NJ Business Matters: The Blog of the CIANJ

AFL-CIO: Who Needs the Senate To Pass New Law?

Over on Huffington Post, Stewart Acuff, Chief of Staff for the Utility Workers Union, writes that organized labor is preparing to bypass the Senate and get its job-killing card check measure enacted through Obama appointees to the National Labor Relations Board,

[If] we aren’t able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action to once again allow workers in America access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy–the freedom of speech and assembly and association so that workers can build the collective power to challenge the Financial Elite and Get America Back to Work. (emphasis ours. cutesy capitalization near the end of the paragraph, theirs)

The AFL-CIO is now transparent in its recognition and strategy. The Employee Free Choice Act is barely alive in the Senate, and the odds only decrease with the seating of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA). Big labor is now developing a strategy to ram its agenda through the administrative process.

Regardless of an individual Senator's feelings on card check and the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, shouldn't they all be upset that the AFL-CIO is openly trying to do an end-run around the legislative branch?

Senator McGovern on Binding Arbitration

We have dedicated millions of pixels lately to discussing the anti-worker card check bill being negotiated in Congress. While the thrust of the conversation has been on the elimination of the secret ballot, former Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern (D-SD) uses today's Wall Street Journal to draw attention to binding arbitration requirements contained within the bill.

If the EFCA were to pass, newly-unionized workforces would be forced to reach an agreement with their employer within two years or face binding arbitration. This puts the employer at a significant disadvantage and would deny workers the right to vote on their contract - after denying them the right to vote on unionization in the first place.

In a contract negotiation, each party typically perceives the other as too demanding. But no one loses their right to contract willingly or suffers being forced to agree to anything. Employees can strike if they feel that they have been dealt with unfairly, but it is a costly option. Employers are free to reject labor demands they find to be too difficult to accept, but running a business without experienced employees is itself difficult. Both sides have an incentive to press their demands, but they also have compelling reasons not to press their demands too far. EFCA would disrupt that balance by enabling government-appointed lawyers to decide what they believe is fair or reasonable.

A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case. Yet fundamental decisions on wages and benefit costs, rules for promotions, or even rules for exiting an unprofitable line of business could fall to federal arbitrators under EFCA.

A compromise with a binding arbitration provision still diminishes worker rights and still hamstrings a company's ability to do business.

Another Estimate on the Cost of Card Check

The HR Policy Association is estimating that the nonsensically-titled Employee Free Choice Act would cost the United States 600,000 jobs by 2010,

Increased Unemployment and Stifled Job Growth Will Claim Millions More in Decades to Come

WASHINGTON, March 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Empirical data shows that organized Labor's effort to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) comes with a terrible cost to jobs and the economy, according to a detailed study released today by noted economist Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar.

According to the study, An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications, every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration will result in a 1 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate the following year.

Dr. Layne-Farrar concludes "The costs [of EFCA] should be carefully weighed against any purported benefits of passing the Act, all of which appears to benefit some groups at the expense of others. There is no coherent theoretical argument that explains how the higher costs, greater legal uncertainty, and expanded government intervention entailed in EFCA would improve overall social welfare."

The report finds conclusively that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs under EFCA in year one would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs by the following year. Job losses directly attributed to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would be equal to the entire population of Boston, MA.

The potential number of jobs lost is debatable, but Dr. Layne Farrar's comment is the most important point in the entire study. He notes, "There is no coherent theoretical argument that explains how the higher costs, greater legal uncertainty, and expanded government intervention entailed in EFCA would improve overall social welfare. "

But who needs a coherent theory when you have agendas to push?

Increase the Rhetoric, Downplay the Reality

Organized labor's attempt to usher the deceptively-titled Employee Free Choice Act through Congress is continuing its reliance on demagoguery and empty rhetoric. The latest example comes from UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who equates opponents of the EFCA with opponents of the Civil Rights Act. That's a curious analogy for someone who is advocating the elimination of the secret ballot in organizing drives.

Brian Worth, Chairman of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (of which CIANJ is a proud member) penned a response for today's Detroit-News. In it, he reminds us of the basic truth of the bill,

Let's be clear about what the Employee Free Choice Act does. The bill would replace secret ballot elections with a card check scheme where the votes of workers would be made public to their employers, co-workers and union organizers.

Without the protection of the secret ballot, there would be no guarantee that workers could express their true wishes on the personal decision of whether to have a union in their workplace. Labor leaders want Congress to pass card check because the bill will make it easier for labor organizers to recruit workers into joining unions.

But the American people, including rank-and-file union members, understand the importance of the secret ballot and are opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act by overwhelming margins.

What better way exists to protect privacy than a secret ballot?

AFL-CIO Wants Card Check in First 100 Days

From the "dog bites man" department comes word that organized labor wants a return on its $100 million campaign investment.

The comically titled Employee Free Choice Act is a top priority of big labor, and seen as the best way to replenish their membership and political clout. As we have argued many times, America's union movement is slowly morphing from one that advocates for workers into a political operation that seeks to hold onto its own power. Nothing demonstrates that better than the desire to eliminate secret ballot elections in the organizing process.

Last week, Bloomberg ran a piece on the political environment surrounding card check legislation, and the expected filibuster attempt in the U.S. Senate.

AFL-CIOTreasurer Richard Trumka said he expected Obama to push the so-called card-check legislation during his first 100 days in office.

"What's good for the American working class is going to be at the front of the policy discussion, not at the end,"said Trumka, whose labor federation is the largest in the U.S. with 10.5 million members.

Democrats gained six Senate seats in the Nov. 4 elections with three other races undecided. Republicans lead in the races in Alaska and Minnesota and the Georgia race will go to a runoff. If the Democrats fail to win any of those races, they will have majority control with 57 seats, including two independents who back the caucus.

Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to overcome objections to legislation, so Democrats would need the help of Republicans to pass the union measure.

Eliminating the secret ballot is good for American workers? Then why do the overwhelming majority of union households oppose card check?

It's Election Day - When We Vote Via Secret Ballot

More than 100 million Americans will head to the polls today to vote for President and Members of Congress. Amazingly, many of those candidates promise to return the favor by eliminating secret ballots in union organizing efforts.

From the D.C. Examiner,

It’s cynical, even by political standards, for candidates to accept today’s private votes if they support the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — a one-bill union bailout for decades of corruption, ineptitude, and insulation from true competition.

Facing a decades-long decline in union membership, labor executives have crafted this law to strip working Americans of the right to cast a private ballot in workplace elections, as they decide whether to join a union. In place of an election, EFCA would impose a petition-like system already proven susceptible to coercion.

In other words, those loveable, incorruptible Teamsters can solicit employees’ support for an organizing drive in front of their peers and continue harassing them until they sign a card. Once enough employees have signed the card, the union automatically “represents” everyone. 

The Transparency of Card Check

Last week we re-engaged our blogging on the terribly-misleading Employee Free Choice Act - legislation that would eliminate the secret ballot as part of union organizing drives. We detailed objections ranging from George McGovern to Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus. It was a theme articulated in the latest edition of the CIANJ Business Beat. At this point, our readership is likely the most well-educated in the state on this issue.

On the other side of the ledger, advocates continue to argue that we should eliminate the secret ballot simply because it helps them. Note the following passage from union president Carla Katz on NJ Voices,

For the labor movement, this is not just another election. It is sheer survival. Electing Barack Obama, and driving up the numbers of pro-labor Senators towards a filibuster-proof 60, are believed to be key to passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which will let workers organize without fear of employer retribution. For the record, McCain voted against EFCA in the Senate and for a 'right to work' bill which would attempt to eliminate unions altogether. Many leaders believe that without the passage of EFCA, and the sorely needed renewed growth of the ranks through organizing, we may see the private sector unionization rate, now at an anemic 7%, plummet further in the next four years.

First, we will re-iterate that employer retribution is already illegal. Nevertheless, the same populist theme was driven home by a left-leaning think tank in Monday's Star-Ledger.

It is a simple message from big labor: unions are good, but for some reason fewer of you are joining. We used to blame the NLRB, then the bad economy, then the good economy. We have now decided that creating a situation whereby an organizing drive can last forever, and which never concludes with a secret ballot will make it more likely that you will "join", and that's good for you. Even if three-quarters of you don't like the sound of it in polling.

The EFCA is big labor's big kickback, and they make no attempt to mask it. Don't let your Member of Congress forget that a secret ballot is still important to most Americans.

Card Check: The Slow, Anti-Democratic, Road to Ruin

On the agenda at the Democratic Convention tonight is one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation to be seriously considered by Congress - the hopelessly mistitled Employee Free Choice Act. The bill would eliminate the secret ballot vote in unionization drives and instead replace it with a system whereby workers are represented by a union if more than 50% sign authorization cards. Union organizers would be entitled to a worker's home address and could request that the card be signed in the organizer's presence. As one would imagine, it's a system that could lend itself to some aggressive tactics. There is no substitute for a secret ballot. None.

Earlier this month George McGovern took to the Wall Street Journal opinion pages to detail why his Democratic party should not support the stripping of workers' rights.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.

Today's Journal features a piece by Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus on the same topic. Marcus tackles the issue from a competitiveness standpoint, warning of his company's decision not to expand overseas because of a political environment hostile to business. He closes with a warning to America's CEO's,

It's time to stand up and fight. America's competitiveness, jobs and right to a secret ballot are at stake. CEOs, employees who want to keep their jobs in America -- and those retirees like me who would not be where we are today but for our system of free enterprise -- must stop this anti-democratic legislation.

Union Says Trampling Democracy Not Ok; Wants to Eliminate Secret Ballot

In 2009, Congress will once again consider the ridiculously-titled Employee Free Choice Act and big labor will push again for forced unionization. The leadership fight within the Communication Workers of America helps demonstrate why the secret ballot needs to be protected.

Currently, for a union to represent a workforce, the first step is for a percentage of those workers to sign authorization cards. Once a sufficient number of A-cards are signed, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a secret ballot election of for all workers. That election usually happens within six weeks. If a simply majority of workers vote "yes", then a union takes its seat at the bargaining table.

It is the same system that has allowed organized labor to flourish since the post World War II era. However, unions have been losing members in recent decades. First they blamed what they called an anti-union NLRB during the Regan and Bush Administrations. Then under President Clinton they blamed the bad economy. Then under President Clinton they blamed the good economy.

Now they have their sights set on employers and want to junk the current unionization process and replace it with one that would allow instant unionization if 50% + 1 of workers sign A-Cards.

In other words, they want to eliminate the secret ballot election. Under the new model, union officials could visit you - at your home - and present you with a card to sign. Because the secret ballot would be abolished, the union reps would know who signed and who didn't. It's a process that lends itself to intimidation.

"Anti-union, discriminatory rhetoric" claims big labor. If that's the case, then how do they explain the accusations of strong-arming generated by a union president? When suspended as president of CWA Local 1034, Carla Katz claimed,

"This action by the National union is appalling and the charges against our Local's leadership are completely false. It is a travesty that the retaliation against me, and my fellow union leaders, for our opposition to the bad state worker deal, continues in full force. The National's baseless and extreme action, done without any notice, trample the democratic rights of the members of our union under the deceptive guise of protecting democracy. It is shameful."

"Retaliation", "deceptive" "trample democratic rights". Sound familiar? Would workers really benefit by having these guys in their home presenting them with a slip on which the only option is "YES"?

Somehow, the exact same people that argue their union is "trampling democratic rights" will say yes. Somehow, people in Congress will actually believe them. 

Forced Unionization On Tap Tomorrow in Trenton

Tomorrow the Senate Labor Committee will consider a resolution urging Congress to pass legislation the Senate and big labor have already determined will not happen. SJR 68 sends a message from the New Jersey legislature to Congress insisting that they pass the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act.

Organized labor has morphed itself from an entity that attempts to advocate for the interests of workers into a political machine. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that since 1994, labor has contributed nearly half a billion dollars to Democratic campaigns.Now holding the majority,big labor's big kickback comes in the form of the comically-titled “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA).

Here are some facts. Under current law, a union seeking to represent a group of workers must garner signed authorization cards from 30 percent of that group's workforce. Once that is attained, the union petitions the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to administer an election via secret ballot.These elections are ordinarily held within six to eight weeks and union organizers can demand the names and home addresses of all the organization's employees and pay them a visit. As you can imagine, the possibility for some intimidation exists. If, after this organizing drive, a majority of employees vote “yes” in their secret election, an organization becomes unionized. The National Labor Relations Act has never been significantly amended and allowed union membership to flourish in the post World War II era.

However, for decades, unions have seen their national numbers decline. With every era of decline came a new culprit. First it was President Reagan; then it was President Bush; then under President Clinton it was the bad economy; then it was the good economy. Anything to avoid confessing that they were selling a product no one seemed interested in buying. The decline could have something to do with an astute point the Wall Street Journal noted when editorializing against the EFCA—the most heavily unionized private-sector industries such as airlines and Detroit automakers—have been shedding jobs. Unions have earned the reputation of providing short-term wage gains in exchange for long-term job insecurity— and that is a swap workers are not willing to make.

Enter the EFCA, which would do away with the messy secret-ballot process and instead lower the bar so that workers would be represented by a union if more than 50 percent of employees sign authorization cards. Employees would still be subject to home visits, only they would now be making their final decisions in the presence of union organizers and coworkers. Of course, if workers want to leave their union, they will find the EFCA is a one-way street.

It undermines democracy. American elections—from your 4th grade student council representative in which children put their heads on the desk to the election of the President—are done via secret ballot. EFCA spinsters will tell you that the current system is ripe for employer coercion. Ask yourself what better protects the sanctity of an election—a secret ballot or a public declaration in the physical presence of partisans.

Even worse, the EFCA is laden with clauses that would throw initial contract negotiations into arbitration.That would deny workers at a newly unionized company the right to vote on their first contract.

Given all this, it is no surprise that a Zogby poll found that 71 percent of union members do not want to see the secret ballot discarded. As noted, organized labor stopped being about labor and started being about politics and institutional protection long ago.

Saying this is the wrong message to send to Washington just doesn't seem sufficient.