'Written By CEOs, For CEOs': Dems Pan Biz-Friendly Compromise on Employee Free Choice
While official Washington remains publicly preoccupied with executive compensation and the bailout, labor and business interests continue jockeying for position on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) ahead of its likely congressional consideration in the summer.
The latest round came this weekend, when the CEOs of Costco, Whole Foods, and Starbucks offered an EFCA compromise that would deny workers the right to arbitration with employers who resist union organizing efforts.
Backers of the EFCA "alternative" have enlisted Lanny Davis, the former Clinton White House adviser turned supporter of Joe Lieberman's 2006 re-election bid, to plead their case on the Hill. And it's not going well so far, to say the least -- senior Democrats are pushing back hard at the compromise offer with a series of talking points that blast the EFCA "alternative" as "written by CEOs, for CEOs."
TPMDC has obtained a copy of the complete memo on the business-friendly deal, which is available after the jump. The takeaway is clear: Senior Democrats aren't buying what Davis is helping Costco, Whole Foods, and Starbucks try to sell.
Some key problems with the proposal include:· The proposal eliminates workers' ability to choose majority sign-up, the one method for organizing proven to reduce coercion and pressure from all sides on workers. Instead, the proposal would force all workers through the broken, corporate-dominated NLRB system.
· The proposal rejects first contract arbitration -- a tried and proven method for ensuring good faith bargaining and one of the core elements of the Employee Free Choice Act. Under this proposal, employers would continue to have the union-busting power to drag out bargaining indefinitely and keep employees from gaining the kind of enforceable contracts that CEOs always give themselves. First contract arbitration provides the necessary incentive for the parties to reach agreement on their own terms.
· Rather than respecting employees' choice, the proposal gives CEOs the power to initiate drives to eliminate unions. Current law forbids corporate-initiated decertification campaigns, for good reason. Instead of bargaining a contract in good faith, employers would be initiating drives to get rid of the workers' chosen representative. Organizing a union or getting rid of a union should be the workers' choice, not the CEO's.
· Rather than offering a level playing field, the proposal preserves CEOs' ability to force employees to attend one-on-one meetings with supervisors or mandatory mass anti-union meetings at work. We do not tolerate such undemocratic, coercive behavior in federal elections. Yet, while forcing employees to go through the NLRB election process, the proposal would preserve this coercive aspect of corporate-dominated NLRB elections.
· The proposal does not offer pro-union workers or union organizers the same access that employers have to workers. In fact, the proposal does not improve access to workers one iota. According to the proposal, unions and management would be "permitt[ed] each to make presentations to employees at a neutral location concerning the issue of whether to form a union." Nothing in current law forbids such presentations at a neutral location. The problem is that the one place workers convene everyday, the workplace, is off-limits to union organizers and completely controlled and monopolized by management. While management has no restrictions on campaigning at work, both the union and workers are severely restricted.
· Strengthening and growing America's middle class depends on the ability of employees to exercise their democratic rights at work. The Employee Free Choice Act is simple: it will help our economy work for everyone again by giving workers, not CEOs, a say about their job security, their wages, their retirement savings and their health care. Workers will not benefit if CEOs continue to have a veto over their rights at work.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
This doesn't sound like much of a compromise. And I'm going to pick at the description of Lanny Davis. Did 2008 simply vanish from the memory bank? Davis was a Clinton White House staff member, a Lieberman supporter, and a frequent guest on cable news shows who did everything he could to undermine Obama even after Obama had wrapped up the nomination.
As for this:
Too bad that the discussion has focused solely on the SECRET BALLOT SECRET BALLOT SECRET BALLOT issue and not on some of the important provisions in this.
March 23, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
...if y'all's side would drop the "secret ballot" fight from it, you'd get everything else you're asking for. It would sail through.
March 23, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Red herring. Even if this goes nowhere, card check will remain, and so will the secret ballot.
The change doesn't have to do with doing away with card check, or doing away with the secret ballot completely, either.
March 23, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's the only "hook" out there holding this up. If all the other parts are the "important provisions," why sacrifice them for the secret ballot that all of you swear isn't going away anyway? It doesn't make sense.
March 23, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because as it stands now, management can demand that a secret ballot election be held no matter what the results of a card check election are. So that even if 100% of employees sign a card check in favor of union organization, management can insist that a secret ballot election be held. Thereby delaying the organization for a union, for starters, and allowing management to hold meetings in which employees are "encouraged" to oppose union organization. The change in the existing conditions are such that if a majority sign cardcheck in favor of organization, then that's the end of the voting stage and that's why it's described as making it easier for workers to organize into a union. Easier compared to existing conditions. You can rail against card check, but I have two questions: why, if a majority of workers vote in favor of organization, should management be allowed to ignore the will of the majority?
Second question:
If Republicans are so attached to secret ballots, then why won't the RNC use the secret ballot for its own organization?
March 23, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answers:
1. Because without the secret ballot workers can be "pressured" by peers into signing the cards. You say the secret ballot gives management a chance to "encourage" a vote against the union, I say it gives "pressured" workers a chance to vote their real choice.
2. I have no idea why the RNC has adopted it's current rules.
March 23, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you really answered this:
why, if a majority of workers vote in favor of organization, should management be allowed to ignore the will of the majority?
You sidestepped it. If a majority of workers vote in favor of organization, why should management be allowed to ignore those results, as it currenty is able to?
Because the results are unfair in some way? I'd say it's equally unfair for management to ignore the results in order to "encourage" workers to "vote again". The system as it exists, by allowing management to ignore vote outcomes produces an even more distorted playing field.
March 23, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they should...if the initial vote was a secret ballot. As long as the card signing can be effected by peer pressure it's flawed.
March 23, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, workers can't have a secret ballot if EFCA passes?
March 23, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the secret ballot is still there. The only change is workers choose whether to have an election, not the employer, which seems fair since it's the workers' decision, not the employer's. 30% of workers are enough to request an election, and it takes a majority to seek recognition. To put this in perspective, an election requires only a majority of those who bother to vote, whereas card check requires ALL workers, whether they have an opinion or not, which means those without opinions count the same as opposed. That's a tough standard, so the fact labor finds this an improvement shows how screwed up elections are now.
March 23, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So 30% saying "we want a secret ballot election to determine union recognition" and they use card check to vote?
Or, different scenario: a majority of all workers via cardcheck have to vote in favor of recognition of a union.
I'm confused.
I've spent a fair amount of time trying to find a description of this legislation that I understand, and obviously, I haven't been successful (sure, insert jokes here about my intelligence).
Can you recommend anything that explains this legislation?
And I'd like to say that proponents of EFCA are doing an exceptionally piss poor job explaining this.
March 23, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If people are feeling undue peer pressure, they can demand a secret ballot rather than card check. It only takes 30% of the workers to call for an NLRB election — meaning the card check requires a 70% supermajority to go through.
March 23, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all are missing the point of "secret." Check it out. You, CTVoter and I are working at WalMart. CTVoter wants to organize the union, you say "great, let's do it." I ask for a secret ballot. Can you guess which way I'm voting?
March 23, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all didn't bother to answer my question before.
The correct answer is "No, workers CAN have a secret ballot under EFCA. They just need 30% to be in favor of it."
Let's keep the discussion honest, okay?
March 23, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you guess which way I'm voting?
No, I can't, because you may be choosing a secret ballot because you're afraid of pressure from the Union, or just as likely, you may be in favor of a Union, but afraid of retribution from the employer. Or you could just be considering that other workers have one or both of those concerns, or you could just like the idea of have an independent third party (the NLRB) supervise the process.
Choosing a Secret Ballot will remain a workers right under EFCA - the GOP denial of that fact is just as blatant of their denial of Global Warming.
March 24, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! They've got Lanny Davis promoting it?
In that case, not only "No," but "Fuck no!"
March 23, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it!
March 23, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Business is offering to compromise at the very least shows that it's going to be a close vote and that Business is worried it could go "the other way".
I view this as their first offer in what they hope will be negotiation. However I think they feel the EFCA is the Unions starting offer, so they feel if they met in the middle between the EFCA and their current offer, then all sides would be happy. The EFCA is really the Union's last offer - so if Business wants to compromise they better make a serious compromise offer or gamble that they have the votes on the floor.
March 23, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eff you, Lanny.
March 23, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto, honey!
March 23, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Lanny is for it, you KNOW it's a POS. Very truth-in-advertising of them to pick him as the shill, I must say.
March 23, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time to boycott Costco, Starbucks and Whole Foods and let those company's balance sheets decide if fighting EFCA is worth it. It may be more costly than they think. I've stopped shopping at Home Depot for that very reason.
Oh, by the way, Eff you Lanny!
March 23, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not ready to boycott Costco yet -- Costco has a good history of treating employees fairly, giving good benefits. Has low turnover, decent pay, and a CEO who fights Wall Street on the subject of employee compensation (Wall Street investors haven't liked employees getting a fair deal at Costco). The CEO was a big supporter of Kerrey.
I'm disappointed in them for participating in this effort to sabotage ECFA, but I'm willing to wait and see if Costco keeps fighting or backs off.
I know nothing of the employee treatment at Whole Foods.
Starbucks used to be good but had moved to the corporate -- give them as little as we can get away with -- model. In a couple of Manhattan Starbucks, employees protested bcs were kept just under the # hours to get benefits. Starbucks corporate wrote a mealy-mouthed piece with no justification for their treatment of these workers. They used to brag about providing health insurance even for part time workers.
March 23, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Par for the course for Lanny Davis. He and Mark Penn belong in the Scumbags' Hall of Shame.
Here's something else that struck me about the non-compromise proposal:
In the Washington Post yesterday, the CEO of Whole Foods said that binding arbitration is "not the way we normally do things in the United States."
Really? Tell that to the credit card companies that demand cardholders agree to binding arbitration. Tell that to the sub-prime mortgage sleazeballs that put mandatory arbitration in their contracts. Tell that to the health insurers, private contractors, hospitals, and so many others that insist they don't do business unless the customer agrees to give up their day in court and submit to arbitration.
For that matter, he might want to see if he's calling his parter-in-crime, Costco, un-American. If Costco's like most other companies with union contracts, it probably has a provision in its agreements with the Teamsters that grievances and other disputes be resolved through binding arbitration. Would he rather all disagreements went to court instead?
Some 44 percent of the time workers organize, management refuses to agree on a first contract. Only binding arbitration will force them to negotiate in good faith and restore the power and purpose of collective bargaining.
March 23, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Lanny Davis has anything to do with it, it stinks.
March 23, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, so how is this a compromise? It seems to me that not only are they fighting against the core idea of EFCA - card-check - but they're trying to erode current law too!
As a former union organizer, I'll be the first to admit that no union is perfect. Many don't prioritize building members' leadership, and focus instead on building their own personal power (as seen with Andy Stern in SEIU right now).
That said though, most of us know we have more rights with a union than without one, which is why polls show Americans overwhelmingly would join a union if they could. We have to fight to make unions better, but we can't do that without fighting to have a union in the first place!
The problem comes when the company starts to threaten the workers. They'll never publicly admit it, but anyone that's gone through a union drive knows that the company will do whatever they can to intimidate their workers out of it.
Workers' hours get cut, they get fired for stupid reasons that they were never fired for before, the bosses start holding 1on1 meetings where there's no witness to what's being said. In group meetings workers are told that the union will make business go down and that will hurt their paychecks. These things aren't extreme examples - they are every day happenings in sites under union drives.
Why card check is important is that workers can sign up a majority of their coworkers without the company knowing about it. In other words - the employees can make up their own minds about it without company intimidation. This scares the shit out of the CEOs - they know that if given a free decision, workers will choose a union almost any time. And the companies will do everything they can to avoid this.
--
As for Whole Foods, Costco and Starbucks. We talk about them as being 'progressive' companies. But all that really means is they give their employees a little better benefits than the other companies so that they can stay union-free. If they really were progressive, they'd leave it up to their workers to decide to be union or not.
Instead, Starbucks has fought an IWW organizing drive for years, Wholefoods has fought the UFCW, and Costco has resisted the Teamsters.
March 23, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink