The AFL-CIO blog is reporting on the union-funded Economic Policy Institute’s “Spotlight on the Jobs Crisis” panel discussion this morning, a gathering of “progressive” leaders. Speakers are: Richard L. Trumka, AFL-CIO president; Deepak Bhargava, Executive Director of the Center for Community Change; Wade Henderson, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR); Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; EPI President Lawrence Mishel; andJanet Murguía, President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of La Raza.

Trumka’s jobs agenda appears to be an agenda for government jobs:

Trumka is proposing five steps to help end the nation’s ongoing jobs crisis. In the face of a 10 percent official unemployment rate and millions more underemployed or struggling with long-term unemployment, Trumka says, we need immediate action to put people back to work. The five key steps are:

1. Extend the lifeline for jobless workers.

2. Rebuild America’s schools, roads and energy systems.

3. Increase aid to state and local governments to maintain vital services

4. Fund jobs in our communities.

5. Put TARP funds to work for Main Street.

Too general to critique, and there could well be good projects amid the government spending — infrastructure, for example. But the Workforce Fairness Institute notes that the AFL-CIO’s oft-stated priority is the Employee Free Choice, the forced unionization “card check” legislation. WFI issued a statement this morning from its executive director, Katie Packer:

In a comedic yet troubling display of hypocrisy, Richard Trumka will announce this morning “bold, quick action to put people back to work.”  And his solution? A bill that would kill 600,000 jobs in the first year alone.  Trumka’s solution to double-digit, historic unemployment is support for job-killing legislation that will only put more people out of work and force our nation’s top job producers – small businesses – to close their doors.  Union bosses have demonstrated a willingness to distort the truth in order to get the “payback” they believe they are owed in the form of the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act.  The notion that this legislation would do anything but further damage our economy is complete nonsense.

UPDATE (11:10): Video of Trumka’s remarks is here. He does indeed make a quick reference to the Employee Free Choice Act, urging its passage. The interesting thrust of the AFL-CIO program is that it relies entirely on the government. The private sector barely enters into his discussion, except as a recipient of government funds.

Several items, falling into place.

First, Sam Stein at The Huffington Post, “Labor Warns Dems: We’ll Sit Out Election If You Oppose Public Plan.” First the Employee Free Choice Act, now this. Why not argue the merits of your case — how does government-run health care help employees — instead of immediately turning to bullying?

Then this, from the labor beard, the Employment Policy Institute, “No coercion in card check.” The contention: “Without any evidence to support their claim, EFCA’s opponents argue that unions will coerce employees to sign authorization cards or obtain a majority through fraud. A recent report, however, suggests that this claim is frivolous.”

Frivolous? That’s an aggressive counter-intuitive assertion. EPI must have extremely persuasive data on which to make the argument. Here it is: “A study of four states—Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and New York—that have had majority sign-up for public sector employees for many years…”

To the authors of this study, we make this point: Public-sector employees aren’t private-sector employees. Different laws, different dynamics, and since government is much more complaisant — taxpayers pay the bill — public-sector unions don’t need to resort to coercion.

We’d also direct you to National Right to Work:

In this new special National Right to Work Committee video report, Dana Corporation employees in Albion, Indiana, share their stories of harassment and intimidation by UAW union operatives during a militant card check organizing drive. The workers discuss how union organizers specifically targeted and ramped up their coercive tactics against female employees.

As one worker explains in the video, “People in the UAW will call you their sister or their brother. I never treated any of my brothers and sisters that way.”

UAW union organizers were able to collect a majority of signatures after weeks of pressure on the employees. Thanks to a precedent won by attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation, the employees eventually forced an election and defeated the UAW union hierarchy.

Looks like good evidence on which to argue that unions will coerce employees to sign authorization cards or obtain a majority through fraud. Incontrovertible evidence, in fact.

An OpEd in today’s Washington Post further demonstrates an attempt by labor leaders to make the case for EFCA by putting out yet another “academic” study to demonize employers. Facing waning support for the Employee FORCED Choice Act on Capitol Hill, labor supported groups like American Rights at Work and the Economic Policy Institute seek to distort the current structure of our labor law system.

As we’ve noted previously, this “study” by Kate Bronfenbrenner is far from a serious attempt to accurately portray the current union organizing process. The authors fails to disclose that her “study” sampled responses from union organizers – which is hardly an impartial sample. Most of the allegations that are purported in this piece are simply that – allegations. Most of these allegations aren’t even found to have actual grounds.

In reality, employees that wish to form a union are able to do so in the current system. Looking at impartial NLRB data, we find that in 2008 unions gain 400,000 new members, while unions won 67 percent of union representation elections. Almost all of these elections (95 percent) were held within 56 days. While yes there may be small amount of employers that break the law, labor groups are attempting to portray these instances as the norm rather than recognizing how our current labor law system actually functions.

It is irresponsible to describe the Employee Free Choice Act as “labor law reform.” Instead, it would actually expose workers to increased opportunities for intimidation and coercion. The legislation also changes the nature of collective bargaining by removing the ability to seek mutually negotiated terms by imposing binding interest arbitration.

Not to pick on the Reuters reporter who did the useful piece about the Employee Free Choice Act cited immediately below, but this passage provokes a snort.

Some prominent economists are in the same camp. “We’ve had an economy where a lot of the growth went to a disproportionately small share of families,” says Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. “The president has said that we need to go from ‘borrow and spend’ to ‘save and invest.’ I think we need to go to ‘earn and spend.’”

Mishel has co-authored a statement in support of EFCA that garnered the support of 40 other prominent economists, including three Nobel Laureates. They argue that in recent decades most bargaining power has resided with management.

Ah, yes, the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group.

From EPI’s own “About EPI” section of its webpage: “EPI is a 501(c)(3) corporation. In 2005 through 2007, a majority of its funding (about 53%) was in the form of foundation grants, while another 29% came from labor unions. EPI also receives support from individuals, corporations, and other organizations.” (And no doubt the foundations receive union funding.)

Nine of EPI’s 31 board members are the heads of major unions. 

We see it all the time, but “nonpartisan Washington-based research group” is misleading. An accurate description is “union-backed research group” or “pro-labor research group.” EPI exists to do research that promotes organized labor’s cause.