By Leo W. Gerard
International President

Americans are paying big time now for decades of buying into a hoax.

And it wasn’t sub-prime mortgages.

It was the conservative contention that government is evil and inept. Swallowing that absurd assertion resulted in relaxation and elimination of supposedly onerous and unnecessary government regulations – from the ones that prevented banks from growing too big to fail to those that protected union organizers from illegal corporate obstruction tactics.

Unfettered, Wall Street speculators went on a rampage of reckless wagering that ultimately knocked the wind out of the world economy’s bubble. With unrestrained corporate threats and interference, union membership declined to 12 percent, although 58 percent of non-managment workers surveyed said they’d like to join a union.

Now, that reviled institution – government – is the only one big and strong enough to rescue the economy that perpetration of the hoax devastated. How ironic. The  government must also restore the ability of the American people to organize unions at their workplaces, if they so choose, by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

President Barack Obama has said he wants to make government cool again. He stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.  on the bicentennial of  Abraham Lincoln’s birth and talked about why the 16^th President supported the union and why concerted action is so effective. Speaking of the hoax, he said, “Such knee-jerk disdain for government – this constant rejection of any common endeavor – cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges.”

Common endeavor is the power of unions, whether they be unions of states or labor unions. That is why corporations across America so fear the Employee Free Choice Act. It would ease forming a labor union. It would allow workers – rather than CEOs – to decide whether to create a labor union by collecting signatures from a majority of workers or by a secret ballot election.

Big business is attempting to perpetrate a second hoax on America – that the Employee Free Choice Act is no good. They’ve been flying a bunch of anti-union lobbyists to Washington to pressure politicians to vote against it. Sounds a lot like CEOs jetting to D.C. in private planes for bailout money. 

The bailout money will, of course, come from the pockets of working Americans who those very CEOs don’t want to unionize. And after decades when the policies of the government-is-evil-hoax meant wealth accrued to the very richest, it turns out that the economy would have been better served if wealth had been more evenly distributed.

More workers with more money to spend means more cars and houses and All-Clad pots and pans bought. Those purchases keep other workers employed, who spend more money.

When those workers are unionized, studies reveal two important statistics.  One is that they earn 30 percent more than non-union workers. The other is that they are 59 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance. So, in the end, unionization is good for the economy.

That effect was acknowledged in 1935 when the National Labor Relations Act was passed to encourage unionization and collective bargaining. It occurred in the midst of the Great Depression and followed decades rocked by lesser economic “panics” causing runs on banks.

The NLRA “Declaration of Policy” says this about this law: “The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract, and employers who are organized in corporate or other forms of ownership association, substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners.”

Simply put, employers wield considerable strength, and workers must be able to unionize so wage and benefit negotiations occur on a more even playing field. There’s power in common endeavor.

In 1935, in the depth of the Great Depression, the government encouraged workers to use their power to obtain better wages. It did that because better wages to many would help end the depression for all.

Since then, corporations and CEOs – the perpetrators of the great government-is-evil hoax — have also chipped away at the NLRA. They’ve seized from workers the ability to determine how unions are formed.

And they increasingly harass workers trying to form unions. In 2007, employers illegally harassed or coerced 29,000 workers. In the 1950s, companies illegally punished fewer that 1,000 workers a year for union activity. Thirty-six percent of workers who voted against a union said they did so because of pressure from the employer, according to an NLRB survey of 400 election campaigns in 1998 and 1999.

Just like in 1935, workers now need unions to help them secure better wages, which will, in the end, be good for the country because it will improve the economy.

For that to happen, though, the Employee Free Choice Act must pass. Workers must have the right, once again, to choose how they want to form their own organizations.

In Obama’s speech in Springfield, in which he discussed the union of states, he quoted Lincoln on the purpose of government, saying, “The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”

In this quote, labor unions could be substituted for government: “The legitimate object of unions is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”

That is why workers must vanquish the new hoax being perpetrated by conservatives, greedy CEOs and other labor union-haters. Workers must win the freedom that they had in 1935 to choose how to form their unions. Labor unions give workers the ability to do what needs to be done but which cannot be accomplished by individuals. And that includes bargaining for the better wages that, when spent throughout the economy, will help end the current great recession.

In June of 2007, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to end debate on the Employee Free Choice Act. The motion failed, 51 to 48, because 60 votes are needed in the Senate to end debate.

Now that Democrats presumptively have 59 votes in the Senate (with Democrat Al Franken the expected winner of the contested seat in Minnesota), Specter has announced he won’t repeat his vote to end debate on the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation which would make forming unions at workplaces less difficult.

What do you think of Specter’s reversal?

Specter’s loyalties lie with Big Business

It’s clear that his first vote to support cloture (to end debate) was simply political calculus.  He did vote against his party, but obviously knowing that the motion would fail and his vote would have no practical effect.  Thus, allowing him to have his cake and eat it too.  Something ALL politicians love to do.  Now that his vote would have the practical effect of making the EFCA law, we can see his true loyalties.  They obviously lie with the Republicans and Big Business and not with working class Americans.

Charles Sellers
San Diego, Calif 

Can’t count on Specter

As a former resident of Pennsylvania, I’m very disappointed to hear that Arlen Specter has changed his mind on the EFCA, but I am not surprised. The guy has always been a weasel and someone you really can’t count on for help with the middle class. I hope he loses his bid for re-election in 2010. Good riddance!

Dan Zurosky
Lexington, S.C.

Specter: always there when you don’t need him

I’m not surprised at all about Specter’s reversal on key labor legislation, in this case EFCA, Employee Free Choice Act.  Senator Specter, like many other so-called moderate members of Congress, who claim to be labor-friendly, is always there when you don’t need him.  Look at his vote in June of 2007.  It was doomed for failure, so the Republican leadership released him to curry favor with labor.  Unfortunately, this is a pattern for many other fair weather friends of labor, as well as Senator Specter.  They vote with labor often enough to earn or keep labor leaders’ support but, when “key” legislation like trade bills, anti-strike breaking laws and labor law reform like EFCA come along, they turn their back on workers.

This practice is not surprising nor is the practice of unions giving these legislators a pass and, in most cases, an endorsement when they run for reelection.  So, no, I’m not surprised by the reversal of Senator Specter on EFCA, and I won’t be surprised when he receives support from many unions in his upcoming reelection bid.  The rationale we will hear is “he’s with us (labor) on many issues.”  And he is.  But try finding him and other “moderates” when it really matters.

Jan D. Pierce
Quaker City, Ohio

Senator Flip Flop

The best way to deal with Senator Flip Flop is to put in his seat a Democrat who will not flip flop.  Is Ed Rendell interested and wouldn’t he be reliable on such issues?

Herbert G. Reid
Emeritus Professor of Politics, University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky

Is this a new, ratty philosophy from Specter?

Anyone who has worked in a non-union shop and tried to organize a union knows the barriers placed before them: the rumor-mongering, the open threats, the veiled threats, the workplace changes that nearly but don’t quite cross NLRB rules and so on. Just getting the minimum number of cards signed means that a great many more support unionization but for various reasons are reluctant to sign. The EFCA is a self-evident no-brainer, and even if the EFCA is passed, the odds are still stacked against the unions. Passing the EFCA would, however, begin to reverse the anti-union tide that was accelerated by Reagan’s destruction of the Air Traffic Controllers union in 1981.

That sharp reversal of union power has led to a wage depression over the last 40 years, and this has a close connection to our current economic crisis. High wage earners don’t need subprime mortgages, tend not to default, and do create a domestic market to sustain a vibrant economy– low wage earners (the result of de-unionization) do not.

Specter is not a fool, and he surely understands all the above. But, did he vote pro-union in 2007 because he could do the math and realize then that he could appear pro-union but with no effect? Or was he sincere then, but now is running scared of a primary challenge within an increasingly right-wing, anti-people, anti-union, marginalized Republican Party? I guess that amounts to asking “was he always a rat or is this something new?”

David Arnow
Brooklyn, New York

Repuglican coward and corporate lapdog

 What do I think of the Republican’s reversal?  Specter rolled over and is a Repuglican coward and corporate lapdog.

The more important question is what do I think, as a resident of Colorado, of our “appointed” new Democratic(?) Senator Michael Bennet? 

I think even less of Bennet after his failure to come out in support of the Employee Free Choice Act than I do of Arlen Specter.  Bennet’s been ducking the issue like a shy prostitute, in other words how oxymoronic of him to be a Democrat(?) who can’t choose between supporting labor or supporting corporate power.

 Mary Ann Meyers
Littleton, Colorado

Specter prefers credit cards over union cards

Specter apparently favors credit cards and payday loans as the preferred “union cards” in this country.  Disgusting!  American workers deserve a living wage, and the only way to that end is unionization. 

Jacqualyne Cody
Rhinelander, Wis. 

Organizing a perceived right, not a real one

Had Senator Specter not reversed his decision, Senators would have been forced to show the vote.  Where I come from, it’s called the Employer Free Choice Act and undoubtedly it’s a perceived “right” not a real one. Been there, Still there. Ready to move forward. Put away the past.

 Kerry Joel Sudberry
Royal, Tenn.

Votes for workers when there’s not gain

It looks like Senator Spector’s big business masters allowed him to vote the way workers in Pennsylvania would prefer as long as he could safely do so without actually achieving gains for workers.  Now that the balance has shifted, he must show his true colors and tow the corporate line.

Karen Grainey
Savannah, Ga.

Time for Specter to be a statesman

The skills of a great politician include a mastery of showmanship, compromise, deal making, fund raising, and most important of all, knowing how to get reelected each and every time.  The skills of a great statesman are the courage and wisdom to dismiss all the potential rewards from those political skills to do something that you know is right and will improve the lives of the greatest number of people.

Senator Arlen Specter has shown his skills as a great politician throughout his entire career and now is the time for him to show his skills as a great statesman by voting to end the debate on the Employee Free Choice Act.

As the senior Senator from the great state of Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter knows better than anyone the damage done to working and middle class Americans by thirty years of union busting, trickle down, voodoo economic policies.  He knows that only a resurgence of strong healthy collective bargaining units across the America workforce will stop the decline in living standards and economic opportunities for all American wage earners across this great country.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a once in a generation piece of legislation that will have such a positive impact on so many lives.  It is time for Senator Specter to rest his laurels as a great politician, and step up to the plate as the great statesman that he is and vote to end the debate on the Employee Free Choice Act.

John O’Connor
North Smithfield, R.I.

Specter seeking both sides

He’s walking both sides of the street.  He knows how poorly Pennsylvanians are doing (and that the state went for Obama in the election), and he doesn’t want to appear to be unsupportive of his constituents.  But on the other side of the street, he worries about his party exacting a political price in the future for his support of Democrats.  He can tell his constituents a half-truth in his next campaign–that he voted for it–knowing most people don’t really know or bother to look up individual votes on various bills.

Gloria Aukland
Mesa, Ariz.

Pressure from RNC

I think Specter was pressured by the RNC and most likely told that he would not receive funds for his upcoming run for re-election.

Bruce Jenkins
Sunnyvale, Calif.

Buckling under pressure of the nasties

Ever since the rise to power of the nasty breed of Republican that seeks to make government a zero-sum political game — I’m thinking Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, etc. — there have been distinguished, experienced senators quitting the senate while expressing dismay at how the institution had deteriorated.  I have always seen Arlen Specter as one of the old-style, respectable men willing to continue trying to make the legislature something all Americans can be proud of.  But lately, I’m afraid, he has been buckling under the pressure of the nasties. 

It’s very sad.

Bob Persons
Newton, Mass.

Reversal provokes questions about intent

Senator Specter’s “change of heart” with regard to the Employee Free Choice Act makes one wonder.  Was he cynical when he supported it knowing that it would not pass?  After all, he scored some points with working people by his assumed support.

And, now, has he had a change of heart, or simply been overwhelmed with pressure from corporations and lobbyist?  Or was he opposed to the EFCA all along?

Mauna Richardson
La Madera, N.M.

Specter clueless about survival today

I wonder if Mr. Specter has ever had to work for his income, do a dirty job, do something he doesn’t want to, but had to, because without doing said job, there would be no food on his children’s table.  I doubt it.  Senators and Congresspeople have absolutely no idea what it is like to survive in this day and age of, at the minimum, two jobs to make ends meet. 

Or maybe they all should be laid off, given their proverbial pink slips, because those buffoons got us into this mess in the first place.  I am referring to the fact that it was Congress, which, when they stripped away the banking controls that had been enacted in the last depression, caused this current depression.  They should have to clean toilets for a while; you know, get a feel for what the rest of us have to suffer through.  

I’d be happy to make six figures to sit on my butt and listen to lobbyists all day, and I don’t want to hear about how hard these government officials work because you and I don’t have an army of staff members doing our job for us.  Don’t get me started.

Vincent Falcone
Biotechnology student, Hocking College
Amesville, Ohio

Specter tows typical GOP anti-union line

I think it is very disappointing to hear that Sen. Specter will not vote as he did in 2007. I am wondering what prompted him to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act in the first place and then change his mind this year. I have respected some decisions/stances he has taken in the past (ie voting for this in 2007) but to hear that he is towing the typical Republican party line of anti-unionism is upsetting. I am disgusted to see time and time again, politicians who are supposed to be “for the people” or the voice of the people, continue to vote for the best interests of the corporation rather than the people, the worker.

Janet Hada
Snohomish, Wash.

Sounds like RNC threats

Sounds like the RNC threatened him, doesn’t it?

Could be just general cussedness; he’s done that before, but my guess is that the party made it known that if  Specter voted against their line, he could lose support.

Again, there’s precedent for that. 

Mary Carter
Endicott, N.Y. 

Senate should change filibuster rules

When will Sen. Reid have the good sense to change the filibuster rules so that a mere majority can pass a bill in the Senate?

Jack McKissen
Grand Coulee, Wash.   

Reversal surprising and disappointing

Sen. Specter: Your reluctance to support this legislation is surprising and disappointing.  In the name of fairness, please reconsider your position.

Rev. Wesley E. Blaha
Monroeville, Pa.

Seek support of others

I think we must leave Senator Arlen Specter to vote his conscientious in peace.  He needs the support of Republicans. Let’s reason instead with the others and seek to develop additional allies among them.

David A. Crosbie
Pittsburgh, Pa.

Specter made a major mistake

Specter has made a major mistake if he is planning to run for re-election.  Several hazards await him: (1) he could be defeated by a strong candidate who is a liberal and pro-labor Democrat, of course; but he could also (2) run into terrible troubles in his party’s primary.  Far-right GOPs like to run a candidate against him, as they did last time, though he managed a narrow victory.  BUT Democrats, possibly faced with a primary in which the choice is obvious or an easy winner, could (temporarily switch parties and) vote in the Republican primary for the far-rightist in order to help insure that Specter goes down.  (There are many ways to skin a fat cat!) 

Gerald L. Houseman,
Spokane, Wash. 

Specter’s weasel votes

A reversal from Specter is no big surprise. He will vote with us whenever he knows the vote won’t matter. He votes with the Republican leadership when it counts. Look at his weasel words on the Clinton impeachment votes. His only saving grace is that any other Republican from Pennsylvania would be worse (or maybe not – integrity is something to value even if it’s in one’s opponents).

Tom Wolfinger
Centreville, Va.   

Specter sell-out

There is no sinister conspiracy behind the EFCA to thwart an employee’s freedom to choose or not to choose union representation as some opponents would have the public believe.  The EFCA is a straightforward attempt to reverse the anti-union bias that has perverted US law for nearly thirty years. Arlen Specter knows that. His refusal to support EFCA this time around is nothing short of a sell-out to political expediency now that his incumbency is challenged by strong right-wing opposition in the forthcoming Pennsylvania Republican primary election. Shame on you Arlen Specter.

David A. Blythe
Oxford, Mich.

Specter pressured by Republicans and right

I think it is awful.   Senator Specter has had a lot of pressure put on him by Republicans and the Right in general.  We need to get our folks out there with emails, calls, etc. in support of his progressive votes of late. We also need the same kinds of action to show him how many people are in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act.  Each member must contact family and friends to do the same.  We must get this act through now, at this point in history. Other potential Republicans might be Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.  We need mass action now!

Judith Richards
Lathrup Village, Mich.

Exigencies of politics

Even as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I have always admired Senator Specter’s honesty. I don’t want to think that he would vote to end debate only when he knew his vote was safe; when his vote would not be the 60th. Yet, I believe he is up for election this year and that his seat is not safe. The exigencies of politics are such that, should his vote be the 60th, he would lose his seat. I’d rather see him hold back this time with the hope that this decent man will be returned to his Senate seat.

Barbara Gunther
Bayport, NY

Tragedy for Employee Free Choice Act

I guess soul-selling is the accepted way to go when you are up for reelection. He finds ways to placate his conscience by pretending he is in the Senate to serve the people. Isn’t this par for the course among too many of our politicians?

What a tragedy when The Employee Free Choice Act hangs in the balance!

Elaine Babian
Far Rockaway, N.Y.  

Senator, you have to go

Hon. Sen. Specter, Sir: Thank you for nothing.  After sending us two identical “‘boiler-plate” letters, one on 12/22/08 and the other on 3/24/08, on your ostensibly supportive position of the EFCA, yesterday you turned around and announced your opposition to it.

Most troubling, was the report from The Patriot-News, by Charles Thompson: “On the Senate floor, Specter said he was troubled by the bill’s proposed elimination of the secret ballot, which he called ‘the cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic society’.”

This is troubling because you know “the elimination of the secret ballot” is absolutely false, and not part of the bill.

The article suggests your decision was politically motivated.  This is the political reality:  You have had the support of moderate Democrats in the past because of the moderate positions you have shown.  To stray to the far right would be a mistake.  Should you do that, we would actually welcome the candidacy of far right lunatics like Pat Toomey, so that he would be crushed in November of 2010.  Sorry, but if we can’t rely upon you for non-partisan votes, then you have to go.

Randi & Tom Alba
Ambler, Pa.

Specter kneeling at the alter of big business

Spector is a gutless punk who pandered to labor when there was no chance of the bill passing. Now that we have a real shot at passing this bill, he is showing his true colors. He is kneeling at the altar of big business. Unions and their members in Pennsylvania should not forget this double cross. 

Steven Elliott
Danbury, Conn.

Specter should vote for fairness

Are all Republicans the same?  We had one on our road, who signed a right-of-way for the road to be paved when a Republican was governor, but when it was a Democratic governor, he wouldn’t sign one.  They never vote on the fairness side of any issue.

Without unions our country will not survive as the leader of the free-world.  Education on union backed issues is the key to enlightenment of people who through no fault of their own, stand on the wrong side of issues.

Ronnie Young
Waynesville, N.C.

Vote change inconceivable

I cannot understand how Senator Specter could even consider changing his vote. This bill is a “no-brainer. It is vital for our economy. How could anyone not support it – where are the thoughts of those missing Democrats – amazing that we would elect persons like this to “represent” us in Congress.

Howard Lord
Montezuma, Iowa

Make the Republicans filibuster

 I think it is time to make the Republicans filibuster against the working man if that is their choice.

Robert Hooker
Upper Marlboro, Md.

A jolt

I think somebody needs to kick Arlen upside the head. 

Robert Young
Nashville, Tennessee

Specter feels threatened

I hope that Specter (and others in the GOP) have the courage to vote in good conscience for the interest of working people in Pennsylvania and the country. It’s apparent that he feels threatened by the CFG (Club for Growth) contingent, who are interested in a business agenda that is disconnected from the needs of working people. If only politicians on either side of the aisle would stand up to this anti-worker agenda, people would respond in support.

It’s very disheartening to see the path that Specter and so many others in government are taking while the middle class continues to be undermined across the U.S., by denial of basic union organizing rights and protections granted in most “civilized” nations.

Brent McFarlane
Seattle, Wash.

Specter votes for his own advantage

Arlen Specter has been a successful politician for a very long time.  

Successful politicians, for the most part, do what is in their best interests.  When Specter voted FOR the Employee Free Choice Act, he did so in order to position himself with the Democratic Party, at a time when that party’s fortunes were on the rise.  Now, he is fighting against the EFCA because he has more to gain from his fellow Republicans, and the business interests that support them, by doing so, than can be gained by siding with the Democrats. Politics as usual.

Victoria LoSchiavo
Mentor, Ohio

Specter’s decision all GOP politics

It’s about politics. The Republicans see Barack Obama succeeding beyond their and many others’ (including Democrats) expectations and so now they see themselves circling the wagons lest they help the President succeed. I say the President, because he has expressed strong support for Employee Free Choice, so anything that furthers that success will be opposed by the GOP. Come election time, they’ll come around. We need to remember that, including let’s not forget the biggest traitor of all, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Angel Rodriguez, a former copper miner from Morenci, Ariz.
Glendale, Ariz.

Specter a straw in the wind

I think Senator Specter is still smarting from the beating his fellow Republicans administered after his vote on the stimulus bill, so he is trying to assert his ideological purity with this vote. I can remember when he first ran for the Senate; he was a decent, principled former DA with crime-fighting credentials. Now he seems more like a straw in the wind, hell-bent on keeping his seat, no matter who gets hurt.

I guess we’ll have to get some other help with this….

Barbara Bruce
Mandan, N.D.

Replace Specter with pro-union Democrat

I am not surprised. After all, he is a Republican. The union members of Pennsylvania need to replace Specter with a pro-union Democrat. Unions do have an ally with Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. We could urge Obama and Biden to resort to the nuclear option. The first step is getting all Democrats to support EFCA.

William Joseph Miller
Los Angeles, Calif.

Specter’s response unfortunate

Senator Specter’s response was unfortunate, and it probably was due to his fear of being defeated in the next Republican primary because of a YES vote.  It may be possible to deal with his concerns and to eventually gain his support, but if not, surely there are other ways to gain a Republican vote. I think the solution is to compromise- make a deal – give up something, to gain something else. Perhaps the key is with President Obama. Maybe he can help put a deal together that satisfies labor and one Republican senator.  Please recall that Specter, Snowe and Collins helped Obama before, for something I am sure each of them wanted.

Bill Weiss
Morgantown, W.Va. 

Votes for middle class when it doesn’t count

Mr. Specter has done this before.  He votes for the middle class so long as his vote won’t count; but when it counts, he always votes for the corporate hierarchy. He is a true Republican, but tries to conceal the fact.  I was surprised when he voted with Collins and Snowe for the stimulus, the only time I have seen him break his rule.

David G. Wagner MD
Portland, Ore.  

Union members must vote their interests

I think Senators are allowed to vote for their constituents when it won’t affect the outcome, but must vote with the party when required to do so or face primary opposition. 

As long as union members–or the 60 million who want to become union members–fail to vote (or vote Republican), the Employee Free Choice Act has an uphill fight. 

My county brags about being one of the “most Republican in the nation” — and 60% of the parents of public school kids are not registered. 

Arlen Specter should have been voted out long ago.  Yet, he can’t have been elected without the votes–or apathy– of labor. 

Judy Ferro
Caldwell, Idaho

 

They are manufacturing lies to keep workers from joining unions

By Sally Kalson
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Columnist

In the annals of big lies, it’s hard to top the tobacco companies’ insistence that smoking (a) did not cause lung cancer and (b) was inexorably linked to America’s rugged individualism.

Then along came the campaign to kill the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would make it easier for workers to form unions and harder for companies to intimidate and fire them if they try. The law would reverse decades of impotence on the part of the National Labor Relations Board, which has been reduced to a toothless body that employers barely bother to acknowledge anymore.

The assault against the free choice act rivals the tobacco campaign for sheer chutzpah by insisting that union busting (a) does not erode the middle class and (b) is inexorably linked to business’s deep regard for the sacred “freedom” of American workers. Which might be true if you’re talking about the freedom to be paid less for working more with no health insurance, pension or job security, but otherwise is a real laugh riot. MORE

Sally Kalson is a columnist for the Post-Gazette and a 25-year member and longtime officer of The Newspaper Guild/CWA Local 38061 (skalson@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1610). More articles by this author

By Jon Geenen
International vice president

The American business community is pulling together to ensure that workers’ democratic rights in the workplace are preserved. In fact, they are spending millions and millions of dollars on behalf of the workers whose rights they seek to protect. What?

The absurdity of this is obvious. These are the same people who have fought every initiative to increase minimum wage. These are the people who provided unwavering support of NAFTA and other offshoring efforts that have decimated our manufacturing base. These are the people who worked tirelessly to defeat new health and safety regulations and environmental efforts related to cleaner water and air and safer chemicals, not to mention their vehement opposition to health care reform.

The American business community claims there is a travesty associated with the Employee Free Choice Act, and they are right. But the travesty has nothing to do with secret ballots. Like the master illusionist creating an act of prestidigitation, corporate America is undermining democracy, while at the same time pretending to be its biggest defender in the workplace.

The media efforts and the unlimited money provide a glimpse to the general public about how far corporations will go and how much they will spend to prevent workers from organizing a union. To be sure, their “democracy campaign” is a textbook strategy straight out of the union-busters handbook, complete with intensive misinformation campaigns, threats of plant closures, doom and gloom and the ostracizing and isolation of pro-union workers as un-American or out of sync with their peers. This time, rather than doing it to a worker in a plant, they are doing it to the general public.

The corporate-funded campaign attacks EFCA as undemocratic and warns that if passed into law, workers would lose access to a secret ballot election as a way to determine majority status for union representation. There is one problem with that. Workers absolutely would be entitled to a secret ballot election under EFCA.

EFCA would not prohibit or otherwise limit the use of the secret ballot. What it would do is say that the decision for workers about how and whether to form a union is a decision that is left workers – not to their bosses.

These opponents also would have you believe that somehow signing your name on a card to indicate your interest in a union is somehow a new or novel approach to organizing. There is a problem with this, too. That is how it works today and, for the most part, how it has worked since the 1930s. In order for workers to gain collective bargaining rights, workers always have had to demonstrate majority support. Signing cards or providing signatures is the first step in forming a union.

So what really would change with EFCA? Employees alone would decide how to show majority status in a unionization campaign. Why does corporate America really care? Because their ability to “intervene” becomes limited. You see, even though many progressive employers recognize unions by the card check method today, those that don’t know that by demanding a National Labor Relations Board election, they gain 42 precious days to run an anti-union campaign where they can fire, demote, coerce, threaten and intimidate workers with little consequence and effectively block workers’ attempts to (ironically) democratize the workplace. Under EFCA, employees would be more likely to have made that decision before the boss finds out, making the matter a decision for workers and workers alone as the Wagner Act originally envisioned.

Unfortunately, business knows what we all know: that except for the small minority of people who are simply philosophically opposed to unions, the rest of us believe, whether we belong to a union or not, that the right to unionize is a critical component of a democratic society. Democracy does not and cannot exist where strong and independent trade unions do not exist. In our country, the rise and fall of personal rights and liberty have paralleled the rise and fall of the labor movement. Why? Because the labor movement is a unique social movement that lends its voice to all working families, uniting the masses. This is what corporate America fears but doesn’t dare say – because that truly would be undemocratic.

The so-called democracy card is simply a red herring.

This piece was first published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on March 13, 2009

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

It ain’t easy. No use jokin’. Everything’s broken.”
–Bob Dylan

We can’t go back to the old economy. That economy — marked by booms and busts, Gilded Age inequality, declining wages, growing household debts, and unsustainable trade deficits — didn’t work very well for most Americans. President Obama is faced with the difficult task of creating the structure for the new economy even as he works to lift us out of the collapse of the old.

That’s why his stunning budget calls for health care reform, ending our addiction to oil and investing in education as both a way out of the mess and a down payment on the future. His pace is as unrelenting as the crisis. Next up: reviving America’s middle class, insuring that once growth returns, its blessings are widely shared. And the centerpiece of that is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

EFCA helps revive the right of workers to organize in this country. Over the last decades, that basic right has been shredded, as companies waged open warfare on union organizing, and administrations often failed to enforce the laws protecting that right. The tactics were bare knuckle: fire the organizers; hold closed door meetings to threaten the workers. And if workers did vote for a union, one-third of employers simply refused to negotiate a contract with them.

The campaigns have been brutally successful. Today, over a majority of workers say that they would join a union if given a choice, but only about 7.5% of the private workforce is organized.

EFCA gives workers the right to choose a union, either in a closed election or with a majority signing pledge cards. It forces employers to negotiate in good faith, requiring arbitration if no agreement is reached. It stiffens penalties on employers for violating workers’ rights.

But EFCA isn’t just about worker rights. It’s about whether we can return to an economy with a broad middle class. When unions represented 30% of the private economy, they won family wages, health care, pensions, paid vacations — the basics of middle class existence. Rising union wages and benefits helped lift the wages of non-union workers as well. America has never done much redistribution through taxes. We built a middle class because workers were able to win a decent share of the profits and productivity that they helped to generate. Unions were central to that.

Naturally, as the unions have lost ground, so has America’s middle class. Over the eight years of the Bush recovery, we witnessed the extreme: an economy in which profits were up, CEO salaries soared, productivity was up, but workers lost ground. As a recent EPI statement notes, the median working household lost $2000 in annual income over that period. That reality contributed directly to the inequality, speculation, and household indebtedness that provided the kindling for the economic conflagration we now experience.

That’s why Obama was an early sponsor of EFCA as a Senator. Earlier this month, he noted that he saw unions as part of the solution, not part of the problem.

“We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests, because we know that you cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement. ..”The American economy is not and has never been a zero-sum game. “When workers are prospering, they buy products that make businesses prosper. “We can be competitive and lean and mean and still create a situation where workers are thriving in this country.’

In her first appearance as Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, the daughter of union workers, journeyed to Miami on Monday to speak at a union rally on the eve of the AFL-CIO Executive Council meetings and to listen to workers telling their stories. Hector Capoda, an AT&T worker and member of the Communications Workers of America, told how he’d been part of organizing a union with majority sign-up. His father, he said, had never had a union, never earned more than $13 an hour and didn’t have health care. But as he grew older and weaker, the family could survive because his brother, “a policeman and union,” his sister, “a nurse and union,” and he had the resources to keep the family together. Clearly moved, Solis confirmed that the president’s support for EFCA, and pledged to enforce the law, announcing that “there is a new sheriff in town.”

EFCA will be introduced into the House in the next couple weeks, where passage is guaranteed. The real donnybrook will be in the Senate where it has strong majority support but must overcome efforts by a conservative minority to block the vote with a filibuster. The Chamber of Commerce and various business lobbies have threatened to spend $200 million or more to stop EFCA, which Home Depot’s founder, Bernie Marcus, charges will lead to “the demise of civilization.” Unions are gearing up a major grassroots effort to pass the bill.

But this isn’t just a union fight. As the president suggests, this is a central fight for an economy that works. If workers are paid decently, families needn’t take on massive debts to educate their children or afford their home. Social Security remains secure if workers once more capture a fair share of the profits they produce. CEOs and speculators have a more difficult time cooking the books if they must negotiate with strong unions. To build an economy that works, strong unions aren’t the only answer, but they are central part of the answer.

The campaign on EFCA will be fierce. Gaining 60 votes won’t be easy. The business community will go all out, claiming that strong unions will ruin America, trample workers’ freedoms, drive jobs abroad. But we’ve tried an economy with weak unions — and that didn’t work out so well.

Obama is right to tee this up early even as he struggles to get the economy moving, to get the financial system reorganized, to move on health care and new energy. This is a fight that citizens across the country should join. It will be a critical building block of the new economy that we must construct from the ashes of the old.

By David Nassar

Executive Director Wal-Mart Watch

Sometimes symbols appear unexpectedly. Jdimytai Damour, a temporary Wal-Mart worker, became a symbol to millions of low-wage workers last Friday when he died a needless death because Wal-Mart failed to take the necessary precautions to protect him. He became a symbol of those workers quietly yielding to unsafe working conditions because they have no voice. Americans need Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act next year so that deaths like Mr. Damour’s, and so many other deaths and injuries to low-wage workers on the job can be avoided in the future.

In 2007 a respected human rights watchdog group, Human Rights Watch, released a report critical of Wal-Mart’s union-busting policies and practices in the United States. According to the report, “while many American companies use weak U.S. laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus.” Wal-Mart’s opposition to its workers exercising their legal right to organize has even extended to terminating entire departments and closing entire stores.

For example, in February 2000, ten employees of the Wal-Mart meat department in a Jacksonville, Texas, store elected United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) as their union. Wal-Mart immediately scrapped their entire network of in-store butcher departments nationwide. And in Jonquière, Quebec, after the birth of a certified UFCW Local at a Wal-Mart store and a decision by the Minister of Labor for Quebec to grant the union’s request for contract arbitration, Wal-Mart announced that it would close the Jonquière store.

The result of this behavior is that workers are denied a seat at the table to contribute to setting standards that protect them on the job. In the absence of such contributions, management is free to set whatever standards it deems appropriate and workers are obligated to go along if they wish to keep their jobs. To make matters worse, Wal-Mart store management’s compensation is based on bonus systems that encourage cutting labor costs, resulting in more temporary workers. Temporary workers like Damour are particularly vulnerable in that environment because they have neither the context nor the influence to express reservations when asked to perform certain duties.

Without a union it is entirely up to Wal-Mart’s management to determine whether or not they took legitimate precautions to prevent this incident. In the absence of union representation, let me suggest if it is not already obvious from the events that unfolded, that Wal-Mart failed on at least a few levels to protect its employees and its customers.

First, it appears there was a shortage of adequate security at the doors. Wal-Mart has still not released how many guards were present at the time to control the rushing crowd of 2000 people. Second, the company used at least some temporary workers including Mr. Damour who were not familiar with what to expect on Black Friday. Third, as some news reports have pointed out, unlike other retailers Wal-Mart did not provide tickets for store entry or offer rain-checks for any items that were sold out. All of these choices contributed to the tragic events of that day and the workers who were on the line that morning had no say in making any of them.

More low-wage workers need a voice in their workplace. The current system of certifying a union has failed because employers have found ways to thwart the process, and the federal government has failed to prevent that interference or to protect workers right to organize in any meaningful way. It is time for a change.

Next year, by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, Congress can provide that change. No one will force workers to organize a union, but they will be freer to do so if they choose. I believe that many of them will seek a union for all the reasons that people have wanted unions in the past including workplace safety. Sadly and unexpectedly, Jdimytai Damour will be a symbol for that fight and a powerful reminder of how workers are taken advantage of every day.