To avoid falling into the bad, inside-the-Beltway habit of viewing all things through the lens of politics,  we stress that the Employee Free Choice Act is not just a campaign issue, but is also a disaster for employers and employees alike.

This letter in The Detroit News explains why the binding arbitration provisions - an element in any supposed legislative “compromise” — are economically damaging:

Secret ballot is best for union votes
Gregory Saltzman’s Feb. 18 column, “Arbitration solves labor strife,” fails to mention the most onerous provision of this bill, which is mandatory union recognition once a union gets 50 percent of employees to sign cards. The Employee Free Choice Act would take away employees’ democratic right to decide on a union in a secret ballot election. It is a fact that employees who sign a union card, usually in front of a union organizer, probably in the presence of fellow employees, will often change his or her mind in the privacy of the voting booth.

First-contract arbitration under the Employee Free Choice Act is another bad idea. This is known as interest arbitration and is rarely used except in situations where strikes cannot be tolerated, such as with police and firefighters unions.

The Employee Free Choice Act provides that if the parties fail to settle a first agreement within a certain amount of time, any outstanding issues are submitted to an arbitrator, or panel of arbitrators, who would decide disputed issues and impose a final and binding decision on both parties for a two-year period.

Parties to first contracts could arbitrate their issues now, but rarely do, because they would be turning over their wages, benefits and working conditions to a third party who probably has little or no expertise in the parties’ business, no practical experience in their operations and, most important, will not have to live with the consequences of the decision.

The very important business of labor relations and bargaining is best left to the parties involved, no matter how imperfect the process may be.

James Wahlman , Troy

(Hat tip: The Truth about EFCA)

The Wall Street Journal editorialists consider the language a modified Employee Free Choice Act that Senator Specter claims will be the basis of legislation that could pass the Senate, judging by his comments to the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh, that is. From “A Gift for Labor“:

In place of this proposal to automatically unionize if more than half the employees sign union cards, they are proposing an election within a week or so of a minority of employees petitioning for a union. This shotgun vote is intended to deny employees the kind of educated choice that comes with a proper discussion of the merits of unionization informed by both management and labor.

The new old “card check,” according to Mr. Specter, also gives unions unprecedented access to the workplace and meetings between employers and employees before a vote to unionize. Last we checked the Constitution, even in the age of Obama private companies haven’t signed away their property rights.

An equally problematic binding arbitration provision stays in. This idea would let a federal arbitrator impose a contract if the employer and a newly organized union aren’t able to agree within three months. In other words, a government-sponsored agent would decide what salaries and benefits management will have to pay its employees. Throw in the expanded access to company property, and this so-called compromise bill may be worse than the original.

The National Association of Manufacturers’ position is that the Employee Free Choice Act is at its heart a destructive, jobs-killing piece of legislation from which no compromise can be drawn. Senator Specter’s version proves the point.

At today’s townhall meeting in Lebanon, Pa., Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), responded to a questioner who objected to the Employee Free Choice Act. The Senator’s response:

You raised a question of Employee’s Choice. That bill is in a process of being negotiated. There will not be a timeline which will be so fast that people will not have an opportunity to understand what the issue is.

You comment about the secret ballot. I think we have to maintain the secret ballot, which you agree with. (Applause). We tried to work through the other facet of it, arbitration for last-best offer, but we’re….bearing in mind the concerns and worries that you raised.

Thereby confirming that final-offer arbitration remains the supposed point of “compromise.” (Background on arbitration from The Competitive Enterprise Institute and a recent AP story.) And we repeat the observation that Sen. Specter and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) are talking “compromise” only in the most narrow of senses, i.e., an agreement between the two men. A more accurate description is a “a version of the legislation that could reach 60 Senate votes.”

And, oh yes, it was a raucous, loud, combative townhall meeting. Shown on live national television.

To the media, townhall meetings are this year’s version of shark attacks. Looking back at the risible coverage of summer of the shark, we should now know that hamsters bite more often than constituents.

UPDATE (2:40 p.m.): In the Mid-Atlantic states, we also experienced The Summer of the Snakehead. It’s quieted down in Crofton, Md., since then.

UPDATE (2:50 p.m.): Granted, snakeheads have established themselves in the Potomac. The Washington Times recently had good column on catching and cooking them.

From The Hill, “Dems warn Baucus with gavel threat“:

In an apparent warning to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), some liberal Democrats have suggested a secret-ballot vote every two years on whether or not to strip committee chairmen of their gavels.

Baucus, who is more conservative than most of the Democratic Conference, has frustrated many of his liberal colleagues by negotiating for weeks with Republicans over healthcare reform without producing a bill or even much detail about the policies he is considering.

“Every two years the caucus could have a secret ballot on whether a chairman should continue, yes or no,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. “If the ‘no’s win, [the chairman’s] out.

“I’ve heard it talked about before,” he added.

Senator Harkin is the chief Senate carrier of the Employee Free Choice Act, which eliminates secret ballots in the workplace during union representation elections.

In other speculation-rife speculation, here’s more speculation about Senate Majority Reid’s plans for the legislation. From The Examiner, “Reid plan could force Card Check without compromise.” Reporter Kevin Mooney cites the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace — in which the National Association for Manufacturers is an active member — reacting to the casually sourced Roll Call article about the possibility of union-legislation being “railroaded” through the Senate.

“Forced card check coupled with the job-killing binding interest arbitration provision suggests that the EFCA still remains politically toxic, despite efforts to produce what appears to be a one-sided ‘compromise,’ ” said Brian Worth, chairman of the CDW. “Apparently ‘compromise’ means whatever Big Labor can get passed notwithstanding their ultimate plan for denying workers secret ballots.”

We tend to think an attempt to shove the Employee Free Choice Act through the Senate in a brutal power play would be even more politically toxic. So the Roll Call story was yet another trial balloon from labor, trying to identify some strategy that might work.

So, just a day after Roll Call reported that Majority Leader Harry Reid planned to “railroad” a version of the Employee Free Choice Act through the Senate, we have Congress Daily reporting the legislation is on hold, maybe through this entire session.

Senate efforts to compromise on a watered-down version of the Employee Free Choice Act have been put firmly on the chamber’s back burner — perhaps for the rest of the year — as senators, aides and lobbyists focus on health care and other legislation, participants said.
 
“We’re not doing anything right now,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said of talks he has led among a group of Democrats since it became clear in late March that a more ambitious “card check” bill to help unions organize could not win 60 Senate votes.

So we have a “compromise” that’s not a compromise being rammed through one moment being returned to the back burner, but then heated up and shoved down Senators’ throats, depending on whether the playing field is level or not.

Depends on which gandydancer you’re talking to. Metaphorically speaking.

We tend to take this latest account seriously because the reporter spoke to Senator Harkin on the record and doesn’t seem to have been spun by labor sources. And if Senator Harkin wants to attribute the inaction on this ABSOLUTE MAJOR PRIORITY to the heavy schedule of other economic legislation, that’s fine.

But we’ll be watching the signals and listening for the blast of a railroad torpedo just in case.

Elsewhere…

• Associated Press, “Arbitration is key in fight over union bill“
• Kausfiles, “At kf It’s All-Platform Game-Changers 24/7″ (About “railroading”)
• TPDMC, “Specter: I’ve Been Perfectly Consistent On EFCA“
• The Truth About EFCA, “SEIU’s Reliance on Pro-Card Check Profs: It’s Only Academic“
• Fargo Forum, Letter to the Editor, “Free Choice Act changes no help,” from Dave McIver and Keith Hovland of the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce.

And finally…

• New York Times, “Democrats Drop Key Part of Bill to Assist Unions.”

This is the July 16 NYT article that prompted so much reporting and commentary and blogging and speculation about the “card check” provisions being dropped. Just interesting to reread two weeks later.

The flogging of the “Senate Dems drop card check” story to the New York Times certainly brought renewed attention to the Employee Free Choice Act’s political prospects, which was probably the goal of the labor lobbyist(s) who were pushing the news.  At least people are talking about the bill now instead of just assuming the whole thing is dead. Smart.

Binding arbitration is still to be included in the legislation, if we are to believe labor’s spin, along with quick “ambush elections” and limits on employers being able to express their views.

Some reactions…

Walter Olson, Point of Law, “EFCA ‘compromise’, the latest round“:

The miscellaneous provisions are probably the biggest political danger to bill opponents. Both card check and compulsory arbitration are relatively easily grasped as drastic changes in the existing labor-law regime for private workplaces, and both can be effectively criticized as curtailing worker choice (arbitration would impose new working conditions not just without management’s consent, but also without a vote by workers). On the other hand, proposals that can be presented as merely increasing penalties for violations tend to go down easy in our system, and many of the other ideas can be couched as if there were incremental adjustments in things like the speed or logistics of elections — even if their cumulative effect might prove drastic.

Wall Street Journal editorial, “The New Old ‘Card Check’“:

One proposal would slash the time for an organizing vote, requiring that it be held within five or 10 days after 30% of workers had signed cards asking for a union. The median time today is 38 days. Organizers want the rush because they know the more time workers have to learn about a union, the less they usually want one. Once employees hear the other side of the story, support dwindles.

This also explains a Big Labor demand to bar companies from requiring their workers to hear management’s side during a union campaign. Labor supporters say this creates a “captive audience,” but these meetings are one of management’s few opportunities to address workers, since companies are barred from the sort of outreach allowed to union organizers — such as visiting employees at home. At the same time, Senators want to give union organizers access to company property.

Jennifer Rubin at Commentary, “Card Check Lite“:

Once again, we can only gape in awe at the misplaced priorities of certain Senate leaders. The economy is sputtering and we are bleeding jobs, but the Senate is dreaming up new ways to pummel employers. Surtaxes, energy taxes, mandatory arbitration, and on it goes. Quite a list. (Where do they think the jobs are going to come from?) If you wanted to make America an undesirable place to locate new businesses in or to expand your payroll, you’d be hard pressed to match the agenda coming out of Congress.

More good commentary and reviews at EFCAReport.com.

From Dieter Weissenrieder, president of Weiss-Aug Co. Inc. in East Hanover, N.J., an op-ed in The Daily Record, “Employee Free Choice Act: Proposal would kill jobs“:

My metal stamping company in East Hanover faces many challenges to remain competitive in these tough economic times. The last thing we need is the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act. This bill is one of the most direct threats to manufacturers’ ability to compete globally and create jobs in New Jersey and across America. At its core, the EFCA is a power grab by labor leaders to increase union membership by radically overhauling our labor law system to tilt in their favor.

And his conclusion…

Manufacturers today operate amid complex and speedy global supply chains, facing enormous pressures to manage costs while innovating to create the next generation of product. The EFCA acknowledges none of these realities, instead offering a workplace with rigid work rules and adversarial employer-employee relationships.

Mickey Kaus on the card check “compromise” being sold via the New York Times’ Steven Greenhouse, “The Feared Card Check ‘Compromise’ Is Here“:

Opponents may need to come up with a new name for the bill (though “card check” was working pretty well for them). How about “federal pay determination”?  Keep in mind that not only does the apparent ”compromise” propose abandoning the hoary idea that wages should be set in the marketplace, it also abandons the New Deal’s substitute idea that wages should be set in labor contest where unions threaten to use their strike power and management threatens to survive a strike. Unions seem to have given up strikes. Instead they want to authorize an official–maybe even an actual federal bureaucrat–to simply swoop down and impose what would undoubtedly be a wage increase. That’s more akin to FDR’s notorious, failed National Recovery Act–except the NRA at least let industries set their own rigid wage scales.  …

Note also that the arbitration provisions give now-unorganized workers a new, powerful incentive to unionize: Vote for the union, wait a few months, and an arbitrator will fly in and give you a raise. No strike. No fuss. No muss. …

The biggest labor “ref.rm” since the Wagner Act!

The NAM’s labor policy guy was on Capitol Hill yesterday, checking on the status of the Employee Free Choice Act. Senate staffers expressed puzzlement over the New York Times story on Page One, “Democrats Drop Key Part of Bill to Assist Unions,” which reported that Senate Democrats were willing to eliminate the “card check” provisions from draft legislation. There was nothing new in the story, they observed, and yet it was getting big play. As our labor person described it, that article could have been written anytime within the last month, but the placement on Page One above the fold was the Times’ way of saying it was an important development.

Whence the strange news judgement? It could be as simple as the Times having to hold another story editors originally had scheduled, so they had to find an article to fill the Page One hole. Or someone in the Senate was really flacking the story hard. Or a labor official and NYT source, irked at the surrendering of a top union goal, pushed the storyline. Or the reporter had reported the story, thought it was pretty good, and sold it to his editors.

Happens all the time.

Still, no matter how not new the story was, the article illustrates how the NYT continues to set the news agenda for the rest of the country:

• Allentown Morning Call, “‘Card check’ left out of new labor bill“
• Denver Post, “Law bill rewrite in works.”
• Examiner, “Card check compromise still weighted in favor of labor, critics charge “

Could we please not call it a “compromise?” Pro-labor Democrats agreeing with other pro-labor Democrats is not a compromise, it’s the determination of political strategy. Any bill that keeps binding arbitration is a union bill unacceptable to business.

Here’s a theory, admittedly paranoid and probably giving labor too much credit: The NYT story represents a two-part jujitsu strategy by labor. Labor claims outrage at this “compromise,” but the removal of card check prompts business to emphasize how toxic the binding arbitration provisions are. THEN, labor agrees to drop binding arbitration too, leaving business sputtering about how the remaining legislation is still bad but struggling to articulate why. With business politically neutered, the Senate passes a bill with ambush elections, a gag on employer involvement in the election process, and increased penalties. Unions still wind up with a new ability to intimidate employees into joining unions and an election process slanted toward labor.

We wouldn’t call that compromise, either.

We choose the “still in flux but spinning” option. From Sam Stein, who’s hooked in to the labor chatter, at the left-liberal Huffington Post:

The compromise legislation, as described to the Huffington Post, will contain several major labor priorities including requiring shorter time periods for a union election and containing some form of binding arbitration to prevent employers from dragging out a contract negotiation process. The measures, according to AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale, will let workers choose to join a union without intimidation, ensure that those who join a union get a first contract, and institute meaningful penalties for violations of labor law.

“No matter what, this is still HUGE labor law reform,” emailed one union official.

“There is no official or final deal, negotiations are still ongoing,” said another union hand. “We’re going to pass a bill that is the biggest reform of labor law since the Wagner Act.”

Isn’t it funny how the prospects for the Employee Free Choice Act started getting all this attention just as health care and Waxman-Markey faltered because of their monstrous costs, monstrous government expansions and monstrous monstrousness? It’s as if Congressional leadership and the White House — the President met with union leaders Monday — decided that, “Well, we better give at least one important constituency something that will quiet their grumble sniping.”

But talk about monstrous. Two words: Binding arbitration. Having a government-appointed arbitrator impose non-negotiated terms on employers and employees for two years is simply an invitation to economic ruin. Companies that got a bad deal would fold. The dynamic marketplace would freeze into failure.

More from Daniel Griswold at Cato, “‘Employee Free Choice Act’ Still Bad News”:

What remains of the bill is still bad news. It would reduce the typical union-organizing election from two months to as short as five days. This is a provision that could only be favored by the side that wants workers to be deprived of the information and the time they need to make an informed decision.  And it would force employers to accept the decision of a government arbitration panel even if the resulting union contract would threaten the company’s survival.

Finally, we just love that union hand invoking the Wagner Act as a wonderful achievement to replicate.  Following passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, America experienced the Depression of 1937 and unemployment jumped back up to 19 percent. That’s a model we should emulate?