OPINION: "Workplace Democracy" Shouldn't Be Decided Behind Closed Doors (and Other Ironies)
#EFCA #efcafail
By some accounts, the most significant revision of U.S. labor policy in decades may be passed by the Senate after a backroom deal, with little, if any, formal debate.
We’ve been blogging about EFCA since early 2007, and, while we make no pretense about our management bias, we’ve tried to maintain a civil tone. We’ve reported developments and offerred insight, but we’ve tried not to be inflammatory. Enough people on both sides of the issue are working that angle. Pardon us then for this temporary departure from our usual form.
For months now, it has been assumed that even with sixty members in the Democratic caucus, the Employee Free Choice Act was doomed to fail in its original form. The word from Washington has been that Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), and others have been discussing "compromises" to the original bill. Details about those discussions have been hard to come by. Now that the sixtieth caucus member is about to be seated, we hear that a compromise is almost complete, and that the new bill may pass the Senate within a few days of being introduced.
Does no one in Washington see the irony in a backroom deal on workplace democracy? Collective bargaining is supposed to be about giving workers a voice in things that affect them through representatives of their own choosing. Who is participating in these closed door meetings? How are the Senators ascertaining that the voices they hear are the true voices of workers? And what about the business community? Shouldn’t they have a voice in this legislation, which may or may not result in wages and benefits being dictated by an arbitrator? The Senate has long been hailed as the most deliberative legislative chamber. It should conduct those deliberations openly – especially on issues that purport to address workplace democracy.
