NEMA Currents : Labor

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.

Why Are We Even Talking About Card Check?

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:49:00 GMT

Brian Worth, chairman of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, wrote an excellent editorial for the Washington Post in which he calls into question the need for the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S 560) or even a "compromise" designed to get around the problems with EFCA by proposing mail-in ballots, giving union organizers unlimited access to employees in the workplace, and mandating "quickie" elections. Some of the key points he makes:

Unions are not losing secret ballot elections - an analysis of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) data by the Bureau of National Affairs' (BNA) research division (BNA Plus) found that in 2008, unions won 66.8% of the votes and the number of unionization elections held increased (1,579 were held in 2008, compared to 1,519 in 2007);
Unions already have significant access to employees - union organizers can visit workers' homes and approach them in public places, so why is there a need to give them unprecedented access to employees in the workplace itself?
The amount of time it takes to hold union elections is not cumbersome - the NRLB estimates that the average time to complete a union election was 38 days in 2008 (down from 50 days in 1980).

Bottom line: industry believes in the value of workers and has worked with unions in the past to improve the workplace for their employees. But proposing ill-conceived "solutions" without conclusive evidence of a problem with secret ballot elections is a house of cards.

"Snap Elections" - the Newest Card Check Bogeyman

Owen, Sarah — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:11:00 GMT

Unable to stomach a "loss" on anti-democratic and anti-competitive "card check" legislation, proponents of the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S 560) apparently are now pushing for a "compromise" to reach the 60 votes necessary for Senate action. Newly-minted Senate Democrat Arlen Specter, who opposes EFCA in its current form, is rumored to be seeking an alternative to EFCA with labor groups and key congressional leaders. Details on the "compromise" proposal are not yet available, but it likely will include "snap elections" and increased access for union organizers.

Imposing "snap elections" would require union representation elections to be held within just a few days after the required amount of union authorization cards are submitted. Union access provisions would give non-employees, professional union organizers, the right to enter a workplace during work hours to solicit support during an organizing campaign. Now, I'm not going to pass judgment on the potential "compromise" before I actually see its provisions in writing, but frankly, this doesn't sound much better than EFCA.

The Administration remains committed to "reforming" the labor law system. Vice President Biden last week said "we're supportive of it [Employee Free Choice Act], and will continue to support it." The naming of several EFCA-supporters to key positions in the Department of Labor, as well as the nomination of two labor-backed candidates to the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB), also signals that the fight isn't over.

Unfortunately, this issue won't just go away. As one of my favorite "Harry Potter" characters (Professor Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody) warns, CONSTANT VIGILANCE! is paramount. Click here to take action.

Thank you, Senator Specter...Great News for "Card Check" Opponents

Owen, Sarah — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:50:00 GMT

Today, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced his intention to OPPOSE cloture and final passage of the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" (HR 1409/S 560), dealing a significant blow to the AFL-CIO and other proponents who had been counting on his vote to support the anti-democratic and anti-competitive legislation.

"The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses....I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind. Knowing that I will not support cloture on this bill, Senators may choose to move on and amend the NRLA as I have suggested or otherwise. This announcement should end the rumor mill that I have made some deal for my political advantage. I have not traded my vote in the past and I would not do so now. " - Senator Specter, in a statement delivered on the Senate floor (3/24/2009)

Bravo, Senator Specter! And bravo to those of you who have contacted your legislators and urged them oppose this bill - your collective voice makes a difference. Please keep the anti-EFCA drumbeat going by visiting NEMA's "Take Action" website.

In other EFCA news...a "compromise" being floated by Starbucks, Costco and Whole Foods met great resistance among industry and union officials alike, albeit for different reasons. Long story short, EFCA in any form is a bad idea and would be devastating to our economy.

Capitol Hill is "Card Check" Buzzing...

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:18:00 GMT

As I “pounded the pavement” the past couple of days promoting NEMA and its activities on Capitol Hill, I couldn’t help but marvel at the sheer amount of buzz about the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” (EFCA; HR 1409/S 560) that specter which threatens to kill the use of secret ballot in union elections and allow federal arbitrators to impose employment conditions on America’s businesses. I heard about “card check” in congressional offices, in the hallways, and yes, even while enjoying a sandwich in the cafeteria. Why is this bill overshadowing so many other important issues facing our country? Well, for union organizers, this is a payback issue for delivering big electoral gains for sympathetic lawmakers in 2006 and 2008 and they see “card check” as a way to bolster dwindling membership rosters. For the rest of us—industry, small businesses, and an overwhelming majority of Americans—this is about protecting the rights of employees so they are not intimidated in making decisions about joining labor unions. It is about ensuring that employers and employees, not the federal government, set contract and employment terms. It is about protecting those jobs we have and ensuring that new jobs will be created.

Members of Congress are feeling the pinch – previous supporters of EFCA are rethinking their positions in light of the current economic crisis. They are hearing from business owners and employees about the devastating consequences enactment of this bill would have on our economy, and they are listening. NEMA’s voice is being heard – and yours will be, too.

In this ("Card Check") Corner...Warren Buffett

Owen, Sarah — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:31:00 GMT

Round 1 of the battle over the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA) is winding down as round 2 begins with the introduction of the legislation in both chambers of Congress today. And what a bout it will be...here are just a few things we have learned about EFCA in just the past few days:

A new study by economist Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar demonstrates that if EFCA passed today and resulted in an increase in unionization from the current rate of about 12% to 15%, unemployment a year from now would rise by 1.5 million, to 10.4 million
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has signaled that the House will wait for the Senate to pass EFCA before taking up the bill (guess some politically vulnerable House members don't want to risk their necks to vote for EFCA, only to then see the bill die in Senate)
Proponents of the bill contend that once Democrat Al Franken is certified as the winner of the Minnesota Senate battle, he will be the 60th vote needed to end any filibuster and guarantee passage of the legislation
Noted investor (and Obama supporter) Warren Buffett is "against card check, to make a perfectly flat statement"

The gloves are on and NEMA is ready to spar - will you step into the ring?

Take a Memo, Congress: 86% of Voters Oppose Card Check

Owen, Sarah — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:53:00 GMT

While industry, Congress and the Obama Administration are rightfully focusing on economic recovery at this time, let's not forget about the specter of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA). EFCA effectively eliminates private ballot elections for union representation by instituting a "card check" system whreeby a union would be allowed to organize if a majority of employees simply sign an authorization card. This system threatens the privacy of employees and exposes them to potential intimidation. Under a card check system, the employees' signatures are made public to the employer, the union organizers, and coworkers. In addition, EFCA opens the door for contract terms being imposed on private, unionized employers through a process of compulsory, binding arbitration.

Sound like a scary proposition for industry? You bet it is.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, of which NEMA is a member, just released national polling data showing that 86% of voters oppose card check, while 72% of voters think mandatory binding arbitration is "risky" and "unwise." Congress and the new administration should heed voters' opinions and kill EFCA. You can send Congress a message by visiting NEMA's "Take Action" website.

Labor Gears Up to Kill Secret Balloting

golds — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:25:00 GMT

A headline from a front-page Business Section article in today's WaPo: "Labor Seeks Election Rewards." And what rewards are those? "Labor's top priority is passage of legislation that would make it easier to organize unions ...." That's the so-called "card check" legislation, which would eliminate secret balloting in the workplace.

Of course, be prepared for slanted media coverage of this issue over the next few months. Take, for example, this doozy by WaPo staff writer Michael Fletcher in today's article: "Currently, employers can demand that workers hold secret-ballot elections to determine whether to form unions ...." Demand? As if allowing secret balloting is something workers would oppose. Goodness, what other freedoms will employers force upon their employees?

The alternative to secret ballots, of course, is requiring workers to be publicly confronted by union organizers who will ask them directly, "Want to sign this card and support our union?" Now that's intimidating.