EFCA Compromise? Moderates To Embrace Labor Reform...Without Card Check
The New York Times reports that several labor friendly Democrats, including Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have embraced an Employee Free Choice Act compromise to win the support of conservative Democrats. That compromise? Eliminating Card Check--the majority sign-up provision that would end the secret ballot process, and, labor leaders say, curb employer intimidation.
AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale tells Ben Smith: "[T]his is the normal process of how a bill becomes a law."
We are very optimistic about passing the strongest labor law reform since the Wagner Act -- one that lets workers choose to join a union without intimidation or harassment, ensures that workers who join a union get a first contract, and has meaningful penalties for violations.
But Andy Stern seems less than pleased, tweeting, "we expect a vote in the bill or by amendment on majority sign-up in both houses of Congress."
I'm told a fuller statement is on its way, but clearly this compromise won't go down without several spoons full of sugar.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Change we were deceived in. Primary all the lapdog DINOcrat FUCKERS.
July 17, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are getting killed in the propaganda battle over this, and justifiably. How can you be against secret ballots? We all know VERY well that the whole point of card check is so union supporters can pressure their co-workers. You can't do that with a secret ballot, since everyone can vote for what they really want.
Hey, I support unions, but I put freedom higher, MUCH higher. If management has an advantage now, don't try to correct that by making things even more unfair on the union side. Fix what's broken, don't break it further.
Democrats always find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. But already? Jebus! Give us a chance to repair the country first!
July 17, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to just ditch the term "card check." Nobody knows what that means and whether they should be for it or against it. The term doesn't even describe what happens in the union-forming process very well. It's so much easier to explain it to people if you just call it "majority sign-up." When over 50% of workers sign a petition, they get a union. It's that simple, and once people understand that they find it easy to support.
I've heard that the term "card check" was introduced by conservatives trying to muddy up the issue, and if that's true, I'd say they've succeeded wildly - unfortunately for the rest of us.
July 17, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Swing and a miss! EFCA has never taken away the so-called "secret ballot" from workers - only the *employer's* power to demand one. Workers (even with EFCA) are free to choose the ballot option.
And your assertion that majority sign-up allows union coercion is wrong and illogical. Majority sign-up is already allowed under current law, and since 1935, there have been 40 documented cases of union coercion. In one year, 2007, there were 27,000 documented cases of illegal employer coercion using the ballot process.
Why is that? Because employers hold all the cards. Your boss can change your schedule, assign you to do demeaning tasks, discipline you, even fire you.
If you really support freedom, then you'd support the freedom to form unions and bargain a contract free from employer interference. You wouldn't buy into the false talking points of the anti-union machine.
July 17, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
RIGHT ON!
July 17, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 17, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If majority sign up is already allowed, then what's the big deal about "card check"? From what I can tell, EFCA is a step forward WITHOUT card check, isn't it? And I still think that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot over this. Letting the right-wing argue in favor of secret ballots is just giving them a gift.
Surely there was a better option. Is the only way to combat employer intimidation to let union supporters also intimidate? That doesn't sound like a good solution to me, and heck, I'm a supporter of unions. So how is it going to sound to the average voter? This is a propaganda disaster.
I'm wondering how effective intimidation can be when the ballot is secret. It IS secret, right? Or is it a problem with the initial request for a union? If so, can't those people remain anonymous, at least to management? There's got to be a better solution than this, don't you think?
July 17, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You support unions, it's just organizing them you don't support?
You have this exactly wrong. It is the employers who use the election process to intimidate, not the unions. The unions have to get a majority of workers to sign a union card before even getting a vote. Once the bosses know who has signed cards the intimidation begins. Signing the card ought to be the vote itself and demonstrate that a majority of workers want to be represented by a particular union. The not so secret ballot is a means for employers to force unions to have two elections. The first just to sign the cards and get an election (a process that can take years) and then another election where the bosses get the chance to intimidate as many pro-union workers as possible and in many cases fire those who are leading the effort. You cannot be pro-union and against EFCA. That is a position with no integrity whatsoever.
July 17, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. But hey...what does this EFCA do without 'card check'..
no one says that.
July 17, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
A crapload of stuff.
July 17, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
without card check it is a meaningless husk that will do little to improve the lives of workers or strengthen labor. This country needs a revitalized labor movement and without card check they will never gain anymore steam than they have right now.
July 17, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not convinced that's true. The other provisions in the bill allow for real penalties to be levied against companies for infractions, whereas as it stands today, the penalties are so light as to make violating them a no risk endeavor for a corporation seeking to shut out a union. Here's a good read on the subject.
July 17, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. But hey...what does this EFCA do without 'card check'..
no one says that.
July 17, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have this exactly wrong. It is the employers who use the election process to intimidate, not the unions. The unions have to get a majority of workers to sign a union card before even getting a vote
Thats not correct. Under current law, the unions can present cards signed by 30% of the workers. If they do, the employer has two options (1) accept the union or (2) demand a secret ballot where it takes 50% to approve a union. The union does does NOT have to get a majority of workers to sign a union card before getting a vote
July 17, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the dropping of card check simply means that employees are able to vote by secret ballot, then I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Sounds like this is a question of how to prevent groups from collectively pressuring an individual conscience, whether that pressure be coming from the employers side or the employees side.
July 17, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Words of wisdom from WCG:
July 17, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to be contrary, but WCG, and you, are full of shit.
And I'm so utterly fucking glad that under the current, Republican-gamed labor laws, nobody ever "pressures" anybody. Nope, not even those fab business owners and middle manager lackeys, who are far too couth to break the kneecaps of any little servile cock-a-roach smartass, who thinks that he or she wants to join a (hmph!) Union.
Nope, no pressure there.
You stinking, rotten, disgusting, UN-AMERICAN, lying sacks of shit.
July 17, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You stinking, rotten, disgusting, UN-AMERICAN, lying sacks of shit."
I assume that Barry must be a Fox News ringer. Surely, such a fine, intelligent argument couldn't be coming from one of us, could it? Especially since it ignores the argument entirely?
July 17, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've heard it, business opposition to EFCA is publicly directed against Card Check.
BUT - their real opposition is to provisions that level the arbitration playing field so it's no longer tilted toward management.
July 17, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hooey!
If they beat card check they don't have to worry about anything else because they'll continue to harrass and intimidate and fire anybody who seems sympathetic to unionizing any given workplace. Card check is the whole shootin match.
July 17, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I read Greenhouse's report correctly -- and he is a first-rate reporter -- this should still be a very good bill, and far better than the status quo.
IF the legislation shortens election times, provides for equal union access to workers, bans employer captive audience meetings, keeps binding arbitration for first contracts, and dramatically beefs up penalties for labor law violations, it will greatly level the playing field, even without card check. Having compromised on the most controversial provision, the bill's advocates now must hold firm on the rest.
July 17, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I need to see what provisions have been added to prohibit employer intimidation. Judging solely by which institutons opposed cad check, I have a feeling that employers will continue canning employees who 'dare' try to organize.
July 17, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, obviously the devil is in the details. But if employer intimidation tactics are banned -- and especially if the penalties for violations are beefed up to the point employers would no longer treat them as a cost of doing business -- and if the other provisions outlined above are included . . . then the bill would still represent the most pro-worker labor law reform in 75 years.
July 17, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. But it's still utterly pathetic as the best we can get from a Democratic President and large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
July 17, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, true.
July 17, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Employer intimidation is already banned and the penalties are rarely imposed because when complaints are filed the workers lose their jobs and rarely have the money to follow through the years long process to obtain justice. In other words, enforcement when it comes to bosses is and always has been a joke. No boss fears firing a union supporter and for good reason. Putting more provisions on the books that don't mean shit is a cruel joke and no favor to working people who need representation.
July 17, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
yep.
July 17, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOPs Thanks Moose...should have kept reading, when I asked oleeb what it does.
YEP ALL GOOD! We had a case here where the workers went through a 2 year process voted the Union in finally (in our one hospital!) and then the board of the hospital took 4 1/2 to even talk about signing an agreement with the UNION! HORRIFIC!
Took a change in leadership and 'mood' of the town to do it finally.
July 17, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. Binding arbitration guaranteed in the event of impasse was and always will be the most important part of this bill.
Shorter election times plus the ability to file ULPs will give the organizers a substantial amount of protection. Being able to deliver employees a contract is the union's most important function, and binding arbitration will give a union much more ability to do that.
July 17, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, WCG, I don't believe you support unions. This false canard of "union intimidation" is getting tiresome. Nice try, though.
The whole point of Card check is to level the playing field. Currently, even if 100% of employees sign a petition to join a union, corporations get two months to intimidate the employees.
So, the current system provides corporations the "freedom" to intimidate and fire employees who may support the union. Some kind of "freedom" for the employees. Corporations are not democratic institutions and will fight like hell to keep it that way.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Republicans in the Senate have agreed (or rather, were bribed) by corporations to deny working men and women in this country any level playing field to further democracy in the workplace and a voice at work.
July 17, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah it's not even a nice try. It's a glaringly obvious attempt to show concern while trying to completely undermine that which you are trying to show concern for. It's straight out of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook.
July 17, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where is the President whose political prospects were crucially bolstered in the primaries by SEIU and other labor organizations? Nowhere. Gee, how surprising. Haven't heard one peep out of the White House on this bill as they let labor twist slowly in the wind on the most important piece of legislation for working people across the country. But hey, at least the President's buddies at Goldman and JP Morgan are in the money right?
July 17, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arrrrrgh. Card check does not "end the secret ballot process." It puts the choice on whether or not to have a secret ballot in the hands of the employees, rather than in the hand of the employers.
We have enough disinformation from the other side.
July 17, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're mistaken if you think this is not a big win, even without card check. Card check means nothing if the company can delay forever on a contract. Quickie elections and binding arbitration are what this has been about from the beginning, and they are more important than card check.
July 17, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may look "like a win", but I believe it is a big loss. To shorten the time before an election still means, "employers can intimidate and fire you in a shorter period of time." Big frickin deal--score one for corporations.
Binding arbitration is great--if you can get the intimidation factor out of the hands of corporations--but, this language really doesn't do that--score another one for corporations.
If employees do not have a right to card check--this is a loss for union organizing.
Also, corporations will now just start doing their propaganda and intimidation continuously. I would bet Wal-Mart already has their play book written up for this scenario.
July 18, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is growing very tiresome, and there just doesn't seem to be enough people in Congress who are interested in doing what's good for the middle class. We voted for change, but ended up with a bunch of middle-right DINOs who cave on every important issue.
Things could be much different in 2010 and 2012 if dems don't pull their head's out of their assess and start standing for something. Why vote if everything stays the same? I assure you the GOP will have a good turnout in upcoming elections, but young people who came out in large numbers to vote for a more progressive agenda have been kicked to the curb for the sake of business as usual. That is not acceptable and there will be consequences.
July 17, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is Andy Stern?
July 17, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andy Stern is the president of SEIU.
July 17, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I can't help but notice, every liberal blog has spontaneously as of today decided to rename "Card Check" as "Majority Signup". How was this coordinated?
July 17, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The title of this post has the words "card check," several comments here, including my own earlier one, say "card check."
July 17, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Card check is a terrible idea.
Anybody here been in a workplace that is considering a union vote? Lots of people pestering you, "How're you voting?"; "You're supporting the union, right?"; etc. etc. How much worse will it be when your co-workers can put a petition in front of you and put you on the spot? Your co-workers can make your life miserable, just like your employer can.
The secret ballot needs to be preserved; I'd support EFCA if it had better worker protections but no card check. I can't support card check, though. It's also terrible politics.
July 18, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once more:
1. EFCA does not eliminate the "secret ballot". If some threshold number of employees wants to have a secret ballot, then that's the way the vote is taken. But the choice is that of the employees, not management.
2. "Secret ballot" is not required under current law. The difference that EFCA makes is that it does not allow the employer to demand a "secret ballot" vote, it leaves the choice entirely up to the employees themselves.
Employers determined to block unions always mandate the secret ballot method because it gives them a significant advantage over union organizers.
July 19, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
And union organizers want card check - at least in part - because it makes it easier to put pressure on their co-workers.
July 19, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink