The Wonk Room

Same EFCA Opponents Claiming To Defend Democracy Oppose Democratization Of Railway Labor Act

Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) like to portray themselves as the great defenders of democracy, protecting the “secret ballot” for workers everywhere. “There are sacred principles that epitomize American democracy,” wrote Rep. John Kline (R-MN), the ranking member on the House Ed. and Labor committee, while attacking EFCA. “They have private ballots in America, but not in other countries where there are tyrannies and socialism,” agreed Mark McKinnon of the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).

But now that the National Mediation Board (NMB) — which oversees labor-management relations for the airline and railroad industries under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) — wants to issue a rule change making unionization elections in those two industries more democratic, Kline and WFI are singing a different tune.

Currently, under the RLA, employees who choose not to vote in a union election are counted as “no” votes, while under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employees who don’t vote simply aren’t counted at all. So, in practice, this means that employees under RLA must get a majority of employees to vote affirmatively, while those under NLRA must get a majority of voting members to do so, just like in an election for a political office.

The NMB wants to change the RLA’s rules, to equalize the two processes. Kline and WFI reacted like this:

Republican Reps. John Kline (Minn.) and John Mica (Fla.) issued a release that called it a radical proposal that adds “to a troubling perception that federal agencies have embraced a culture of union favoritism.” [...] The Workforce Fairness Institute issued a press release titled “Forced Unionization” in response to the proposed rule change, and criticized the NMB for providing a “bailout” to the AFL-CIO.

The NMB has opened its proposed change up to a 60-day comment period, and with their respective responses, Kline and WFI reveal that their opposition has nothing to do with democracy. It’s about preventing unions from gaining more members, at all costs. After all, in what other election do people who don’t vote get counted for one side or the other?

Much like the push in Congress to bring truck drivers for FedEx under the NLRA, this rule change would eliminate an odd inequity in the system that is the product of the antiquated RLA, which was written in 1934. There is no reason to have the deck stacked against railway and airline workers, simply because they are pulled under an older law. But to Kline and WFI, it seems, whichever rules make it harder to form a union are those that epitomize democracy.

Sen. Lincoln Abdicates Responsibility: Business And Labor Should ‘Work Out’ An EFCA Compromise

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Harkin is one of a handful of negotiators trying to craft a compromise version of EFCA that will prove palatable to a group of centrist Democrats, among them Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). But speaking before the Arkansas Chamber of Commerce today, Lincoln “received a round of applause” for saying that business and labor — not Congress — should be crafting the legislation. From the Associated Press:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln says business and labor groups, not lawmakers, should be the ones to work out a compromise on a union organizing bill. Lincoln said that she still opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and doesn’t think the legislation should be considered while lawmakers are dealing with health care and other issues…Lincoln said any compromise would need to come from business and labor groups.

Big Business and its ally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have derided EFCA, calling it “a firestorm bordering on Armageddon,” saying that retailers who don’t oppose EFCA “should be shot,” and telling workers that unionizing means their benefits will be “thrown out the window.” With her approach, Lincoln is not only abdicating her responsibilities as a lawmaker to those special interests, but she is basically giving the business community a veto over any legislation that other lawmakers might craft.

And unfortunately, a stalemate over EFCA would be just fine with the business community, because under our current system for forming a union, employers hold all the cards. For example, they are able to force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union messaging, or compel employees to participate in anti-union discussions with their own supervisors. Employers threaten to close plants in 57 percent of union organizing drives, threaten to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent, and ultimately fire pro-union workers 34 percent of the time, while facing penalties that do nothing to deter such behavior, illegal as it is.

Meanwhile, unionized workers in Arkansas make an average of $1.26 per hour more than their non-unionized counterparts, a 7.7 percent increase. If Arkansas were to see unionization merely climb back to 1983 levels, workers there would earn an estimated $166 million more in wages and salaries per year. And consider this: “If Arkansas’ workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor productivity between 1980 and 2008…average wages would be $23.29 per hour — 42.4 percent higher than the average real wage in 2008.”

Last month, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that EFCA was unnecessary “because we have very enlightened management in this country.” Is that how Lincoln sees it as well, despite the myriad benefits that EFCA could bring to workers in her state?

McConnell: Zero Republicans Support EFCA ‘Because We Have Very Enlightened Management In This Country’

Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) promised that no Republicans will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), should it come to the Senate floor. In order for the bill to pass “the Democratic members will have to do it,” he said.

In a speech before the business organization Commerce Lexington, McConnell explained that the reason for such uncompromising opposition is that workers don’t actually want to join unions due to the “very enlightened management in this country now”:

McConnell said the AFL-CIO wants the measure approved because “private sector union membership has declined from a high of 35 percent in the 1950s to 7.5 percent now.” That has happened “because we have very enlightened management in this country now, treating employees better and employees have decided they don’t want to pay the dues.”

McConnell has already made his personal opinion that EFCA will “Europeanize America” well known, and with this rhetoric, he has officially aligned the entire Republican position on EFCA with that of the Chamber of Commerce (which has said that EFCA is a “no-compromise” piece of legislation). But if McConnell truly thinks that the reason more workers aren’t joining unions is because of “enlightened management,” he hasn’t been paying any attention to the reality of working and organizing in America.

For starters, an AFL-CIO survey found that there are 60 million American workers who say that they would join a union if they could. The reason that they can’t is because employers threaten to close plants in 57 percent of union organizing drives and threaten to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent, while ultimately firing pro-union workers 34 percent of the time.

As Kate Bronfenbrenner, Director of Labor Education Research at the Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations pointed out, over the last 20 years “employer opposition [to unionization] has intensified…and the nature of campaigns has changed so that the focus is on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity.”

And in addition to anti-union campaigns, management in this country is engaged in a whole host of other labor violations. Yesterday, a new survey came out in which 68 percent of low-income workers reported being subject to a pay violation in the previous work week alone. This isn’t meant to paint the entire business community with a broad stroke — as there are surely plenty of companies that don’t engage in this sort of behavior — but the problem is far more widespread than McConnell and the rest of the Republican party are evidently willing to concede. And just like with health care reform, the GOP has already decided that it’s not interested in discussing a solution.

Cross-posted on ThinkProgress.

AHIP’s Astroturf Consulting Firm Also Hosts Anti-EFCA Website For Former AFP Affiliate (UPDATED)

Independent Women's Forum president and CEO Michelle Bernard

Earlier this summer, DDC was caught using a front group called ‘Citizens for a Safe Alexandria’ to attack the Obama administration for seeking to prosecute Guantanamo Bay prisoners in Alexandria, VA. DDC also helped to orchestrate “grassroots” support for President Bush’s push to privatize Social Security. And the group is evidently not through helping advocates of anti-worker policies.

Case in point, according to a list of DDC-hosted domains obtained by ThinkProgress, DDC is hosting the website EFCA-info.org, which is chock-full of misinformation regarding the Employee Free Choice Act (in multiple languages, no less). Though EFCA-info purports to be “a website dedicated to providing visitors with factual and up-to-date information regarding the Employee Free Choice Act,” it spreads various falsehoods about EFCA eliminating the secret ballot or destroying small businesses. And it’s no surprise that the site has this slant, once you look at who keeps it going.

The site is supported by the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) and the HR Policy Association, along with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the National Black Chamber of Commerce. The IWF, according to SourceWatch, “is an anti-feminist organization predominately funded by conservative U.S. foundations.” IWF is funded by Koch Industries, which also funds Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and FreedomWorks, both of which were instrumental in organizing the anti-Obama tea party protests. [See response from Koch Industries below]

In fact, from 2003 to 2008, the IWF and AFP operated out of the same office space and had the same president — Nancy Pfotenhauer, a consistent member of the Koch Industries family and former spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign. Currently, the IWF is headed by Michelle Bernard, who earlier this month appeared on MSNBC to declare that “quite honestly, a lot of labor unions are what holds America back and keeps us from being as good as we can be.”

This circle of groups — funded by Koch’s petro-dollars — are trying to derail reform on a variety of fronts, under the guise of grassroots lobbying. And they’re doing it with the aid of DDC’s servers.

Anti-EFCA Group Targeting Sen. Bayh Paid Karl Rove Co. $100K In Consulting Fees

In the last few days, the Economic Freedom Alliance (EFA) has created a website and placed billboards in Indiana pressuring Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act. The EFA, which is composed of a variety of business organizations located in the Midwest, claims that its purpose is to make Congress “feel the pressure from our central message about the harmful effect that radical organized labor proposals in Congress will have on job creation in the Midwest”:

[T]he absence of a hard-hitting, district-focused campaign leaves a serious gap in that overall effort. EFA is not encumbered by the need for political correctness and hence its response can be better positioned to fill the critical messaging void in overall Card Check opposition campaign.

Evidently, EFA is also not encumbered by a need to adhere to the facts, as its website is claiming that the Employee Free Choice Act will “cost the U.S. economy 600,000 jobs in 2010,” which is a statistic taken from a thoroughly discredited study by business sponsored scholar Anne Layne-Farrar. As the Institute for Southern Studies put it, “even as a piece of business research-for-hire, Layne-Farrar’s study is shockingly weak — based on a thin set of old and irrelevant data that doesn’t even bear out her own conclusions.”

But EFA’s disclosure and expenditure form provides some insight into why it’s comfortable parading out false talking points. After all, the EFA has paid $100,000 in consulting fees to Karl Rove and Co this year.

This $20,000 fee was paid every month this year, February through June. And given Rove’s penchant for falsehoods, it’s no surprise that EFA has gone down the same road. EFA has also given $5000 to astroturf group Americans for Prosperity to “reimburse for event expense” (with Prosperity misspelled as “Properity” on the disclosure form).

Chamber Of Commerce: Arbitration Is ‘Poison’ Unless It Favors Us

The Associated Press reported that opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), feeling that they have dispensed with majority sign-up, are starting to “intensify their attack on another major provision [of the bill]: Binding arbitration if a new union and management can’t agree on a first contract within 120 days.”

A popular narrative from these opponents is that majority sign-up was actually just a red herring, meant to distract everyone from the arbitration provision that labor really wanted. “We suspected from the beginning that the binding arbitration was packaged with the elimination of the secret ballot in order to create a straw man they could take down later,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). In that vein, the Chamber of Commerce had this to say about EFCA’s arbitration provision:

“Card check is the political poison in the bill, but forced arbitration is the real poison,” said Steven Law, general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

If arbitration truly is poisonous, then the Chamber must have built up quite an immunity over the years. After all, it has consistently favored binding arbitration, when such arbitration helps it avoid litigation in consumer disputes. Here’s some of the Chamber’s prior rhetoric:

– Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, wrote that the findings of an arbitration study “prove that arbitration continues to provide consumers with fair, inexpensive, and unbiased access to justice across the broadest spectrum of consumer disputes.” [3/11/09]

– The data is increasingly clear: for most consumers, arbitration is a better way to resolve disputes than being forced into court. [Chamber Press release, 7/15/08]

– Virtually any type of dispute between private individuals or entities can be addressed by arbitration, including, for example, contract, real estate, employment, and tort disputes. [U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, “Issues Resource Center”]

Overall, U.S. companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in 75 percent of consumer agreements. The Chamber seems to have no problem with that, but when arbitration translates into workers getting a fair shot at a contract, it’s suddenly poisonous.

Arbitration is a necessary part of EFCA because, all too often, employees vote to form a union, but can’t get a first contract due to their employer’s delay tactics. More than half of new unions still have no contract one year after they are certified, and 37 percent have no contract after two years. A full quarter of new unions wait more than three years to receive a first contract.

Specter: ‘My Views’ On EFCA ‘Have Been Consistent’

On Sunday, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Kevin Ferris wrote a column describing Sen. Arlen Specter’s (D-PA) tiptoeing around the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Specter is one of the senators working with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to salvage the bill, and Ferris wrote that Specter — who earlier in the year announced his intention to oppose the bill — needs EFCA to pass, as he “now needs labor support because of the expected primary challenge from U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak.”

In response to the column, Specter wrote a Letter to the Editor claiming that his stance on EFCA has been consistent:

I have no hesitancy in stating my own views. I have voted to have the Senate consider the modification of labor law to reform the way unions are certified and to provide procedures for negotiating first contracts. Earlier this year, I made a floor statement opposing giving up the secret ballot and suggesting the last-best-offer procedure on arbitration. My views on this subject have been consistent, and suggestions to the contrary by those intending to run against me are incorrect.

As Dan Hirschhorn at PA2010.com pointed out, “only Specter knows what his true views are, and while they may be consistent, his actions on the legislation have been anything but.”

Indeed, Specter was a co-sponsor of the bill and voted for cloture when the Senate considered it in 2007. However, earlier this year (before switching parties), Specter took to the Senate floor to announce that he would vote against cloture. Even after the party switch, Specter released a statement emphasizing that “my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.”

But last month, Specter addressed a crowd of union activists and told them “I believe you’ll be satisfied with my vote on this issue.” So the only thing Specter has really been consistent on is a consistent willingness to wobble back and forth on the issue.

Cross-posted on ThinkProgress.

The Fight for Labor Law Reform Continues

Our guest blogger is Seth Michaels, Online Communications Coordinator at the AFL-CIO.

Today, the New York Times reported that a half-dozen senators have decided to drop the majority sign-up provision of the Employee Free Choice Act in favor of a requirement for “shorter unionization campaigns and faster elections”:

Several moderate Democrats, including Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have voiced opposition to card check, convinced that elections were a fairer way for workers to unionize. They were swayed partly by business’s vigorous campaign, arguing that card check would remove confidentiality from unionization drives and enable union organizers to bully workers into signing union cards.

You have to read almost to the end of the Times piece before learning that lawmakers continue to discuss various details of the bill — it’s not a done deal. There are details to be worked out in the legislative process, and meaningful labor law reform must include the three principles underlying the Employee Free Choice Act:

– Workers must have a free choice and a fair path to choose to form a union, free from intimidation.

– Real penalties must exist for employers who break the law.

– Workers who choose a union must be able to get a fair first contract

– Companies must not be able to engage in endless delays and stalling tactics to deny workers a collective bargaining agreement.

With President Obama’s backing — reiterated on Monday — and the support of the majority in Congress, this is the year to pass the most significant labor law reform since the 1930s. And let’s not forget that 73 percent of the public supports the Employee Free Choice Act, which would level the playing field for workers seeking to form unions.

The reason for such support is understandable. Corporate abuses are all too common, and companies can act with impunity against employees who are trying to form unions. Workers who try to exercise their basic freedom to form a union are faced with mandatory meetings, threats of wage or benefit cuts, threats of firings or plant closings and even illegal firings, because of weak law and negligible penalties. That matters to the lives of workers across the country. And even when workers do get through the company-dominated process, more than half wait more than a year for a first contract, and nearly one-third don’t have a contract two years later.

The Employee Free Choice Act has earned the support of small businesses, faith groups, civil rights groups, leading economists and a wide variety of community organizations, who all agree that a strong, progressive country with a healthy economy depends on the ability of workers to bargain for a fair share. Three-quarters of Americans support legislation to make it easier for workers to bargain collectively.

We can and will pass meaningful labor law reform this year. America’s workers can’t wait.

Chamber Of Commerce: We Only Like Voting When It Suits Our Purposes

Last week, the Chamber of Commerce announced that it will “vigorously oppose” a new consumer protection agency proposed as part of the Obama administration’s regulatory reform package. But that’s evidently not the only way in which the Chamber is out to influence the debate over the changes facing Wall Street.

Yesterday, the Chamber laid out its opposition to a change — backed by the administration and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) — that would allow shareholders to vote on their company’s executive compensation practices, so called “say on pay”:

Opponents of an effort to give shareholders greater rights are centering their attacks on organized labor, arguing that unions are pushing such proposals to bolster their ranks and boost their declining pension funds.

“Big labor unions are trying to achieve at the board table what they cannot achieve at the negotiating table, under the guise of shareholder protection,” said David Hirchsmann, president of the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

So the Chamber opposes the Employee Free Choice Act because it wants to “save the secret ballot,” while also opposing “say on pay,” which would guarantee that shareholders can hold a non-binding vote on their company’s executive pay packages. Isn’t it convenient that the Chamber only thinks voting is important when Big Business can set the rules?

But “say on pay” is really about injecting some sanity back into corporate governance. As Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, “[say on pay] has already become the norm for several of our major trading partners.” In two of those countries — Great Britain and Australia — CEO pay “grew 2.4 percent and 25.3 percent, respectively, from 2002 through 2006, while pay in the United States soared 59.9 percent in the same period.”

Some companies in the U.S., including Aflac Co., voluntarily undertake such votes already. “We want people to look at us and say, ‘Here’s a company that will even let you vote!’” said Aflac CEO Daniel Amos. “It’s symbolic, but it’s an important symbol.”

And that’s just the thing: the vote is non-binding, leading some to say that it doesn’t go far enough toward reining in Wall Street excess. As Dean Baker explained:

The current rules allow management insiders to make out like bandits at the expense of shareholders and other stakeholders. This is why clowns get paid tens of millions to run their companies into the ground in the US…Obama’s proposals do not go nearly far enough in taking back power from the insiders. We should have binding shareholder votes on compensation in which unreturned proxies don’t count.

So in the end, “say on pay” is simply an attempt to get some sense of balance back into corporate governance, and to start holding executives accountable to someone other than themselves.

New Ranking Member On Ed And Labor Committee Continually Acts Against Workers And Students

Rep. John Kline (R-MN)

According to the Duluth News-Tribune, “issues in front of the [Ed and Labor] committee are not those Kline ran on when he got into politics…But he said that in his four two-year terms he has gained education and labor experience.” Well, here’s some of what that experience had led him to do:

– He voted against a minimum wage increase three different times in 2007.

– He voted against lowering interest rates for student borrowers enrolled in the Federal Family Education Loan and Direct Loan programs.

– He voted against the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act.

– He introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act, which would “prohibit a union from being recognized” through a majority sign-up process.

– He supported “some system of personal accounts” as “a central component” of Social Security reform.

The National Education Association actually gave Kline an F grade for both 2007 and 2008.

According to the St. Paul-Minneapolis Star Tribune, “in his new role, Kline will be expected to be a leading GOP combatant” against the Employee Free Choice Act. But with his Secret Ballot Protection Act, Kline revealed that he has no idea how union drives even work. He advocated taking the majority sign-up option away from workers, even though, since 2003, half a million workers have organized in this fashion, including employees at AT&T, UPS and Pacific Gas and Electric.

Kline, as he laid out in this Washington Times op-ed, is very concerned with the “coercion, intimidation and bullying” of union organizers (even though there is no evidence that this occurs in states that allow majority sign-up), but he doesn’t spare a word for the coercive and punitive tactics that employers use to prevent employees from unionizing. Instead of leveling the playing field for workers, Kline would simply prefer preserving the anti-worker status quo.

Six Months After Voting To Form A Union, Smithfield Workers Still Without A Contract

Our guest blogger is Josh Rosenthal, Special Assistant to the External Affairs Department at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

As Congressional leaders work to determine the final details of the Employee Free Choice Act, workers in Tar Heel, North Carolina continue to learn firsthand why the legislation is so important.

Yesterday, the Fayettesville Observer reported that six months after successfully voting to join a union, workers still do not have a first contract at a Smithfield Packing Co. plant. Smithfield’s stalling is par for the course, after the company spent fifteen years using harsh employer intimidation (including forcing an employee to stamp “Vote No” on dead hogs) to prevent a union from forming. A study by John-Paul Ferguson of MIT illustrates just how common this situation is:

Even after a majority votes for a union, many units fail to get a contract. Only 56 percent of units in which a majority of employees voted for a union and were certified for bargaining by the NLRB were successful in reaching a first contract. Only 38 percent of such units reached a contract within one year.

The Employee Free Choice Act would stop Smithfield’s delay tactics, by allowing either unions or employers to bring in federal mediators if contracts stall out after 90 days. Thirty days after that, an arbitrator would be brought in to work through any final hurdles. After months of lies about the majority sign-up aspect of the bill, conservatives have begun to turn their sights on binding arbitration. The Wall Street Journal calls it “federal wage setting” and fearmongers about the influence of “political, er, incentives.”

Unsurprisingly, the Wall Street Journal’s fears are unfounded. As arbitration experts Thomas Kochan and Arnold Zack explain, “arbitrators would have to meet the standards of experience, expertise and mutual credibility and acceptability by business and labor leaders,” and employers would help choose the arbitrator.

The Wall Street Journal’s lies can’t overcome what the Smithfield workers have learned first hand. America needs labor law reform that creates a path to a first contract, along with a fair process of joining a union and tough penalties for lawbreakers.

Study: Employers Have Increased Use Of ‘Coercive And Punitive Tactics’ To Discourage Unionization

According to a report today in Politico, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) “is trying to resurrect the Employee Free Choice Act by reaching out to a group of Democrats looking for cover on the politically treacherous bill”:

Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Jim Webb of Virginia, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Dianne Feinstein of California are participating in preliminary talks to modify the “card check” bill, according to lobbyists and aides. Aides say Harkin is holding daily, closed-door conversations with interested lawmakers, business groups and labor unions.

This is good news. Lost in much of the the EFCA debate, which mostly centered on the kerfuffle over “the secret ballot,” is the simple fact that labor reform is still necessary and has a good chance of getting through Congress. Various methods for reforming the union election process have been floated, including a proposal from Feinstein that would allow workers to mail in their ballots directly to the National Labor Relations Board. Other key provisions — including arbitration to ensure that workers who vote to form a union actually get a contract — are still being negotiated.

Plus, it’s not like the problems that EFCA is meant to address have gone anywhere. In fact, a new study out today from the Economic Policy Institute found that over the last 20 years “employer opposition [to unionization] has intensified…and the nature of campaigns has changed so that the focus is on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity”:

Although the use of management consultants, captive audience meetings, and supervisor one-on-ones has remained fairly constant, there has been an increase in more coercive and retaliatory tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment and other discipline, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions.

The study found that “employers threatened to close plants in 57 percent of the campaigns and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent,” while firing pro-union workers 34 percent of the time.

Of course, the business lobby has already committed itself to opposing any compromise on EFCA. “Let us be clear and frank on this matter; there can be no acceptable ‘compromise’ on any issue of labor law reform due to the very real threat posed by EFCA,” wrote the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce, a front group composed of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others.

Pressure from the business community has also led some senators, such as Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), to try to avoid the issue. Harkin, however, is threatening to bring the original bill to the floor. “We’re trying to get the necessary compromises made to get this through,” Harkin said, but if a compromise cannot be found, “it is my intent that we will put the original bill on the floor and make people vote on it.”

McGovern Takes Aim At Employee Free Choice Act’s Arbitration Provision

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the Senate is working on a compromise version of the Employee Free Choice Act. The deal may involve dropping the provision allowing workers to form a union through majority sign-up, while negotiating over other parts of the bill aimed at ensuring that workers who form a union get a fair shot at receiving a contract and implementing stiffer penalties for employers who break labor law.

Evidently thinking the battle over “card check” has been won, conservatives are now turning their attention toward these other provisions. To this end, anti-EFCA spokesman George McGovern penned an op-ed today attacking what he calls the bill’s “compulsory arbitration” provision, which would bring in arbitrators if employers and a union can’t agree on a contract in 120 days:

Compulsory arbitration is bound to trigger the law of unintended consequences. Currently, labor law maintains a careful balance between the rights of businesses, unions and individual employees. While bargaining power differs depending on individual circumstances, the rights of the parties are well balanced. When a union and a business enter negotiations, current law requires that both sides bargain “in good faith.”

The law may require “good faith,” but in reality, workers receive anything but. Here are some examples of what “good faith” looks like these days:

- It took meat cutters at a Texas Wal-Mart nine years after they voted to form a union to begin negotiations with the company.

- Employees at a Rite-Aid drug warehouse in California voted more than one year ago to form a union, but Rite-Aid is trying to run out the clock, so that it can “stop the pretense of negotiating.”

- On March 31, 2007, workers at the Trump Casino in Atlantic City, NJ, voted to form a union. They still have no contract.

Cornell organizing expert Kate Bronfenbrenner found that “a third of workers lack a contract a year after voting for union representation.” “There is no penalty,” she said. “You can have an employer that refuses to meet and talk and the worst penalty is another piece of paper saying, ‘Shame on you.’”

And it’s not like businesses don’t use arbitration in other matters. For instance, businesses love to put mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts with consumers, so that they can avoid class action lawsuits. In fact, companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in 75 percent of consumer agreements. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also written that “virtually any type of dispute between private individuals or entities can be addressed by arbitration.”

Any compromise on EFCA needs to have a mechanism ensuring that workers who have legally formed a union can take part in fair contract negotations. The status quo of unpenalized delay is simply insufficient.

Specter Switches Parties: What Does It Mean For Labor Law Reform?

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza is reporting that Sen. Arlen Specter is switching parties and plans to run in 2010 as a Democrat:

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement…”Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.“

Specter’s departure is further evidence that Republicans in Congress have collectively lurched to the right, embracing radicalization and a preoccupation with non-issues like global currency. However, in a statement, Specter emphasized that “my change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans”:

Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Still, Specter’s switch may be a good sign for labor law reform. While Specter’s March announcement that he would oppose cloture for the Employee Free Choice Act dealt a significant blow to the bill’s chances of passing, going forward, his votes in this area are still going to be very important.

It’s worth remembering that Specter was the lone Republican senator to support EFCA in 2007. He has also been a vocal proponent of labor law reform. In a 2008 article for the Harvard Journal on Legislation, he argued that “union representation elections today are often conducted in an environment of intimidation and coercion, and federal labor law provides toothless remedies that fail to deter further abuses by union organizers and employers alike”:

We embrace the conclusion of scholars who contend that “what we need is major surgery on the legal procedure through which employees make their choice about union representation.” The most critical focus of this reform should be protecting the right of employees to freely choose whether they wish to be represented.

So even if Specter is still opposed cloture for EFCA in its current form (and who knows what political constraints he may find himself free of now), he has admitted that the system for forming a union is broken. Furthermore, he may find it very difficult to run in union-heavy Pennsylvania as a Democrat without supporting some sort of labor reform. Does this mean that there is an EFCA compromise in the works?

Whole Foods Manager To Employees: If You Unionize ‘Every Benefit You Have’ Is ‘Thrown Out The Window’

Since both Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) announced their opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, a lot of debate has been centered on whether or not the bill has any chance of passing in the current Congress.

Obviously, counting votes is an important exercise, but lost in the brouhaha has been the justification for labor law reform. Fortunately, Mother Jones’ Josh Harkinson gave us a refresher course, courtesy of Whole Foods:

Shortly before the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the manager of a Whole Foods grocery store in the San Francisco Bay Area gathered his employees in a conference room for a chat about labor organizing. [...] According to a tape of the meeting obtained by Mother Jones, the manager went on to imply that joining a union would lead to reprisals: “It’s interesting to note that once you become represented by the union,” he said, “basically everything, every benefit you have, is kind of thrown out the window, and you renegotiate a contract.”

Essentially, the manager is implying that a legal decision to unionize would result in the company removing the workers’ benefits during contract negotiations. This is the sort of fearmongering that the Employee Free Choice Act is meant to address. And it’s by no means an isolated incident, as plenty of employers stall, delay, and intimidate workers during and after organizing drives. Consider:

- It took meat cutters at a Texas Wal-Mart nine years after they voted to form a union to begin negotiations with the company.

- Employees at a Rite-Aid drug warehouse in California voted more than one year ago to form a union, but Rite-Aid is trying to run out the clock so that it can “stop the pretense of negotiating” and then “try to undo” the workers’ vote.

- In December, Starbucks was found to have “illegally fired three baristas and otherwise violated federal labor laws in seeking to beat back unionization efforts at several of its Manhattan cafes.”

- On March 31, 2007, workers at the Trump Casino in Atlantic City, NJ, voted to form a union. They still have no contract.

There is an undeniable need to repair a broken system for workers, both in forming a union and ensuring good faith negotiations with employers afterward. A few Senators backing down in the face of business pressure doesn’t change that.

Corporate Front Group Launches ‘News’ Site To Smear Employee Free Choice

Greg Sargent reported today that the Workforce Fairness Institute “has launched a new ‘news’ site that’s totally devoted to making the case against” the Employee Free Choice Act. The site, which looks strikingly similar to The Huffington Post, is dubbed “EFCA Wire: Inside the Battle Over the Employee FORCED Choice Act.”

As the Wonk Room has noted, the Workforce Fairness Institute is nothing more than a corporate front group “founded by several longtime Republican operatives,” and likely funded by anti-EFCA giants like Wal-Mart and Home Depot. In a recent interview with Fox News’ Glenn Beck, one of those operatives — long time Republican strategist Mark McKinnon — pushed the line that Employee Free Choice removes the secret-ballot option, which even the Wall Street Journal has begrudgingly admitted is false.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that EFCA Wire’s main purpose is to promote yet another lie. According to Sargent, the site will place “a particular emphasis on the damage [the Employee Free Choice Act] would allegedly do the economy.” But the Employee Free Choice Act would actually lead to higher wages, better benefits, and a more productive economy. According to estimates by the Economic Policy Institute, if 5 million service workers join unions:

– 5 million workers would get a 22 percent raise on average, or an additional $7,000 a year.

– $34 billion in total new wages would flow into the economy.

– 900,000 jobs would be lifted above the poverty wage for a family of four.

– Between 1.8 million and 3 million dependent children would share in these benefits.

After only one day, EFCA Wire’s blatant dishonesty is already apparent. One prominently placed link boasts, “The Hill: 74% Oppose EFCA.” Of course, The Hill merely reported on an anti-EFCA ad touting such skewed numbers.

In fact, the most recent Gallup polling reveals that 53 percent of Americans support a law to “make it easier for unions to organize workers” — which is exactly what the Employee Free Choice Act does.

- Matt Finkelstein

Conservatives Fail To Herald Dow Surge Following The Unveiling Of Employee Free Choice Act

Our guest blogger is Adam Jentleson, Communications and Outreach Director for the Hyde Park Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Breaking news tonight: Wall Street loves the Employee Free Choice Act.

Today, Wall Street rallied behind news that the Employee Free Choice Act legislation was re-introduced to Congress by Rep. George Miller and Sen. Tom Harkin.

Buoyed by the prospects of greater unionization pumping billions of dollars into the hands of consumers and providing broad economic benefits, the Street swung sharply upwards, with the Dow closing up more than 379 points.

At least, by the logic of the financial prognosticators on cable news, this would be a reasonable conclusion to draw.