Is Obama Serious about Card Check?
One of the issues we'll be following in the new administration is the EFCA or, as it's more commonly known, "card check." The bill would make it much easier for unions to organize and already its defeat is the rallying cry for business groups inside the Beltway who agree on little else. I argue in favor of the bill in the latest issue of Condé Nast Portfolio and so does T.A. Frank in The Washington Monthly (although with less enthusiasm) where I'm an alumnus and contributing editor. I'm not willing to give unions a free ride on their many mistakes or excesses over the years but on balance I think the playing field has been tilted against union organizing and EFCA would help arrest the decline in union membership.
Thus far, EFCA opponents have won the battle for elite opinion. The Washington Post has weighed in against the measure as has George McGovern who is surely a bygone figure but whose condemnation of the bill has been used by the right to great effect as proof that the measure is way outside the mainstream. In fact, if you talk to labor advocates, they'll concede that anti-EFCA ads like this one and these ones have been very effective, at least with the chattering classes, in portraying to the bill as anti-democratic. In fact, if anyone has been more guilty of intimidation over the years its been the corporations trying to crush union organizing.
"They've done a good job," says one labor ally characterizing the business opposition. As for the larger public, there's some debate over whether the public is pro or anti-EFCA.
I suspect few folks really know about it but in general the public is in a pro-union mood. "The public doesn't really know about this bill even in the states where business groups made huge ad buys about it. That's good for us. We're arguing jobs and the economy. They're arguing work rules," said the source.
The question that EFCA-watchers want to know is how committed the administration is to getting the bill passed. As Senator, Barack Obama was one of the EFCA sponsors and has spoken out in support of it as has Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, the daughter of a Teamsters shop steward (her father) and a United Rubber Workers union member (her mom). But the question had been whether Obama really expend political capital for the bill and will Democrats see defections in their ranks.
Last time the bill came up for a vote, it passed the House but a threatened Republican filibuster killed the bill in the Senate. But all Senate Democrats supported it, as did Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. So now that the Democrats have a large, but not filibuster-proof majority, what will happen? Will the likes of the new freshman Senators back the measure? (All of them publicly supported it during their campaigns save Mark Warner who didn't take a position.) Will Specter stick with it? Will some of the Dems who did not vote to override the filibuster like Mark Pryor go wobbly? Pryor's office, a spokesperson told me, is open to amendments. "He'd be more for it if there was a process for considering amendments," said Pryor spokesperson Lisa Ackerman. Specter may have more breathing room to support the bill now that he won't face a Republican primary challenge from Club for Growth Leader and former Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey.
Labor officials now believe that the bill will come up in the Spring, perhaps May or June, and that the administration and the president will indeed fight for it.
While the White House has been somewhat chastened by the vigorous campaign against the bill, with some officials privately fearing that it could be their "gays in the military," the president, labor leaders believe, is committed to pushing forward with his support of EFCA and hopes to sign it into law this year.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
The very fact that you refer to this legislation as "card check" reveals just how successful the anti-EFCA forces have been.
"Card-check" has been successfully mutated into "ZOMG! The unions want to take away the secret ballot!!!!!" and this just muddies the issue with respect to EFCA.
Pro Employee Free Choice advocates have not been very effective in pushing back against the onslaught of anti-union groups. They've dropped the ball in terms of the traditional media (newspapers and cable news)and if you go searching for what the Employee Free Choice legislation refers to, the top choices are anti-Free Choice sites.
You have to really work to find pro-free choice sites.
The majority of workers would join a union if they could. And yet all we hear is "why are unions against the secret ballot"?
Hell, when that hog-processing plant was finally allowed to unionize last month, the manager managed to get a jab against the free choice act in his interview with the NY Times.
In short, the pro-labor movement appears to have been out-maneuvered by anti-labor. It wouldn't surprise me if the Obama Administration takes a pass on doing anything about it right now.
January 26, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The majority of workers would join a union if they could."
Do you have any evidence of that? Otherwise, I'm not buying it. If a majority of workers wanted a union, union membership would not be in free-fall. My experience is that it depends a lot on the workplace, but most of those where people want a union, there already is one.
This is not to say that many businesses (WalMart being a prime example) try hard to keep unions out, and step over the line in many cases. There certainly are workplaces where the workers want a union and have been stymied. But a majority? Not buying it without some evidence to back it up.
January 26, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link:
Report on attitudes towards unions
I think you're referring to situations where people actually have been presented with the situation, and I was referring to people's attitudes in general towards unions.
In any event, this factoid is routinely referred to but if you read the study carefully, it's not all that clear cut, and I should have been more careful with my choice of words.
January 26, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not a majority. What's more, no details of the survey were given. As we've seen in case after case, how the question is asked matters and it pays to be skeptical of surveys conducted by people with agendas.
A large part of the reason for declining union membership is the shift in where people work. Traditional union employers, such as steel mills, auto plants, etc., have given way to a lot more service-sector jobs. It's an article of faith among many that declining union membership is automatically a bad thing and is a result only of unfair tactics by employers. That's simply not the case (WalMart notwithstanding). UAW has been trying to organize in Toyota and Honda plants and they get rejected time after time.
I've been in two jobs with a union and in neither case was the union worth a bucket of warm spit. They collected dues and did nothing. I'm not suggesting that these are the rule, but it's not a given that a union is a benefit to the workers.
If people want them, they should be able to have them. I just don't believe that the number of people that want them is as high as it used to be.
January 26, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to read farther. Later in the piece:
"The rise in the desire for union representation since then suggests that the share of the nonunion workforce wanting union representation in 2005 was 53%."
That's a majority. But the more important part is the trend over time. According to the article CT Voter cites, desire for unionization among workers is at the highest level ever recorded. Meanwhile, in the last 10 or so years actual union membership has been dropping like a rock. You want to tell us this isn't because of the changing political climate during that time and the practices of business owners and management? You must not live in a so-called "right-to-work" state like I do. It's damn near impossible to get a union into a business here. The only union guys are in businesses that have had the unions for decades.
January 26, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key word is "suggests". As I said before, it pays to be skeptical of surveys and polls conducted by people advocating for one point of view or another. Union membership is declining while more people than ever want to be in a union? That doesn't make any sense on its face - unless you buy into the "all employers are big fat bullies" myth.
Union membership has been declining for a long time. There's no sense in invoking some complicated conspiracy explanation when a simple one will do: fewer people want to be in a union. The UAW has been trying to organize the Toyota and Honda plants for years and haven't come close. More and more jobs are not on factory floors but in offices, and unions in those kind of workplaces don't offer much.
The workplace has changed and by and large, unions have not changed with it. That's why union membership is declining.
January 26, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where's your evidence to the contrary?
January 26, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not like this article's headline. It seems to be introducing uncertainty where there is none.
While the article shows Congress is not completely committed to card check, all the lines about the Obama administration are clear that they will support it. This headline misdirection might be a good way to get links (or sell magazines), but it is not a good way to educate and inform your TPM readership.
January 26, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Washington Monthly article that Matthew refers to is pretty convincing. Possibly the focus on card check is brinksmanship on the part of the pro-labor forces. Maybe they are emphasizing it because they think it is least important.
Just the same, it would be awfully cool if the bill became law as is and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had to go cry in its cognac. As Matt writes in his article, the conflict between labor and business is
"classic." It's a classic conflict because it is deep, old, and unbridgeable.
January 26, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny choice of words to mean go anti-union- "Go Wobbly?"
January 26, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch. Unintentional oxymoron...
January 26, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I think that health care and financial reform is a higher priority. A measure like this one will face stiff opposition and even cut into the Democratic coalition. I say Congress should postpone this fight for another day.
Charlie Cook says:
"No other issue on the political horizon today epitomizes the split between labor and business better than this one. Nothing else would decimate the coalitions that Obama and Senate Democrats will need to put together to move other legislation that is more essential in turning the economy around.
For congressional Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections and for Obama in 2012, re-election and staying in power will be determined more by their ability to get the country out of the economic ditch.
Fracturing coalitions of centrists with polarizing measures will only make their jobs more difficult. In Southern and border states, in states and districts with a history of voting Republican and having a sympathetic view toward business, card check is not going to go over well.
The argument that Democrats are abolishing the secret ballot in union organizing elections will be a potent one. Is this really the issue on which Democrats want to break their pick?"
http://www.cookpolitical.com/node/4113
January 26, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, that seems like an awfully generous pro-business reading of the country's current mood. I've got serious doubts that it really represents how voters feel right now.
I can see how some marginal Dems could be concerned that they will be the focus of big bucks Chamber of Commerce campaigns against them, but the Chamber already dumps millions and millions into Senate and House races against us, so it's hard to see how this vote will even make that much of a difference.
The balance of power between labor and management is completely with management right now, and this bill marginally moves that balance a little bit toward labor. This bill alone will hardly change the overall declining rate of unionization.
January 26, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
repigs and business hate it.
could there be clearer proof that it is needed?
January 26, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Obama administration -- as well as the labor movement and its allies, of course -- must reframe the EFCA debate to make the bill a pillar of any long-term, sustainable economic recovery plan.
The fact is that in the current environment -- not only due to the meltdown of the past five months, but broader economic trends of the past decade and longer -- the only way to expand what has been a shrinking middle class is to increase rates of unionization.
Just as FDR encouraged unionization to get us out of the Depression, and just as our nation's longest period of rising living standards coincided with the highest percentage of union membership in history, so we must enact EFCA if we're to have any chance at broadly-shared prosperity in the decades to come.
The fact is that EFCA is democratic while current law is not. Under EFCA, union representation only occurs if a majority want it, and employees retain for themselves the right to choose an election if they prefer that to card check.
But merely refuting the myths big business puts forward will not be sufficient to win. Instead, the message must be focused on EFCA's indispensable role in restoring the American standard of living and expanding the middle class.
January 26, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The act also contains punitive measures. Currently, the NLRA is written so that all an employee can get is reinstatement and backpay. The EFCA would allow an employer who violates the law to be subject to punitive damages. This is very important in curbing employer bad acts.
January 26, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a liberal but I oppose card check. The reason is real simple. In the real world, a bunch of Teamster organizers go around to employees and ask them to sign a card saying they are in favor of joining a union. Nothing is said but they know the consequence of refusing. They will be labeled as anti-union and treated as such by the organizers who, in some cases as is pretty well documented, can be goons. No, they're not going to get beaten up but they may find scratches in their cars, deflated tires, etc. Do employers often use unfair tactics to get employees to vote against a union? Sure. The solution is to strengthen the rules and the sanctions. The solution is not to eliminate a fair way to decide if a union is actually desired (the secret ballot).
January 26, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but that's a management myth that doesn't hold up. Most studies show that workers feel less pressure from the union side in card check than they do in an election. Besides, what can a union organizer do compared to management? The union can't fire you which, though illegal, management does all the time these days. The union can't change your hours, subject you to discipline, threaten to close the plant, or require you as a condition of your job to spend hours in a mandatory meeting listening to only one side of the debate.
Besides, under EFCA, if just 30 percent of the employees want an election, there has to be one. The point is the decision about an election vs. card check is in the hands of the employees, not management.
Finally, in addition to increasing penalties on management for labor law violations, EFCA imposes comparable penalties on unions that should act as a deterrent against the type of coercion, however mythical, that you describe.
January 26, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there a resource which is fair-minded and has pros and cons for card check as proposed?
I don't see the need for card check, but I do believe that union-busting or anti-union activities should be considered for punitive damages to some extent. But this bill seems like a terrible way to get this marginal benefit.
What's wrong with secret ballot votes for unionization?
"Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak." - McGovern
January 26, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing is wrong with a secret ballot. This bill doesn't change that.
First, you get to sign a card saying you want a union local. My understanding - it's been a long time since I was in a position to deal with this - is that if enough people sign up for a union, it's done. Fewer people, and you get an election where you have a ballot to mark.
(FWIW and IIRC, management at that company didn't do anything against it. Only the people on swing shift were strongly in favor, and it lost by a wide margin.)
January 26, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong. If there is nothing wrong with secret ballot, there is no need for an alternative method. So either the alternative is an attempt to undermine secret ballot or it's being presented incorrectly.
McGovern points out one problem with card check.
January 26, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not really that simple.
This legislation lowers the standard by which the results from a card-check can be used. In the past, management could ignore the results from a card-check election if they didn't meet some minimum standard---over 50%, I believe in favor of forming a union--50% of every one employed). This legislation says that if a majority (by card check) indicate a wish to form a union, those results have to be accepted.
Card check isn't going to go away, nor did it suddenly pop up this time.
And card check is a red herring, I believe, to the stronger regulations against anti-union intimidation that appear in this legislation.
January 26, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment made no sense at all. It used to be 50% but this legislation would make it majority rule??
It could be that 'card check' is a red herring, but you haven't begun to convince me of that. Where do you stand on this legislation, and on card check generally?
It sounds as if this bill "speaks with forked tongue". Maybe the two parts should be separated out into separate bills?
January 27, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to think it should be two bills.
Right now, no matter what the numbers are in favor of unionizing, management can ignore them, and insist on a secret ballot election. EFCA would force management to accept the results from card check elections.
I don't like card check myself, but if this legislation removes the obstacles that management and the NRLB have placed in the way of employees being able to organize, them I'll accept card check.
But it's going to be a difficult sell.
January 27, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
My whole premise in this subthread has been that it doesn't appear to remove obstacles to fairness.
Forcing unions on people is not a good thing generally. How does card check remove barriers to fairness?
January 27, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"obstacles to fairness"? Huh?
You continue to write as if card check is something that popped up in this legislation. It didn't. It's not going away, whether this bill passes and is signed into law or not.
The issue has to do with the proportions of workers voting in favor of a union via the card check method. The proportions. Not the method in question.
Argue about the fairness of card check if you want, but the EFCA doesn't address that. (Perhaps it should, but as it stands right now, that's not the issue with respect to this legislatation).
January 27, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the proportions? You said something about 50+% in contrast to "majority". I asked what the heck you meant, but you have refused to give that paradox meaning so far.
January 27, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're talking at each other, rather than to.
Under current labor law, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees if it is elected by either a majority signature drive, the card check process, or by secret ballot NLRB election, which is held if more than 30% of employees in a bargaining unit sign statements asking for representation by a union. If enacted, this bill would require the NLRB to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed cards, the card check process.[1]
This streamlines the process by which the NRLB will certify a union. As labor law currently exists, even if a majority vote to have a union, the NRLB can insist on a second procedure, election by secret ballot.
Card check is going to be part of this, regardless.
January 27, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You had said 50% before. Now you say 30%. That's the key I've been asking you about!
You also clearly imply that the purpose of the bill is to do away with secret ballots.
"... the NRLB can insist on a second procedure, ..."
In fact that's an employer option.
pro http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/majoritysignup.cfm
con http://www.heritage.org/Research/labor/bg2175.cfm
January 27, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you just trying to pick a fight at this point?
I clarified what I said with the most straightforward description that I could find.
You changed the subject, not me. You said:
My whole premise in this subthread has been that it doesn't appear to remove obstacles to fairness.
A secret ballot election is held (if management wants it to) whenever more than 30% sign cards. That's how it is now. So even if 99% of employees sign cards, management can insist on having a secret ballot election. The legislation changes that, by dropping that option (to hold a secret ballot election) whenever a majority has signed. Majority being 50+1.
January 27, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pick fight? Change subject?
Not if you look at the evidence. Here's my first comment: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/is-obama-serious-about-card-check.php#comment-3352174
As you can see, it cites McGovern in re what I would call fairness, what you cite as me changing the subject now. ??
January 27, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why all the questions about 30 vs 50?
You still haven't explained why this legislation represents an obstacle to fairness in your mind. That actually was your original point, and now you're writing about 30 vs 50.
The situation, as it exists, is unfair. This legislation makes it slightly less unfair, and easier for unions to organize compared to current conditions. Why is that, in your mind, an obstacle to fairness?
January 27, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
30 vs 50 was an apparent error you introduced, which I asked about several times.
I don't understand what's not clear to you about the fairness issue. Making it easier for union thugs to intimidate workers is not "fairness" to individuals, even if there are legal penalties for gross abuse.
To accept the new improved card check, you have to argue that secret ballots don't work. I've been saying this, and you've not been refuting it. In fact, it's a talking point of proponents who claim that secret ballots can be manipulated by company management, and the like.
January 27, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was vague in my use of the term "majority". The 30% isn't something I'm "introducing", it's part of the existing situation. I was vague and confusing. I'll grant you that.
"union thugs"? That's an interesting description.
I'm not particularly thrilled with card check. But businesses will find any reason to oppose making it easier to unionize, even if card check were to be eliminated, because unions pose real financial burdens for businesses. So while I certainly can understand people's opposition to card check, card check strikes me as somewhat of a red herring (as I said about a thousand comments ago...I guess we both think we're sticking to our points...). And if the goal is make it easier for workers to unionize, I'll go along with a flawed piece of legislation. That's what I think is important: making it easier for workers to unionize.
January 27, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are running out of column space here, but I will say that I don't see the compelling need to make it easier this way; fairness wins over ease, all else being equal.
January 27, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you want more discussion...
January 28, 2009 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... the only way to expand what has been a shrinking middle class is to increase rates of unionization."
Huh? Unionization does nothing to help create jobs. I'd rather see more emphasis put on bringing jobs back home again from overseas first.
January 26, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, did you quote the correct portion? Where, in the above quote, does moose say anything about creating jobs?
It's about boosting the earning power of workers who already have jobs, not increasing the numbers of jobs.
January 26, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Hadn't seen this earlier. Took the words right off my keyboard.
January 26, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is yet another example of Republicans acting upon the basis of a completely hallucinatory read on the mood of the country and some Democrats wetting themselves because they still suffer from the abuse victim's irrational belief that their abuser is omnipotent.
January 26, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, chigger?
Unionization does a lot to create jobs. By making workers more productive (yep, take a look at the studies, from the Federal Reserve, no less) it makes well-run enterprises more profitable, thus increasing opportunities for expansion. Unions can also be directly involved in bringing jobs back from other countries, both by making that a priority in negotiations and by working to improve labor standards around the world. (The way, outsourcing decisions will be based on actual comparisons of cost and productivity, rather than on management fantasies about being able to overwork some bunch of people in another country.)
January 26, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to take Obama at his word on stuff like this.
The same goes for prosecuting war crimes; he knows that he has a constitutional obligation to do so and he will. He just doesn't want to talk about it until his cabinet is in place. AG for prosecutions. Labor Secretary for this one.
January 27, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt Cooper is taking on the role of an advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act in the court of elite opinion.
In that arena, the use of acronyms rather than descriptive, emotive, and effective political language might actually be a plus, as is MC's credibility from years of Washington experience and corporate-traditional-media journalism, and his apparently obligatory pre-emptive nod to the center-right conventional wisdom about unions' "many mistakes or excesses over the years".
But for those of you going out to affect popular, non-Beltway-insider opinion, please:
Don't say 'EFCA'. Say 'Employee Free Choice Act', or 'Free Choice Act'.
This point was made effectively a few years ago by the loathsome Frank Luntz about the similar political ineffectiveness of 'SCHIP' as compared with 'children's health'. He mocked Democrats for using an off-putting, I'm-an-insider acronym rather than the underlying idea. In this he was, sadly, completely correct.
February 5, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, that seems like an awfully generous pro-business reading of the country's current mood. I've got serious doubts that it really represents how voters feel right now.
I can see how some marginal Dems could be concerned that they will be the focus of big bucks Chamber of Commerce campaigns against them, but the Chamber already dumps millions and millions into Senate and House races against us, so it's hard to see how this vote will even make that much of a difference.
The balance of power between labor and management is completely with management right now, and this bill marginally moves that balance a little bit toward labor. This bill alone will hardly change the overall declining rate of unionization.
m65 kamagra
June 6, 2010 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink