- ‹ previous
- 2174 of 2825
- next ›
Business and Labor
BUSINESS AND LABOR....At the Wall Street Journal's CEO Council yesterday, the one where Rahm Emanuel told business leaders that the Obama administration would "throw long and deep," he also took a question about the Employee Free Choice Act:
He was asked his views on the push by labor unions to allow workplaces to be organized with the signing of cards attesting to union support rather than a secret ballot. Mr. Emanuel declined to say whether the White House would support the legislation, but he said the unions are addressing the concerns of a middle class that has seen U.S. median income slide over the past eight years, while health care, energy and education costs have soared.
Does this mean Obama won't actually push for passage of EFCA, even though he said during the campaign he would? Who knows. But apropos of my comment the other day about anti-unionism being at the core of Main Street conservatism, what it does show is that Emanuel felt pretty comfortable telling the gathered CEOs that Obama would push for global warming controls, healthcare reform, lots of deficit spending on an economic stimulus package, and a comprehensive new set of financial regulations. That's all socialism, of course, but he knew the titans of American industry wouldn't fuss about it too much.
But a proposal that might end up increasing private sector union density from its current 7.5% to, say, 8.5%? (Or, if you're really optimistic, maybe 9.5%.) That, he knew, would send the place into a frenzy. Like I said on Monday, there's nothing that gets business leaders more panicked than the idea of workers organizing for higher wages. Nothing.
On a related note, here's a prediction: Obama will need a few votes from Senate Republicans to pass his legislative program. I'll bet he'll get it on global warming controls, healthcare reform, economic stimulus, and financial regulation. But on EFCA, he'll have trouble getting even a single Republican vote. That will be considered the make-or-break vote from the business community. Just wait and see.
I support organized labor as a way to help control the unregulated power of corporate interests. It does strike me as strange, though, that, in a secret ballot today, a major committee chair in the house changed hands in a move that will lead to better and more progressive legislation, while we Democrats refuse to allow the hallowed secret ballot to take place within the union hall. What are we afraid of? - Ted
Their level of emotion around this says, I think, that it's not just about the money. It's about the threat to their paternalistic model of leadership, of management-labor relations.
It's about the fact that they have to negotiate with their workers as equals.
A little history from Wikipedia:
"On March 1, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the act by a vote of 241 to 185. The Senate on June 26, 2007 voted 51 to 48 on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the bill."
As long as Obama doesn't veto the bill it'll become law in the next Congress. That's assuming Harry Reid has the backbone to stare down a filibuster.
Since destruction of the secret ballot vote for unions seems a bit extreme, perhaps they will oppose it on policy.
If the problem is that current secret ballot voting offers too long a window for corporate pressure, wouldn't a better remedy be to shorten that window?
Card check seems like a loser to me. The American people believe in the right to a secret ballot. There are numerous other things that can be done to speed up the unionization process, in addition to prohibiting the firing of union organizers and reform of the Taft-Hatley Act.
Soviet style corporate socialism is acceptable. The socialism that raises wages and living standards for the bottom half of society is the real threat to crony capitalism.
there's nothing that gets business leaders more panicked than the idea of workers organizing for higher wages.
And benefits and working conditions that the "business leaders" believe our theirs to hand out like so much candy to the good girls and boys.
We now have the tools for 10-20 Americans to do serious damage to the most anti-labor companies and their enablers. The national labor organizations have to lead the charge, however, because we don't always know who they are. I've wanted to see heavy publicity around a "dirty dozen" of anti-worker companies, companies that provide scab employees, the get-unions consultants.
10-20 million!
In the past six months self-portrayed good liberals have assured me that George McGovern is the devil, and would probably have fought against the US in the war that otherwise made him a hero.
I'm strongly pro-union, and yet I am surprised to learn my life-long experience using secret ballots was all a plot against my expressing my actual desire.
It wasn't the higher wages thing that bugged big business; after all, they could collude, control, and price-fix the way to pass it on to the buyers. What really frighten(ed) them was/is CONTROL. If workers have a strong voice in management's decisions, why they could demand such things as benefits, schedules, production, pensions, seniority, safety standards, etc. It was long understood: Give them a raise but keep control.
I just want to clarify that EFCA doesn't take any rights away from workers. Under EFCA, workers have exactly the same right to demand an in person election. Bosses lose the right the currently have under EFCA to demand a second, in person election after a majority of workers have voted by absentee ballot for a union. There is nothing in EFCA that limits, prevents, or erodes the secrecy of any ballot. That's just an anti-union canard.
I think Team Obama is cognizant enough that they need some blend of increased cooperation/more lukewarm opposition from the business community to get its agenda on health care, climate change, and the economy through Congress.
My assumption is that in order to pass these things, Obama would like to lay low on the EFCA, and I don't blame him. Once these big programs are either enacted or definitively blocked, he can bring EFCA to the table without screwing over other major priorities.
The argument made currently by opponents of EFCA in support of maintenance of the secret ballot certification election is that it will protect those workers who don't want to unionize from being coerced into signing authorization cards by workers who do support unionization. But, this isn't why the election procedure was put into the Wagner Act initially. Its purpose was to ensure that the union that gained representation rights was an independent union of the workers own choosing. The provision of an election procedure reflected the experience of the 1920s with company dominated unions, which led Wagner to fear that such company dominated unions might in some cases preempt the organization of workers by independent unions, and in this way frustrate the purpose of the Act, which was to encourage unionization and collective bargaining. It should be remembered that workers gained the right to self-organize under the common law in 1842 with the Massachusetts SJC decision in Commonwealth v. Hunt. Thus, from 1842 until 1935 unions that gained recognition by employers did it without certification elections, and, I'm sure no one at the time worried about instituting an election to protect workers from being coerced by their fellows. From this perspective the EFCA simply restores the pre-Wagner status of free association, with the unfair labor practices of section 8(a) of the Act as additional guarantees that employers will not interfere with workers rights to association and collective bargaining.
There is a large cottage industry devoted to destroying unions, and one of their specialties is how to scare the bejesus out of workers who would like to unionize without actually violating the law. People who go on and on about how their fellow workers who want a union will intimdate everyone unless there is a secret ballot have made no effort whatsoever to gain a real-world understanding of this issue.
Arlen Specter may be the last pro-labor republican in the Senate, but he's still there. He voted for it last time, so he should vote for it again.
The "dirty dozen" concept is the an excellent one that highlights the true danger of EFCA. Organizing those large corporations that are the holy grail sought by unions are only one part of the future that would result from passage.
Like any predator, union organizers will first cull the heard of the small, slow and weak. The net of that activity will be the destruction of, not the creation of, companies, jobs and futures.
Big companies shouldn't be allowed to force their will on their employees- almost all would agree with that. Just as fairly, big unions should not be given the means by which to force their will on small employers. Those small companies employ millions of Americans,and are the path to financial security for many.
Secret ballot elections at least give the entrepreneurs who risk their savings to start those businesses the chance to make their case to their employees.
Union versus Non-Union. This right belongs to the workers who are employed by a company. These workers are explained the benefits of having a union and then have the right to vote in secret if they want to join the union or not. To change this system is stupid, but, Obama owes the unions big time after they spent $300 million to help get him elected. Payback time is 21 January 2009. Expect this bill to be passed unless the Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate.