More on the changes to EFCA
By Jennifer J. Foster
I mentioned in last night’s post about Mike Rogers’ visit to Auburn that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act—which may very well be the most inaccurately named piece of legislation in American history—has undergone some changes this summer.
From the July 16 edition of The New York Times:
A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers.
The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions ...
Labor unions have pushed aggressively to enact the bill — formally, the Employee Free Choice Act. They view it as essential to reverse labor’s long decline. Just 7.6 percent of private-sector workers belong to unions, one-fifth the rate of a half-century ago.
Behold, irony: The Times says that several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check provision as ... undemocratic.
Here’s an interesting quote from the story, given Rogers’ comments on the bill yesterday and how union leaders might seek to bait and switch card check for tighter arbitration provisions:
Several union leaders interviewed took the senators’ move in stride. One top union official, who insisted on anonymity because lawmakers and labor leaders have agreed not to discuss the status of the bill, said, “Even if card check is jettisoned to political realities, I don’t think people should be despondent over that because labor law reform can take different shapes.”
Now, that ought to give you pause.
More on the bait-and-switch, including more on binding arbitration, from this July 21 editorial in The Wall Street Journal:
Politicians don’t typically broadcast their defeat, and when they do it pays to watch for the blindside hit. That’s surely the case with last week’s reports that six liberal Senators are abandoning part of labor’s top priority, “card check” legislation.
The legislation to eliminate secret ballots in union elections has in fact been comatose for weeks, since Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas declared their opposition. So the real purpose of this “concession” is to shift to Plan B, which is to repackage most of what labor wants with new ribbons and wrapping. The bill that Senators Tom Harkin (Iowa), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mr. Specter and others are now considering would still give unions the whip hand in negotiations with management.
Why is this bad? I defer to the WSJ:
Labor is desperate to rig the bargaining rules because most workers show time and again that they don’t want a union. Americans know unions promise higher wages and benefits and more job security. But workers can also see what has happened to such highly unionized industries as steel, autos, airlines and many others. Unions couldn’t save those jobs, and in fact they contributed to their demise with contracts that made the industries uncompetitive. Most workers would also rather not hand over a chunk of their paycheck in mandatory dues to finance the political agenda of labor leaders.
I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: Any broadening of union organization rules must also include an opt-out provision for those portions of dues used in political activities.
It’s commonly known by its highly accurate name: Paycheck protection.
