President Obama has announced his intention to nominate George Cohen for a role that not too many folks outside of Washington have ever heard of: the Director of Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. So what’s the big deal? Why is this post important?

Well, if the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act becomes the law of the land, the Mr. Cohen will be the one that oversees the agency charged with forcing government contracts on newly unionized private employers.

You may think that’s outrageous, but I refer you to read the details of the legislation:

S.560
Section 3
`(2) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement.

`(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.’.

Yikes. George Cohen, a person you may have never heard of before today may become the person that oversees the system that determines how you can you manage your own workforce.

The Washington Post ran a piece today that focused on an interview with Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. Of course, the most controversial labor issue was brought up: the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The Secretary asserts that in “many cases, in many cases, workers have been disadvantaged.” She claims, “They’ve been intimidated, they’ve been harassed, and we have case after case after case that we can look at.”

She then makes an argument popular with organized labor, describing “barriers” that have been put in place “over the past few years”. Well, what precisely? Why wasn’t the Secretary pressed for specifics? One can only assume that she is referring to decisions of the National Labor Relations Board. The President has already nominated two individuals to the board who will significantly change the dynamics of the board for years to come.

If there are legitimate violations of the National Labor Relations Act, then let’s have the NLRB rule on them. If there are other barriers, let’s have the NLRB review them. Otherwise, let’s talk facts: Workers who wish to become union members are able to do so. Last year alone unions saw membership increase by 400,000, unions won 67% of the secret ballot elections and these elections took place 95% of the time within 56 days.

Yesterday at the Communications Workers of America’s joint convention/legislative-political conference Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) spoke in strong support of the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA.)

Sen. Harkin tried to persuade the crowd that EFCA is still “alive and kicking” despite his admissions that unless the bill is significantly changed it doesn’t have the necessary votes to get passed in the Senate.

But how significantly will it be changed?

The Senator said that any new version of the EFCA would have to be based on a set of parameters:
• Allowing for majority sign-up (that’s union speak for card check)
• Require unionized workers to receive a first contract by a date certain
• And added penalties against employers for labor law violations

Well folks, that’s still EFCA!

The Senator said that if he is unsuccessful with a “compromise” version of the bill, he will still ask to have the current EFCA legislation brought to Senator floor for a cloture vote. Why?

…so workers will know who your friends are.

Well now it’s clear that the real intent of the legislation isn’t labor law reform, it’s politics.

The AFL-CIO union’s secretary-treasurer, Richard Trumka recently claimed:

…organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and giant corporations are bombarding the airwaves and filling major newspapers with pricey advertisements designed to turn public opinion against the proposed legislation.

[Our emphasis.]

Trumka’s statement implies that public opinion already supports EFCA. This is clearly not the case. A poll of general election voters conducted by McLaughlin & Associates highlights that the reality is that the majority of voters oppose EFCA.

Unfortunately organized labor and their front groups are engaged in an effort to redirect the focus away from the details of the bill. But when you’re writing laws, it’s the details that matter.

The National Right to Work Foundation has put up a new video highlighting the dangers of card check schemes. These are real employees explaining how aggressive union organizing can be. If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law these scenarios may unfortunately become all too common.

MIT’s Thomas A. Kochan  and Arnold Zack, past president of the National Academy of Arbitrators, have penned a piece in “Roll Call” this week attempting to justify Sec. 3 of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). This is the provision of the bill that would allow for government arbitrators to impose the terms of the first labor contract on newly unionized private employers.

In this piece they claim:

If passed, the Employee Free Choice Act would assign a mediator by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service as soon as a new unit is certified to support the negotiations by offering the full range of mediation, education, and facilitation services helping the parties reach a voluntary agreement.

Not exactly. The EFCA dictates in Sec.3 that the NRLA would be modified to add: `(2) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the existence of a dispute and request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, it shall be the duty of the Service promptly to put itself in communication with the parties and to use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement.

… contrary to those who argue every case will go to arbitration, the presence of arbitration encourages and enhances the ability of the parties to reach voluntary agreements in negotiation and mediation — and incidentally does so without imposing on employees or employers the risks and costs of a strike to get a contract.

While it may be true that not every case will go to arbitration, the possibility of binding arbitration fundamentally changes the nature of collective bargaining. Under the EFCA one party can unilaterally request that the FMCS become engaged in the mediation and arbitration process would create an environment not conducive to mutual negotiations. Instead, both parties will have a greater tendency to position themselves for arbitration during collective bargaining.

Yesterday President Barack Obama announced at a Cabinet meeting that he plans to accelerate spending for the $787 billion stimulus plan to create or save 600,000 jobs over the next 100 days. However, it is a bit concerning the President has also previously expressed support for the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act that will destroy 600,000 jobs in the first year after enactment. One step forward, one step back.

A recent academic study by Dr. Layne-Ferrar shows that if union leaders’ expectations of increasing union membership by 1.5 million members in the year after EFCA passage are correct, 600,000 jobs will be lost.

It makes no sense that at the same that Congress and the Administration express a commitment to save and create jobs, they’ll pledge support for a bill that will kill just as many.

UPDATE (12:20 p.m.): More from The Truth About EFCA blog, “Card Check Cost: $1.75 Billion (or More!)”

The Workforce Fairness Institute today released the details of report today that shows that should the Employee Free Choice Act become law, labor leaders would gain an additional $320 million to spend on political activism, organizing and politicking, an amount totalling $1.75 billion over the next decade. Yes that’s billion with a “B.”

While labor bosses claim that the Employee Free Choice Act is labor law reform, this report sheds a bit more light on the true intentions of labor leaders. The Employee Free Choice Act is an attempt to skew the balance of our labor law system in order for labor unions to inflate their membership to gain increased dues revenue.

It’s clear that business-savvy labor groups are quite comfortable spending millions of their members’ hard earned dues money in their campaign to take away the secret ballots of other employees as it would result in an additional cash influx for them of over half a billion in the first year. Five percent of which would be expected to be used for political contributions. With the financial benefits so high, no wonder why union bosses are pursuing the jobs-killing legislation so aggressively.

Today we learned that our economy lost a further 345,000 jobs last month as our unemployment rate increased to 9.4 percent. However at a time that we are facing such stark challenges, some in Congress are urging support for the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act. An academic study analyzed recently that if labor union leaders’ expectations of increasing union membership by 1.5 million under the EFCA, our economy would lose 600,000 jobs in the first year.

Today’s Investor’s Business Daily has an opinion piece on the EFCA:

It’s a formula for disaster. This still-undead bill will shut plants, drive jobs abroad and ensure that few new jobs are ever created. Little wonder the public has turned a thumbs-down on it, and Congress has backed away. A recent Pew poll shows that 61% of Americans think labor unions have gotten too powerful.
But it hasn’t stopped Big Labor. Card check remains its top goal, and instead of dropping a bad idea, it’s switching tactics.

If Members of Congress need a reason to oppose the EFCA, we have 600,000.

We’ve seen today an interesting tactic employed by labor leaders in an attempt to portray small businesses as supporters of the EFCA. The AFL-CIO and the labor group Change to Win have created Business Leaders for a Fair Economy, a small group of companies that claim to support the EFCA. Let’s be clear here, the EFCA harms employers of all sizes and the engagement of the employer community in opposition to the EFCA is monolithic. Take a look of the list of members of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace that represents employers of all sizes and from all sectors if you had any question of the opposition to the bill. There have been few issues that have united the business community like the EFCA, as the devastating economic impacts of the legislation are clear

What I find interesting here, is although they claim to have over 1,000 members the group doesn’t list who they are. They do have a rolling marquee on their site that lists just over hundred businesses by our count.

Smaller sized manufacturers have engaged on this issue in unprecedented ways. We’ve seen thousands of letters sent to Capitol Hill from both smaller sized manufacturers and their employees. Hundreds of manufacturers have attended the NAM’s Manufacturing Summit in May and the NAM’s Stop the Employee FORCED Choice Act Executive Day on the Hill in February where they’ve met with their elected officials in Washington to urge them to oppose the EFCA in any form.

While it’s true that a few companies may have proprietary interest in participating in this union-backed effort, thousands of smaller sized manufacturers are committed to opposing the EFCA and any proposal that may stem from the fundamentally flawed bill. Efforts like what we see today only prove that labor groups are getting desperate in their attempts to show support for a jobs-killing proposal.