American Rights at Work, a union group, has finally gotten around to removing the name of Hilda Solis, now Secretary of Labor, from its board of directors. (Earlier post.)

Former Senator John Edwards, slowly returning from humiliation and political exile into the public’s eye, remains on the list.

Interesting that Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, is also a board member. Henderson testified yesterday at the Senate HELP Committee hearing on the Employee Free Choice Act, but in his prepared testimony did not mention his being on the board of the labor group.

Why would you not be clear and direct about being a member of the board of directors of American Rights at Work? The members of the Senate committee and the public should have been informed about that affiliation, on the record.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis is now on the job, having won Senate confirmation on Tuesday. And the first news release we see:

$2.2M DOL grant to assist auto workers in Missouri

The U.S. Department of Labor on February 26 announced a $2,199,132 grant to assist approximately 574 workers affected by layoffs from automotive industry suppliers across Missouri and in nearby Kansas.

“Today’s grant will allow affected Missourians to receive skills assessment, training and job search assistance to transition into new occupations within the local area,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis.

And those are all good things. So congratulations, Madame Secretary, and best of luck. On workforce development, there’s much that can be worked on together. On labor and workplace issues, well, there will no doubt be spirited debate and disagreement.

To get things started on a positive note, we respectfully suggest that it might be wise to ask that union group, American Rights at Work, to remove your name from its website as a member of its Board of Directors. It’s time to put THAT controversy to rest.

From media coverage of The Employee Free Choice Act, the manufacturing and the business community’s perspective as offered by NAM President John Engler:

Associated Press, “Labor steps up pressure on Congress for union bill“:

At the same time, more than 50 members of the National Association of Manufacturers met with lawmakers to express their concerns that the bill would “hinder manufacturers’ economic competitiveness and our ability to create jobs,” said NAM president John Engler.

Washington Post, “After Delay, Panel to Vote on Solis Nomination“:

Pressure to oppose the measure is intense, as well. “This is the most unifying issue for business right now,” said John Engler, president and chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Wall Street Journal, “Battle Heats Up Over Union-Backed Bill”

The Chamber and its allies also are preparing to focus on a provision of the bill that would allow federal arbitrators to intervene in contract disputes and dictate pay and benefit terms.

“I’ve had members say they’ll sell their businesses if this becomes law,” said National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler.

The Journal story’s lead points to a fundamental problem with organized labor’s PR job on behalf of the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act: They don’t want to talk about what the bill actually does, only it’s goals, which they describe in the most glowing, unrealistic terms.

Union advocate Mary Beth Maxwell gets furious when people refer to the Employee Free Choice Act as the “card check” bill and imply it’s an attack on the tradition of the secret ballot.

Ms. Maxwell, executive director of American Rights at Work, says the term “card check” doesn’t reflect the bill’s true aim, which she says is to shield workers who want to join a union from intimidation by employers. “The current system is not working,” she says.

Although maybe it’s faux outrage from Maxwell, designed to lead to a faux compromise. The unions could drop the card check provisions, claiming they’re making a great sacrifice, and still wind up with a bill that allows organizers to dragoon unwilling employees into unions and forces destructive contracts onto business.

Alternatively, perhaps Maxwell is just easily infuriated.

Byron York at The Corner, National Review, “Daschle — And Solis, Too,” documenting troubles with the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) to be Secretary of Labor:

Solis had a rough hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee when she declined to answer all sorts of seemingly noncontroversial questions about her positions on basic labor issues. (Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote a frustrated account of the hearing, asking, “How can senators consent if they have no clue what policies they might be consenting to?”) Now, some committee members want to know more about Solis’ relationship with a pro-labor group called American Rights at Work. On the group’s website, Solis is listed as a member of the board of directors, and she also served as Treasurer of the organization from 2004 to 2007. The question is whether Solis, who as a member of Congress is prohibited from lobbying Congress, fully disclosed her relationship with the group….[snip]

No one is accusing Solis of concealing her connection with the group; it was common knowledge in the labor world, and she listed it in the paperwork she submitted for her confirmation hearing. But she did not list it on the disclosure forms she was required to submit to the House of Representatives. It was an unpaid position, so there is no problem with income. But there are questions about whether Solis, as Treasurer, played a de facto role in the group’s lobbying activity; if you’re a member of Congress, you’re not supposed to simultaneously lobby Congress. (Solis has told the Senate that she did not take part in the group’s lobbying activities.) In any event, you’re required to list your affiliation on disclosure documents, which Solis did not do. (On January 29, she filed amended disclosure forms with the House, listing her association with the labor group.) Some Senate Republicans don’t view this as a major issue with the Solis nomination, but they do want to know more about her specific activities for American Rights at Work.

American Rights at Work. Now where have we heard of them before?

UPDATE (9:10 p.m.): AP’s account acknowledges the American Rights at Work issues but suggests they have been resolved.

We’re hearing through the grapevine that the union front group, American Rights at Work, is organizing a rally at the Capitol for Wednesday to promote the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act. The rally could signal introduction of the bill; Rep. George Miller (D-CA) recently sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter soliciting cosponsors.

American Rights at Work launched a big ad campaign Sunday (video, newspaper) attacking employers as evil and exploitative and again using the Big Lie technique of claiming the Employee Free Choice Act doesn’t eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.

In some abstract, theoretical world, maybe, but in the real world of the workplace and union organizing, of course the legislation eliminates the secret ballot. Organized labor is playing workers and the public for idiots.

Labor claims that the secret ballot still exists because unions could ask for an election after collecting signatures from 30 percent of a workplace’s employees. Once you reach 50 percent (plus one), card check calls for immediate representation without an election, but between 30 and 50 percent it’s still possible.

Theoretically.

James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation explains the falsehoods behind the claims in this background memo, “Employee Free Choice Act Effectively Eliminates Secret Ballot Organizing Elections”:

[Unions] do not file for an election with cards signed by only 30 to 50 percent of workers. Rather, they only file for an election when they have a superma­jority of cards because workers who sign in front of an organizer often vote “No” in the privacy of the voting booth.[14] Internal union studies show that the union does not have even odds of winning an election until 75 percent of employees sign cards.[15] Unions will not go to the polls without majority support because they know they are unlikely to win and, if they lose, federal law bars them from calling for another election for a year.[16]

Under EFCA, once cards have been obtained from a majority of workers, unions would not file for an election. In fact, EFCA specifically bars the NLRB from conducting an election if the union turns in cards from a majority of workers. Union organizers’ jobs are to recruit new union members to pay 1 to 2 percent of their wages as dues to the union. They are not paid to give workers a chance to rethink the wisdom of union membership.

The American Rights at Work advertising campaigns follows a flood of letters-to-the-editor making the same preposterous claim that secret ballots will be preserved. We think two political dynamics are at work:

1. The public understands the importance of a secret ballot; polling shows overwhelming opposition to the destruction of secret-ballot elections.

2. Labor wants to intimidate questioning about secret ballots. Such a rabid anti-business ad campaign will certainly be noticed by the media, and the bullying tactics could well have a chilling effect. “How dare you ask that question? You’re a business stooge!”

Labor is running a profoundly dishonest campaign to pass a bill that cannot pass on its merits. In the process, they’re encouraging a political atmosphere that demonizes employers just when America needs jobs the most.

Ugly stuff.

The labor front group, American Rights at Work has released a new ad aimed at countering “misleading attacks its opponents have made”. The group claims that there is a “deceptive campaign” under way “to divert attention away from the actual substance of the bill and what it seeks to accomplish.” Well OK, one would think that the ad would go into some detail about what the bill would do right? The bill implements a card check system, allows for government control of wages in the workplace and administers an effective gag rule on employers that attempt to provide their employees information about union representation.

So let’s take a look at the ad, with the script of the audio below:

“The Real Secret” TV: 30
Voice-over: Corporate greed. It’s caused a meltdown of our economy. Just look at the news … or your retirement account.
Now, greedy CEOs want to prevent workers from joining unions to level the playing field. Their new scheme to keep wages low? Spreading lies about the Employee Free Choice Act.
The truth is the Employee Free Choice Act absolutely protects workers’ right to choose a secret ballot election. But the choice would be the workers. Not their bosses.
That’s the secret Big Business doesn’t want you to know.
On Screen Disclaimer: Paid for by American Rights at Work

Hmmm…doesn’t give much detail. What lies are they dispelling? How does this bill protect workers’ rights, when it effectively eliminates secret ballots and would often lead to taking away the right of employees from actually approving their first contract? To get the facts about the Employee ‘FORCED’ Choice Act, click here.

The group’s executive director continues to describe the EFCA by stating:

“The current company dominated system is not balance. It gives employers far too much power to intimidate and harass workers.”

Instead EFCA seeks to undermine the careful crafted within our labor law system, in order to allow labor leaders the ability to intimidate and harass workers.

The AFL-CIO misleadingly describes the EFCA as

“An amendment to the existing National Labor Relations Act that makes no change, no repeal, and no amendment provision that dictates the election process.”

Well I guess technically it amends the NLRA, HOWEVER it is a radical re-write of our current labor law system that intends to send our system back to the 1930s. Far from the modernization our labor law system needs to better reflect the dynamics of employee relations in today’s modern manufacturing economy. At a time when employees are facing so many challenges, wouldn’t money used to buy all this air time and political contributions better spent on workforce development and training programs?

From a Politico story on the political pressure Senate Democrats face over the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act:

“We don’t know if we have 60 yet. We’re at 59 [for cloture] right now,” said Josh Goldstein, a spokesman for American Rights at Work, a pro-labor group. “The issue has become front and center, and the worse the economy gets, the more support we get. [Business groups are] trying to make this a volatile issue for senators.”

That’s some spin.

You can claim the 59 votes for cloture with some measure of sincerity. It may be wrong, but it’s not a dishonest claim.

Otherwise, the issue of card check has been front and center since the Senate voted to block H.R. 800 in June 2007. As for the other nonsense:

“The worse the economy gets, the more support it gets.” Sure. The worse the economy gets, the more the public demands the employees be forced into unions against their will. The more attention given to labor’s fault for the domestic auto industry’s difficulties, the more the public says, “Give us more of that!”

“Business groups are trying to make this a volatile issue.” Snort. It’s not business groups that are trying to destroy the secret ballot in the workplace or enact the biggest shift in employer-employee relations since the 1935 Wagner Act. Throw gasoline on the fire of labor relations and don’t be surprised when things get “volatile,” Mr. Goldstein.

Next thing you know labor representatives will try to claim that the Employee Free Choice Act doesn’t eliminate the secret ballot. Do they think the public is stupid?

UPDATE (4:13 p.m.) Well, that didn’t take long. From Dow-Jones:

An aide to Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said that the bill doesn’t address the question of secret ballot votes at all.
It would compel employers to agree to the creation of a union when presented with 50% of worker support, the aide said.

Or more like re-establishmentarianism…

In a basic, thorough examination of organized labor’s push for the Employee Free Choice Act and business’ resistance, Bloomberg ends its story with an interesting claim from Richard Trumka, treasurer of the AFL-CIO. From “Labor Seeks Obama Help in Battle With Business Over Organizing“:

“Unlike in the past, instead of saying `OK, we’ve elected you, now do what’s right by us,’ we are going to keep our machinery in place,” Trumka said. “We are going to make sure that our interests are considered at the front of the parade.”

Keep our machinery in place? Certainly hope that doesn’t mean in place, institutionally, at the Department of Labor.

Meanwhile, in the Las Vegas Review Journal, local business talks. From “Election result rekindles card-check debate“:

When members of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce’s government affairs committee met Thursday morning, the Obama-supported Employee Free Choice Act proved a hot topic.

The proposed federal law would replace secret-ballot unionizing elections with face-to-face card-check procedures, and both unions and businesses agree it would make organizing workers easier than it is today.

“We’re really worried about the way the law is written,” said Steve Hill, a member of the committee who’s also incoming chamber chairman and president and chief executive officer of concrete company Silver State Materials. “It has not reached the level of attention it needs. It’s been discussed and killed (in Congress), and people don’t know it’s still out there. We need to do a better job getting word out that it’s a possibility, and tell businesses what it means to them.”

After all the work the NAM and our members have put into explaining the fundamental anti-democratic nature of the Employee Free Choice Act, it’s a little discouraging to read our friends in business say, “It has not reached the level of attention it needs.” Steve, we’re working, honestly!

But he’s probably right. People only have so much time to follow issues — even important ones like how labor markets are structured — and “card check” is not a self-explanatory term.

Still, seems like we’re making progress. The union, American Rights at Work, released carefully scrubbed results and predictable commentary on a post-election survey of U.S. Senate elections in which the Employee Free Choice Act was an issue. Check out this comment from the executive summary from Peter D. Hart Research Associates:

Voters in Senate battleground states who voted for the anti-Employee Free Choice Act candidate overwhelmingly describe their vote as being FOR (67%) that candidate rather than AGAINST (28%) the pro-Employee Free Choice Act candidate who was the target of negative advertising. If the attacks on supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act had made a significant impact, we would expect the proportion of voters saying they cast their ballot against those supporters to be higher.

Twenty-eight percent of those who voted against the candidate who supported the Employee Free Choice Act did so BECAUSE of the candidate’s position? That’s huge, a reflection of an informed electorate, educated through the advertising of groups like the NAM-supported Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

If in promoting a survey designed to show that voters supported pro-union candidates American Rights at Work has to admit that 28 percent of the votes against their candidate were influenced by the Employee Free Choice Act, well…think of the results they didn’t release.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal and Best of the Web Today  reports from a panel discussion out in Denver, a forum sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future:

One of the participants was David Bonior, who served as a congressman from Michigan for a quarter century and Democratic whip for 12 years before retiring in 2003. Bonior now heads a group called American Rights at Work. Although the name sounds like “right to work,” it is actually a pro-union outfit.

Bonior was making the case for “card check,” a regime that would eliminate secret balloting on whether to organize a workplace, thereby making it easier for unions to impose themselves. Card-check passed the House but was stopped by a Senate filibuster. Bonior urged his audience to work for Democratic Senate candidates in states like Maine and Mississippi, where Republican incumbents are favored but not prohibitively.

If card-check passes, Bonior claims, it will set off “a torrent of organizing like my father saw in the 1940s. . . . The progressive movement will not only be in ascendancy–we will be on rockets.” This, he says, will result in “universal health care,” an expansion of civil liberties and “an end to this rotten war that these monsters have created in Washington.”

Taranto notes that Bonior went on a Saddam-excusing trip to Baghdad in 2002 and rightfully objects to the former Congressman calling elected U.S. officials monsters. Meanwhile, we’re certainly not enthusiastic about the prospects of a progressive movements on rockets, targeting freedoms.

In related “America is a lousy place and we’re all suffering” news, American Rights at Work has launched a new ad campaign promoting the Employee Free Choice Act, which is a legislative attack on American rights at work. Guess they want to keep the Orwellian rhetoric consistent.