Roll Call has a story discussing the role of organized labor groups in the Pennsylvania Senate primary race between Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA.) It discusses the role that the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act plays in the race. While Senator Specter came out strongly in opposition to this card check legislation, he has been keen to express his interest in putting forward an alternative version of the bill.

In reference to the bill, the head of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, Bill George, says that labor’s highest priority is “…like water over the damn,” [sic] George added:

That first bill’s gone and consequently, it’s time to move forward. And Arlen Specter was very instrumental with other Senators getting an agreement.

What agreement?

We’ve heard a lot of discussion about a possible alternative-EFCA bill, but any proposal based on the fundamentally flawed EFCA would be devastating to employers and employees alike. If an agreement has been reached, why is nothing is available on it? As we enter the campaign season, we hope that maneuvering over versions of a bill that would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs doesn’t become part of a political strategy to woo one key interest. Any elected official should soundly reject the Employee Free Choice Act, in any form.

John B. Judis, a senior editor with The New Republic, pressures President Obama to make a recess appointment of SEIU and AFL-CIO counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, casting the argument in political terms as “Obama’s Hinge Moment.” First published in the magazine, Judis’ piece was reposted at NPR’s site today.

Judis’ argument is political, as he waves away business’ objections to Becker’s nomination, claiming “Becker dealt satisfactorily with the principal charge against him — that he would use the NLRB to administratively enact the Employee Free Choice Act.” Maybe, if you’re satisfied by “No, I wouldn’t,” as sufficient, his earlier writings to the contrary.

Judis:

At the end of this month, Obama will have a chance to prove these critics wrong. It would certainly be the politically smart thing to do. Labor remains essential to the Democratic coalition, and, given that Obama cannot offer unions what they really want–the Employee Free Choice Act–he can at least mollify them with this. More than a shrewd political move, however, filling the vacancies on the NLRB is the right thing to do. It is a small agency but an important one. And, as long as it remains crippled, one of the core philosophical commitments of the Democratic Party–the idea that workers ought to have some counterweight to the overwhelming power of big business–goes unfulfilled.

Other than politics, there’s nothing stopping Senate confirmation of the other two nominees, Buffalo labor lawyer Mark Pearce and former Senate staffer Brian Hayes. President Obama could also easily nominate another Democrat to fill the swing position on the NLRB.

So the issue here isn’t the effective operation of the National Labor Relations Board, it’s the “mollifying” of organized labor.

Bret Jacobsen in Forbes.com, “Everyday Higher Prices,” a commentary on the “high road” federal contracting standards:

It’s just the latest effort to increase costs on taxpayer projects in the name of pushing more money to labor unions.

Reports this week of the new proposal are raising eyebrows. Though details are sketchy, here’s the general idea: The Obama administration is attempting to alter the scoring system currently used to evaluate government contractors and suppliers.

The new system would provide additional points for so-called “high road” employers who pay wages and benefits above minimum standards. (Note that the new requirement is not about providing quality above minimal standards; employers simply have to pay more.) Thus, competition in bidding becomes a tangled race to see who can charge the most to cover higher labor costs.

The costs of this favor to Big Labor would be borne by the taxpayers, paying the direct costs of more expensive contracts and indirect costs from inefficiency.

The recent report from the White House Task Force on the Middle Class foreshadowed this major change in federal contracting. From page 23, the section entitled “Responsible Federal Contracting.”

The Federal Government spends over half a trillion dollars a year on contracts for goods and services, generating employment for tens of millions of workers. However, there are inadequate controls on the records of firms who get these contracts and on the quality of the jobs these contracts create.Ignoring these factors has negative implications, not only for the workers on these contracts, but for the quality and efficiency of services rendered. For these reasons, the Task Force has participated in a review process to identify ways to reform the procurement process to increase the quality of both the services procured and the jobs created under Federal contracts.

The Task Force recognizes that contracts should not be awarded to irresponsible sources with unsatisfactory records of business ethics, including noncompliance with labor and employment, tax, fraud, and consumer protection laws. We also recognize that substandard wages and benefits can have negative impacts on employees’ productivity and stability, which in turn can reduce the quality of performance on Federal contracts.

We expect to produce shortly some new recommendations to bring these ideas into practice.

• Associated Press, “‘Living wage’ could be factor in govt contracts”
• New York Times, “Plan to Seek Use of US Contracts as a Wage Lever“
• Bloomberg, “Plan to Seek Use of US Contracts as a Wage Lever“

From the EFCA Labor Law and Reform Blog published by Jackson Lewis LLP, reporting on the American Bar Association’s winter meeting last week in Puerto Rico and the AFL-CIO Executive Council’s meeting in Orlando.

Fred Feinstein, former General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, spoke at the Bar Association meeting.  He thinks EFCA in a compromised form is still a possibility.  Card check is gone but mandatory arbitration and increased penalties might remain, along with expedited elections.

Mr. Feinstein attributed the delay for passage of EFCA to more pressing items, such as health care, having to take priority.  Since the health care legislation appears to be coming to a climax, it seems that the “health care” rationale for delaying an EFCA vote will no longer justify inaction. EFCA, at least in some form, will have to be brought up for a vote or buried.

Labor certainly hasn’t given up on its campaign to use federal government to restructure the U.S. economy. Here’s just one more example, a hearing Wednesday by a House Education and Labor Committee subcommittee on H.R. 413, Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009, designed to force states into collective bargaining with public safety unions.

Sen. Orrin Hatch held a conference call with bloggers at noon today to talk about health care legislation and offer his critique of the possibility of Senate Democrats using reconciliation to push through a bill despite the public’s overwhelming opposition. (See the Senator’s Washington Post op-ed, “Reconciliation on health care would be an assault to the democratic process.”)

We took the opportunity to ask for the Senator’s thoughts on the possibility of President Obama making a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. On Feb. 9th, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on Becker’s nomination by a bipartisan vote of 52-33.

Sen. Hatch:

When you have a clear cut vote like that, the President shouldn’t do it, should not recess appoint him. If he does …

The man is off the wall. He’s very smart, I mean, I don’t mean to demean him. He’s a smart man. In fact that’s one of the problems. He will do any thing to help the SEIU and the AFL-CIO. Anything!

And that includes doing by regulation at the NLRB that which you could never get through legislation, and once they do that, I think it would be not only unconstitutional, but, you know, illegal, but it would take years all the way through the Supreme Court to change it. And that’s what they’re up to.

I can’t believe the president would put Becker up there, knowing how very …That was even a bipartisan vote against Becker, by the way, and I’d be very surprised if he did that.

Now, I don’t dislike the man personally. I dislike his views. He’s a smart guy, there’s no question about it. But he is an ideologue, there’s no question about that. He’s going to do whatever those big unions want. And, you know, they want power, more than anything else, and that’s what they’re going to give him if he’s recess appointed.

The audio is here.

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)

It appears unlikely, but not impossible, that the Senate will enact a version of the Employee Free Choice Act this year. Whatever the legislation’s fate, recent news reports make it clear that a candidate’s position on the anti-democratic card check legislation will be a major campaign issue, not just in the fall election but also in Democratic primaries. For example:

• Denver Business Journal, “No consensus on ‘card check’ in meeting between Bennet, Colorado business leaders“: “A group of Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry leaders and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet could not find common ground Tuesday on the “Employee Free Choice Act,” the so-called “card check” bill to make it easier to form union locals, but both sides still called the Washington meeting productive.”
• The Hill, “Halter calls for ‘compromise’ on card check“: “As unions pledged millions to help his primary challenge [against Sen. Blanche Lincoln], Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter (D) offered a muddled endorsement of a key labor bill. When asked about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) during an interview on MSNBC Tuesday, Halter declined to address the most controversial provision – known as “card check” — instead saying he supports a compromise.”
• New York Times, “Still With Obama, but Worried“: “Mr. Trumka [of the AFL-CIO] said that unions would not campaign for Democrats who had done little for labor, especially on issues like the card-check bill. Even though Mr. Brown’s victory denied the Democrats the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster, Mr. Trumka voiced confidence that Mr. Obama and the Democrats would find a way to enact that bill, the Employee Free Choice Act.”
• The Examiner, Mark Tapscott, “Business leaders swarm hill to fight card check“: “Executives and owners representing thousands of small and medium-size businesses from eight states flooded Capitol Hill yesterday with one message for their senators — don’t even think about trying to revive the supposedly dead Employee Free Choice Act. An estimated 250 of the lobbyists-for-a-day represented state-level chambers of commerce from Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia.” The fly-in is organized by the U.S. Chamber;the state chambers in Arkansas, Delaware and North Carolina are also members of National Association of Manufacturers’ State Associations Group.
• Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog, “AFL-CIO Readies ‘Firewall’ Strategy for Fall Elections,” also noting Big Labor’s pressure on the White House for a recess appointment of SEIU attorney Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

UPDATE (10:55 a.m.): Also, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, “Thune warns against efforts to make it easier to create labor unions”

This week’s meeting of the AFL-CIO’s executive council in Orlando elicits journalistic reports on how Big, Used-to-be-Bigger Labor will respond to its political failures.

Associated Press, “Organized labor’s agenda hits roadblock; what now?”

Prospects for a health overhaul have faded. Even slimmer are the chances of achieving labor’s chief goal, passage of a bill making it easier for unions to organize workers. A bipartisan jobs bill passed this week by the Senate drew tepid praise from the AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka, who called it a “Band-Aid on an amputated limb” - far short of what unions wanted.

This wasn’t what unions expected a year ago after spending more than $400 million to help elect Obama and increase the size of Democratic majorities in the Senate and House.

Bloomberg, “Unions Regroup After Stunned by Losses Under Obama, Democrats“:

March 1 (Bloomberg) — William George, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, blames the card-check bill. Alan Hughes, AFL-CIO chief in Arkansas, blames Wal-Mart. Charlie Flemming, a union leader in Atlanta, blames Democratic politicians.

As they meet in Orlando, Florida, this week to plan their 2010 political campaign, union leaders are reeling from a succession of defeats they never expected after helping President Barack Obama and the Democrats win elections in 2008.

What now? Well, the strategy hasn’t really changed despite the setbacks: Rely on government spending and legislation to rescue them. Last week, AFL-CIO activists rallied in Orlando:

Contending that government investment swiftly saves jobs and stimulates the economy, union leaders rallied on the steps of Orlando City Hall to urge support for a new federal jobs bill, one that would push money more quickly to state and local government workers.

Paul Wilson, president of the Central Florida AFL-CIO union, and organizers with the AFSCME public service workers union urged Congress to invest in jobs in public service, especially since Florida’s state government is facing as much as a $3 billion budget shortfall.

Vice President Joe Biden speaks to the AFL-CIO leadership this afternoon at Disney World. We’ll be looking for the promises of a government rescue for labor, comments on the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, a renewed vow of support for the Employee Free Choice Act, and any reference to “black shirts.”

From the White House’s annual report of the Middle Class Task Force, released today by Vice President Biden:

Protecting Workers and Creating Middle-Class Jobs. Access to good quality jobs, with fair compensation and stable benefits, is a key factor in building a strong middle class. The Administration’s most immediate imperative in this regard is to do all we can to jumpstart job creation. Building on some of the successes of the Recovery Act, the President has outlined a program to quickly generate job growth in small businesses, clean energy, and infrastructure. In addition, the Middle Class Task Force is focusing on the following initiatives to ensure that we create good jobs that can sustain a middle-class lifestyle and that workers are treated fairly:

••Passing the Employee Free Choice Act. To level the playing field for workers who want to form unions, the Administration is committed to passing the Employee Free Choice Act. The loss of bargaining power has been a factor in both the stagnation of middle-class earnings and the divergence of wage growth from productivity growth. Restoring the right to pursue collective bargaining in a more balanced environment would help middle-class workers get their fair share of the gains as the American economy recovers.

That’s on page v of the Executive Summary, so it’s one of the premises the Task Force started with as opposed to key finding and recommendation for moving forward. So consider it just boilertrap and clap-plate.

(Hat tip: U.S. Chamber’s Workforce Freedom Initiative)

UPDATE (2:40 p.m.): We jumped to post before reading through the whole report. On pages 23-24, the task force reaffirms and even elevates the Administration’s support for the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act: “Over the course of this year, the Task Force will continue to promote the benefits of union membership and to amplify the President’s message of the importance of EFCA as a way to guarantee workers who want to organize a fair chance to do so.”

Forced unionization is NOT a means to a more prosperous, stable middle class. Organized labor will applaud a renewed push for the Employee Free Choice Act in an election year, but the politics here only add to the uncertainty that discourages business investment.

The Washington Post runs a Sunday feature in it Outlook section, “Five Myths,” a generally interesting rebuttal of the conventional wisdom on hot policy and political issues. As a journalistic exercise, it’s problematic: The conceit requires a supposedly disinterested reporter to write an opinion column that communicates to the readers that sources are feeding them a line of garbage, courtesy of the same supposedly disinterested reporter.

Also, by requiring the analysis to be iconoclastic, the reporter is obliged to come up with five myths, even if the myth being debunked happens to be true. “Darn. I only have four ‘myths.’ Well, if I twist this around a little …”

This Sunday, it was Alec MacGillis’ turn in the box, “Five myths about the labor union movement,” including No. 4, “The Employee Free Choice Act would radically reshape the job market.”

Not really. While the proposal would bring the biggest change in generations, it would leave some union challenges unaddressed. The bill as written would let workers form a union if a majority of them sign cards in favor of one, without having to hold a secret-ballot election at the workplace. Unions argue that such elections are unfairly influenced by employers. But even before Democrats lost their filibuster-proof Senate majority, they had all but jettisoned that part of the bill — dubbed “card check” by opponents — because it lacked support among conservative Democrats. Instead, the measure would now ease the process by shortening the window before elections, giving employers less time to sway workers, and by increasing the penalties for employer violations, both relatively incremental changes.

MacGillis’ argument boils down to “not really.” Well, that’s one opinion. Organized labor has made the Employee Free Choice Act its top priority because forced unionization is the only thing that can save the labor movement from further private-sector decline. Harold Meyerson, the Post’s most left-leaning opinion columnist, wrote last week, “For the unions, the Senate’s inability to pass EFCA is devastating and galling,” arguing that the bill’s failure would allow continued “deunionization” of the private sector. “Devasting” suggests a radical reshaping, doesn’t it? Furthermore:

Robert Bruno, a labor relations professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, doubts reforms short of card check can work. It is unrealistic, he said, to create neutral, civic-style elections in workplaces dominated by employers.

Employers “would have to agree to an environment where they give up a lot of control, a lot of prerogative,” he said.

That’s from a March 29, 2009, Washington Post story, which MacGillis leads off by describing EFCA as “a landmark pro-union proposal.”

Got that? It’s landmark, but not radical. As opinions go, that’s too nuanced for us. Or maybe it’s just a case of the “myth” being true, after all.