCA in any form hear “compromise” and think in terms of the verb, as in, “any compromise on EFCA is going to compromise the free market system and jobs.” They tend to adopt definitions 4, 6 and 7 as their “card check” mantra. In other words, any form of this bill will endanger the American economy.

“Deal-making” is not necessarily the same thing as true compromise. If Congress wants to have a serious discussion about changes to labor law, all parties and stakeholders—employees, unions, small business owners, employers, etc.—need to be included in the discussions.

Yes, It's Still Out There...

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:00:00 GMT

To say that Washington is a busy place this summer is an understatement. Congress is still negotiating a deal to bring energy and climate change legislation to the floor. Numerous Senate and House committees are combing their way through hundreds of pages of legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system. The Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations process is in full swing. The House of Representatives even held 53 votes on Thursday. Yep, busy.

With all of the focus on these high-profile issues, you may think that the infamous "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S 560), aka "card check," has fallen by the wayside. It hasn't.

In fact, negotiations on potential "compromises" are going strong. And the variations on EFCA being considered are, in many respects, just as troubling as the original version (which substitutes secret ballot elections with a card check system and imposes mandatory binding arbitration oh employers and unions that fail to achieve consensus on contract terms within a specified time period). The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) published a summary of possible variations, a few of which include--

"quick snap" elections (calling for elections within just a few days after organizers submit the necessary amount of authorization cards)
increased access to employees (in the workplace, at their homes, etc.)
"postcard check" (card check system implemented via the mail)
"baseball-style" government arbitration (allowing government arbitrators to accept the "last and best" offer from both parties, at which point the arbitrator chooses the proposal deemed most reasonable)

The timing for bringing a bill to the Senate floor is unknown, but there is pressure to do so this summer. Stay tuned for more details...

Devil in the Details...the Other "Card Check" Demon

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:26:00 GMT

Most of the attention on the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S 560) has centered on provisions which would effectively strip workers of their right to secret ballot elections in deciding whether to join unions, replacing such elections instead with a "card check" system. But the other feature of EFCA is just as diabolical for business and workers alike.

Under current labor law, unions and employers are obligated to bargain in good faith over labor contracts, engaging in "give and take" that usually results in a reasonable compromise for both workers and management. EFCA's enactment would change this significantly. If management and the newly formed union cannot agree to a first contract within 90 days, either side can demand that the dispute go to a federal arbitrator, who would have the power to impose a contract on both sides, locking in provisions for two years. While many employers shudder at the possibility of the federal government setting the terms of labor contracts, it is important to recognize that binding arbitration would strip workers of valuable rights, too. They would no longer be able to vote on a contract that their union leaders negotiated with management on their behalf.

In its May 29th issue, the Wall Street Journal published a great editorial on the arbitration provisions of EFCA which includes an insightful quote from Paul Kersey, director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Mr. Kersey said, "What the bill doesn't explain is what happens when the government imposes a contract that a company can't afford. Ask for a bailout?"

Indeed.

Card Check and Small Business - the Remix

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Back in February, I posted a blog about the impact of the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S 560) on America's small businesses. The blog included a link to an editorial written by Representiatve Howard "Buck" McKeon, the Ranking Republican Member on the House Education and Labor Committee, that debunked the myth that small businesses won't be impacted by EFCA.

Nearly four months later, the debate about EFCA and potential "compromises" rages on, despite one columnist's opinion that EFCA isn't a big deal. Gene Marks, a CPA and owner of the Marks Group, recently published an article in Business Week urging everyone to "ignore the card check debate." He asserts that support for EFCA is weakening and small employers weren't worried about the bill in the first place.

Hmm...not sure I agree with that. From those I talk to, smaller manufacturing firms care just as much about the potential consequences of EFCA as larger manufacturers. Prior to coming to NEMA, I worked for a different association comprised mostly of small businesses. Trust me, they cared. And so does the National Federation of Independent Business, the leading small business association representing small and independent businesses, which has stated that card check agreements are "bad for employees and small business."

Bottom line - we all wish this debate would go away. But saying that EFCA won't impact small businesses is, in my opinion, naive.