The Wonk Room

Sen. Lincoln: It’s Not Necessary For My Constituents To Earn Higher Wages Or Have Better Benefits

lincoln.jpgWhile giving herself “room to support the measure if it’s brought up later,” Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) said yesterday that “she doesn’t think federal legislation that would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret-ballot elections is necessary.” The legislation in question is the Employee Free Choice Act, which allow workers to form a union if a majority sign cards of consent, instead of having to undergo a full and very often unfair “election” process.

The Weekly Standard called this a “shrewd move by Lincoln” as “unions are sure to apply increasing pressure to undecided Senators as the session gets under way and a vote draws nearer.” However, it’s only a shrewd move if Lincoln is against seeing her own constituents earn higher wages and have better benefits.

In 2007, just 8.8 percent of Arkansas workers were members of unions. That same year, an Arkansas worker’s average weekly wage was $712, which was 44th in the nation.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research has found that “unionization raises the wages of the typical low-wage worker (one in the 10th percentile) by 20.6 percent.” Furthermore, were the Free Choice Act to pass, it is estimated that an additional 14,157 workers in Arkansas would receive health insurance, while 11,164 would receive pension benefits.

But there is a potential explanation for Lincoln’s denial of support for the Free Choice Act. As Matthew Yglesias noted, Arkansas is “poverty-stricken and features ultra low wages. But guess who likes low wages? Wal-Mart. And guess who loves Wal-Mart? Arkansas politicians like Blanche Lincoln.”

And guess what Walmart doesn’t love? Unions:

We like driving the car,” [Walmart CEO Lee] Scott told the Associated Press earlier this month when explaining his opposition to employee free choice, “and we’re not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us.”

As David Madland noted, “Corporations rather than workers are increasingly rewarded for growth in the economy.” Unionization could help temper that trend, and it will take lawmakers looking out for the interests of workers instead of CEOs to make it happen.






5 Responses to “Sen. Lincoln: It’s Not Necessary For My Constituents To Earn Higher Wages Or Have Better Benefits”

  1. jps Says:

    Bundle card check and Ledbetter with an amnesty bill for Wal-Mart’s illegal immigrant problems and then see if Lincoln votes against cloture.


  2. stateofthedivision Says:

    Pay & benefits. Unions deserve watching in this regard. SEIU Union President Andy Stern said employer sponsored health insurance is dead and not coming back.

    The question is who picks up the tab?


  3. jps Says:

    The tab is a lot lighter without accountants requiring “pre-approval” from M.D.s and charging a huge overhead for the opportunity to frequently override their judgment, forcing the uninsured into the emergency room where we all pick up their tab. The question is, who wants to keep the tab deep fried in insurance company pork fat while the ‘Boomers retire? The answer is, not anyone who isn’t directly benefiting from said deep fried pork fat.


  4. LiberalVoter Says:

    Sounds like it’s time for Congress to also not have higher wages or better benefits. In fact, it is time to start hooking their wages and benefits to the average American’s.




Jump to Top

About Wonk Room | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2008 Center for American Progress Action Fund
image Register imageimageRSSimageimage imageimage
image
Latest Posts

Advertisement

Issues

Alerts

image
Sign up for Wonk Room Alerts



image
Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
imageTopic Cloud


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll


imageAbout Wonk RoomimageimageContact UsimageimageDonateimage