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.

• Jay Ambrose at The Examiner examines how politicians could support something as “despicably foul” as card check legislation that would strip away secret ballot elections for union elections and result in workers being exposed to intimidation. Ambrose asserts that there is no difference in principle between taking away secret ballots for union elections or Congressional elections.

• The final Presidential candidate debate takes place tonight at Hofstra, where the focus is expected to be on the economy. Although card check  as a topic has escaped  the recent debates, it may come up tonight, especially in light of the McCain campaign’s recent efforts to highlight Sen. Obama’s  backing. The NAM’s CEO Gov. John Engler made it clear that card check is a top concern for manufacturers in the Q&A section of his Detroit Economic Club Monday. Talk about it, candidates!

• The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which the NAM is a leader of, has announced the launch of a six state direct mail blitz. This effort seeks to compare the positions of Senate candidates in Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Oregon to highlight where the candidates really stand on protecting worker privacy.

There is a lot of good news and commentary out there on the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), organized labor’s attempt to eliminate secret ballot elections in the workplace.

• New information from the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry shows that EFCA is a losing issue in Louisiana. The poll, performed by Southern Media & Opinion Research, points out that the majority of likely voters in Louisiana, like other national trends, oppose the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. The results of the poll show voters in the Pelican State strongly reject the EFCA, with 74% of likely voters preferring to maintain the current process for forming a union that uses private ballots, and 65% of likely voters oppose the EFCA which would replace secret ballots with a “card check” system that exposes workers to coercion when making the important decision of whether to form a union. The findings of this poll are consistent with the findings of a similar poll performed by the NAM through the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace by McLaughlin & Associates earlier this year.
• John Motley provides a comprehensive overview of the issues surrounding the EFCA in a piece in the National Review. Motley provides perspective on the unusual nature of the card check issue with one of the most liberal Democratic Presidential candidates George McGovern urging his fellow Democrats to oppose the EFCA. This OpEd further explains some the politics behind the legislation. However, the need to defend workers’ right to a private ballot is a non-partisan issue. All political parties should work to defend this important right.
• The Oregonian’s lone market-minded opinion writer weighs in on the issue with a tough column, that examines what’s at stake in this year’s election by examining card check legislation. The Oregonian’s David Reinhard, points out the bill’s seemingly Orwellian double-speak title. Reinhard sums up the lasting consequences of this proposal:

“And, whether you favor card check or the private ballot, the two presidential candidates’ differences on this one issue could have a profound and tangible impact on American business, labor and politics for years to come.”

The DFL Party in Minnesota, feigning outrage that someone would express disagreement with their candidates’ support of the Employee Free Choice Act, tried to punish and prevent the speech rather than argue against it. Indicative of the mindset that would destroy the secret ballot, don’t you think?

The DFL filed a formal complaint with the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings against the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, among others, for running TV ads about card check legislation and the positions of Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) and his opponent, Democrat Al Franken. Under state law, it is a gross misdemeanor to run an a false add with reckless disregard of its falsehood. (211B.06 FALSE POLITICAL AND CAMPAIGN MATERIAL; PENALTY; EXCEPTIONS)

The ad’s supposed offense was to claim that by supporting the card check bill, “Franken says eliminate the secret ballot for workers.” Also objected to was the announcer’s statement: “Call Al Franken. Tell him he’s wrong to end worker privacy.”

After an initial go-around and appeal, Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Neilson has now ruled against the DFL. In her order, she writes: 

The statement that Mr. Franken wants to eliminate the secret ballot is not factually false, since the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot vote for union organizing elections where a majority of employees sign union authorization cards.

Because Mr. Franken supports the EFCA, the statement, “Franken says eliminate the secret ballot for workers,” is not false. It may be misleading and it certainly is incomplete, but it is not false within the meaning of § 211B.06. Similarly, the second statement is not factually false. Because the EFCA will eliminate private ballot elections in certain circumstances, it is not untruthful to characterize the bill’s effect as “end[ing] worker privacy.” Section 211B.06 does not regulate unfavorable deductions, inferences, unfair characterizations or misleading remarks.35 As with the first statement, this statement is not “false” under the statute.

Beyond that, we’ll assert that the statements were true. There would be little point to the Employee Free Choice Act if it were to NOT eliminate the secret ballot. Only through the public collection of signatures on union representation cards, with the associated peer pressure and intimidation, can organized labor achieve its goal — forcing employees into a union against their will.

We wrote “feigning outrage” above when describing the DFL’s legal attack against free speech, in so far as the party and its union allies recognized the standard to strike down the ad is extremely high. (It’s the “reckless disregard” standard that applies in libel suits by public officials, going back to Times v. Sullivan.) So why did they do it?

They were cynically engaging in intimidation. Pressure. Any tool in their toolbox to silence opposition.

Intimidation. Pressure. And the same tactics will be used against individual employees when union organizers ask them to join by signing a card.

 Coalition news release.

From today’s WSJ letters’ section:

The Secret Ballot Is a Foundation of Our Democracy

I agree with George McGovern that the proposed “card-check” legislation is an open invitation to abuse and ought to be opposed by congressional Democrats (”My Party Should Respect Secret Union Ballots,” op-ed, Aug. 8). I would suggest that he think through our whole approach to labor relations law. Current law is an authoritarian assault on the liberty of workers who do not want union representation at all.

The National Labor Relations Act makes a certified union the exclusive representative of all the workers. Those who think that the union costs too much, fails to represent their workplace interests, or engages in political activities they don’t support must nevertheless accept its dominion over them. The Right to Work laws of 23 states permit disaffected workers to stop paying dues without being fired, but that is only a second-best remedy.

There is no reason why labor unions must be given monopoly status. Both Democrats and Republicans ought to support reform of the law so that individuals are free to join or quit unions, just as they are free to join or quit churches, clubs, or any other organization.

If unions are beneficial, they will survive without coercing workers who prefer independence.

George C. Leef
Raleigh, N.C.

 

The Democratic Party should heed Mr. McGovern’s advice and stand up for the very principle embodied in their name by renouncing their support of a law which would effectively eliminate secret ballots for union organizing.

Labor unions say the bill is necessary to combat employer stall tactics that open employees to intimidation and coercion. But, in fact, the NLRB reports that in 2005 the average union election occurred within 39 days of receiving an employees’ petition. Similarly, NLRB data reveal that less than 3% of organizational campaigns result in an employee being illegally fired. While these employers should certainly be punished, and they are, it is hardly a cause for shelving 60 years of labor law that has supported secret ballot voting.

J. Justin Wilson
Managing Director
Employee Freedom Action Committee
Washington

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, also submits a letter, arguing that the “bill would not eliminate the National Labor Relations Board election process.” Statutorily, no. Practically, yes. Employers would lose their ability to request an election; only the unions could call for one. And given their ability to twist the arms of workers more effectively through the card-check process, the unions will never, repeat, NEVER, request an election.

For more on the card check issue, here’s the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, to which the NAM belongs, has begun running TV spots in Maine distinguishing the positions of the two U.S. Senate candidates on the Employee Free Choice Act, i.e., card check. Incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, is running against Rep. Tom Allen, a Democrat.

From the CDW’s release:

Union special interests have made support for the EFCA, or “card check” bill, a top priority for candidate support this election year. Under the EFCA, workers would effectively lose their right to a private ballot when deciding whether to be represented by a union. The private ballot would be replaced with a “card-check” scheme where a union is organized if a majority of workers simply sign a card; the workers’ signatures are made public to their employer, the union organizers and their co-workers. The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives but was blocked in the Senate in June 2007. Labor union leaders have promised to re-introduce the legislation next year.

“The people of Maine need to know that workers could effectively lose their right to cast a private ballot in a union election. The next U.S. Senate will have to make a decision about the anti-worker Employee Free Choice Act,” said Brian Worth with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. “We will continue to provide information to Maine citizens about where the candidates stand on private ballots,” added Worth. In addition to informing Maine citizens, the ad will ask candidates to support the right to private ballots. Candidates in Maine do not need to give in to union pressure.

Once the legislation’s effect — the destruction of secret-ballot elections -is known, the public overwhelmingly rejects the anti-democratic card check. Indeed, the CDW’s polling in Maine found that more than three in four voters say that a federally supervised election featuring secret ballots is the best way to ensure an employee’s rights.

There’s a separate website for the Maine CWD campaign, right here: http://maine.myprivateballot.com.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, of which the NAM is a member, today released results of statewide surveys investigating public opinion on the Employee Free Choice Act, i.e., “card check,” in New Mexico, Louisiana and New Hampshire.

Bottom line: Voters strongly dislike card-check provisions that would eliminate secret-ballot elections during organizing campaigns, AND, candidates who support the Employee Free Choice Act are taking a political risk.

NB: Members of union families are even stronger supporters of keeping secret-ballot elections than are non-union families.

From the news release:

“It’s clear there’s a disconnect between the labor bosses in Washington, DC who are lobbying to effectively remove private ballots for workers, and rank and file union members who overwhelmingly support keeping their vote private when deciding whether or not to join a union,” said Brian Worth, vice president of the Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc. and member of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. “Opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act is widespread among voters in Louisiana, New Hampshire and New Mexico, regardless of party affiliation and actually increases among union members themselves. Hopefully, candidates are listening,” added Worth.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune today reports on the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace’s new advertising campaign in Minnesota. “TV, newspaper ads attack Franken on union views” compares the positions of the U.S. Senate candidates on the Employee Free Choice Act. (Incumbent Republican Norm Coleman versus Democrat Al Franken.)

Given the constraints of space, reporter Kevin Duschere does a good job of explaining the particulars of card check, avoiding the lazy shorthand of “a bill that would make it easier to form unions.”

The ad charges that the Free Choice Act would subject workers to coercion by forcing them to declare publicly their support or nonsupport for a union, rather than vote secretly as is usually done now. That’s undemocratic, the ads claim.

In fact, the bill wouldn’t eliminate the secret-ballot election as an option.

It would give workers seeking to organize the chance to choose between such an election, should 30 percent of all workers request it, or to pursue the so-called check-card process, which certifies the union as soon as 51 percent sign up.

But as Tim Miller of the Employee Freedom Action Committee* explains, unions would never opt for the secret ballot because they gain such a big advantage in “intimidation and coercion” via card check.

The Franken/union people have an opportunity to comment, and as typical, just call names.

Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr on Friday called that a lie fueled by the “corporate interests” that are funding Coleman’s campaign. Franken blasted Coleman last month for supporting the filibuster and selling out “to corporate special interests time and time again.”

As the debate continues, we’d hope reporters would also look at other malign, anti-democratic provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act, such as forced arbitration in a short period of time if a contract isn’t reached. Blogger Warner Todd Huston comments:

The binding arbitration will force business to decide their contract within 120 days of the card check vote should that vote favor the union. If the contract isn’t settled in 120 days, then a federal arbitrator steps in to decide the matter. In other words, it will be taken out of the hands of both union and business owners and will become another illegitimate, nanny state venue of government.

In other card-check news, from Monday: “The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) today announced that it was extending its public awareness campaign to reach Maine citizens. The effort begins with airing a television spot designed to inform the public that the Big Labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act, or “card check” legislation, threatens worker privacy.”

P.S. Funny to see the Franken people condeming special interests the same day the candidate was in Philadelphia at the national trial lawyers convention. Even funnier, the very same day a well-known Minnesota trial lawyer, Priscilla Lord Faris announced she would challenge Franken in the September primary.

* CORRECTION: We misidentified Tim Miller in the original post. He’s a spokeman for the Employee Freedom Action Committee, another business coalition active and advertising in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.