Posted on April 12, 2010 by EFCAreport

Reports: Andy Stern to Resign From SEIU

Politico's Ben Smith tonight reports that Andy Sterm, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the most powerful labor leaders and political figures in America, is resigning:

The President of an SEIU local based in Seattle, Diane Sosne, broke the news to her staffers at 11:35 this morning, local time.

"Last night I received confirmation that Andy Stern is resigning as President of SEIU. He has not yet made a public announcement; we will share the details as we become aware of them," Sosne wrote in an email obtained by POLITICO.

Sosne offered no explanation for the move, but another SEIU official speculated that Stern had finally tired of the draining job.

"Health care getting done is a good culmination," the official said.

Stern's SEIU and President Obama have a longstanding political relationship, and it was widely reported late in 2009 that Stern was the most frequent visitor to the White House during the President's first year in office.  Stern drove hard behind the recent health care reform act and the push to hold legislators accountable for their positions on the Employee Free Choice Act.  Speculation will swirl until Mr. Stern himself addresses his departure from the most politically connected labor union in the U.S.   [UPDATE: HuffPo's Sam Stein tweets: "SEIU spokesperson Michelle Ringuette: ".Stern will address these rumors at the close of the SEIU Executive Committee meeting this week."]  But without a doubt, what he does next will likely be as significant to the American labor movement as what he has done to date.

More commentary and coverage:

Tags: , ,
Posted on January 7, 2010 by EFCAreport

Jacobson in Roll Call: Is EFCA Self-Assured Destruction for Dems?

In yesterday's Roll Call (subscription), communications consultant Bret Jacobson wrote about how the resumption of the push for EFCA may play out in the current political landscape -- and in advance of 2010 mid-term elections:  

For its part, Big Labor is signaling a demand for action on EFCA. Steve Rosenthal, a top strategist for organized labor, has argued in print that Democrats need to take action to motivate union grass-roots activists for the election and to pass the bill to “energize the union apparatus.”

How many moderate Democrats want to actually energize the labor “apparatus” is up for debate, but the importance of EFCA is not. The president of the Service Employees International Union has suggested the bill could add 1 million to 1.5 million members per year to his union. And the head of the Teamsters estimated that the bill could double his rolls. One estimate put the monetary value of the bill for unions at $35 billion. The head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees blatantly admitted EFCA would be the payback for political support in 2008.

The problem for Democrats, though, is that while EFCA is the top priority for their top special interest group, it’s not for most of their constituents. 

Jacobson concludes that a full-frontal push for EFCA will benefit the Republicans politically.  The ongoing negotiations to reconcile the pending healthcare legislation will probably continue to provide insight into how the next big legislative debate will unfold.

Tags: ,
Posted on September 15, 2009 by EFCAreport

Senator Specter to AFL-CIO: We'll Pass Bill For Quick Elections, Union Access, Baseball Arbitration and Triple Penalties Against Employers in 2009

During the past few days a virtual parade of high-ranking Democrats have addressed the AFL-CIO constitutional convention to pledge support for organized labor and the Employee Free Choice Act.  President Obama, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have all spoken to the assembled union delegates.  Today, The Washington Post Capitol Briefing blog reports Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) delivered the most interesting message regarding the Employee Free Choice Act -- namely, the conceptual contents of the revised bill which will be passed before year's end:

After his speech, Specter detailed the revised bill he has been crafting with Senate Democrats, the rough outlines of which have been trickling out for weeks. The revised measure would not include the most controversial provision -- allowing workers to organize by getting their co-workers to sign pro-union cards, instead of having to hold secret-ballot elections in the workplace. Unions argue that such elections are unfairly dominated by employer threats and intimidation, but the provision to drop the secret-ballot election has proved highly unpopular with conservative Senate Democrats.

Instead, Specter said, the bill would try to make union elections more fair by sharply limiting the time between organizers' declaration that they have enough support to call an election and the day of the vote, to reduce the potential for employer intimidation. Organizers would also be guaranteed access to workers if employers held mandatory anti-union meetings on company time. And the penalties for employers who break labor law rules would be triple what they are today.

The bill would also tweak its other major element, which has gotten less attention but is also anathema to employers -- mandatory arbitration for employers and unions who fail to reach a contract within a few months. As it stands, more than a third of newly formed unions never get a first contract and wither away, which is why labor supporters say mandatory arbitration is needed. But employers vigorously oppose having government-appointed mediators set contract terms. To allay employer concerns that unions would ask for the moon in hopes of the mediator splitting the difference, the revised bill would go with "last best offer arbitration" -- the approach used in baseball arbitration, in which the mediator has to pick one offer or the other, which encourages the negotiators to offer a reasonable deal.

Specter told reporters that he was confident that this package would get the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster -- and not one more. No Republicans would vote for the bill, he predicted, but he was sure that every Democrat would vote against a filibuster, including conservative Democrats who were very wary of the initial "card check" bill, such as Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) He said he had spoken with both of them and while they did not say so explicitly, he was left with the impression that they would help break a filibuster, if not vote for the bill itself.

 More coverage:

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 14, 2009 by EFCAreport

Secretary of Labor Solis to AFL-CIO: "We will fight for the Employee Free Choice Act"

At the WSJ Washington Wire blog, Melanie Trotman reports that Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis today told the AFL-CIO Constitutional Convention that she would be getting more active in the effort to pass EFCA:

Hilda Solis made a shift that’s certain to please unions.

The labor secretary abandon her passive support of the union-organizing bill now sitting in the Senate, telling labor unions Monday that she’ll actively work with the White House to “make the strongest case possible” for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Last month, when asked about her efforts to push the bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workers and win contracts through binding arbitration, Solis said she supported its underlying principles but was leaving the rest up to Congress. “Congress is the voice of the public and I’m just the administrator,” is how she had put.

Today, there was no equivocation. In her speech to the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh, she said she and President Barack Obama “will join you in the fight for the Employee Free Choice Act.”

“I will work with the White House so that together we can make the strongest case possible” for the bill, Solis said to applause.

Though she didn’t provide specifics on what she and Obama intend to do, the pledge comes at a critical time for the Obama administration as it reaches what it hopes will be the last stretch of the push for a health-care overhaul. Solis’s health-care pitch revived slogans that energized audiences during Obama’s presidential campaign: “Are you fired up and ready to go? Yes we can, yes we will? I’m fired up,” she chanted.

More coverage:

 

Tags: ,
Posted on September 11, 2009 by EFCAreport

Harkin: "We Had 60 Votes on EFCA in July"

At The Hill yesterday, Kevin Bogardus reported that Senator Tom Harkin told a union lobbying group that but for the late Senator Kennedy's illness, the Senate had 60 votes on a "compromise" draft of EFCA back in July:

“As of July, I can tell you this openly and I know the press is all here but we had worked out a pretty good agreement. Labor was at the table,” Harkin told a crowd of activists organized by American Rights at Work, a labor advocacy group. The activists are set to swarm Capitol Hill Thursday to lobby for the bill.

Harkin said prominent labor leaders were on board with the deal, including AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union.

“That’s when we needed 60 votes and that’s when I called to get Sen. Kennedy down because we needed him for three days. That’s when Dr. Horowitz told me that he couldn’t make it,” Harkin said.

Whether this is merely an encouraging message to an important Democratic constituency, is hard to determine.  And unless and until Massachussets changes its laws to allow Democratic Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a successor, or Kennedy's seat is filled by a special election early in 2010, it seems unlikely that anything will happen to corroborate the Senator's claim.  Harkin refused to provide any additional detail about the brokered version of the bill:

“I will not say because it was closely held, it never leaked out and it still hasn’t,” Harkin said. “I took it off the front-burner and put it on the back-burner so it is still on warm, OK?”

However, back in June, Senator Harkin had asserted that he would likely be in position to advance the legislation once Al Franken was seated in the Senate in July; and, not too long before that, Harkin was reportedly in significant discussions to reach consensus on an alternative.

More on these events:

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on September 5, 2009 by EFCAreport

NY Times: Sweeney, Trumka and Bonior on Card Check and EFCA

In today's New York Times, labor reporter Steven Greenhouse has a piece compiling comment from various recent interviews with prominent American labor leaders on the status of the Employee Free Choice Act. 

From a talk with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney:

In an interview, John J. Sweeney, the federation’s president, said he would accept a fast election campaign instead of card check because it would meet his goal of minimizing management interference during organizing drives.

Mr. Sweeney said he “could live with” fast or snap elections “as long as there is a fair process that protects workers against anti-union intimidation by employers and eliminates the threats to workers.”

Sweeney continued to state that he might find a secret ballot election held five to ten days after a petition an acceptable alternative:

“If modifying that in some way or another is going to bring some more votes for the bill, I think that’s worth it,” Mr. Sweeney said.

His expected successor, Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka was less emphatic about the specific alternative proposal, but...

...said the A.F.L.-C.I.O. wanted to make sure that any legislation contained three components: a process in which workers were free of intimidation; greater penalties against employers that break the law during organizing drives, for instance by firing outspoken union supporters; and binding arbitration to prevent employers from indefinitely dragging out negotiations without ever reaching a contract.

Finally, union lobbyist David Bonior of American Rights At Work echoed Mr. Sweeney's remarks:

“The first preference for everybody in labor is the original bill,” he said. “And if we preserve the principles of the original bill and there are some changes — and if we can get 80 to 90 percent of what we started with — I think people would move forward on that.”

Perhaps the most interesting part of the piece involves the issue of the effort's timing:

Mr. Sweeney said President Obama had assured labor that as soon as health care legislation was passed — if it was passed — he would work with labor and the Democrats to pass the pro-union legislation, known as the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. Sweeney voiced optimism that the bill would pass.

“It’s going to be this year,” he said.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on August 25, 2009 by EFCAreport

AFL-CIO Leader: White House Will Not Push EFCA Until After Healthcare

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reports that AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer, and expected future federation President, Richard Trumka has told a liberal blog's webchat audience that President Obama and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel will not advance EFCA until after healthcare reform is done in Congress:

"The President/and Emanuel have both said they dont intend to bring Employee Free Choice Act up until Health Insurance Reform is done," Trumka wrote on the blog. "Which gives us an additional reason to do Health Insurance Reform now!"

Other notable remarks by Trumka included: 

"We WILL PASS EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT legislation, we will not allow our 'friends' to pass on this essential part of an economic recovery solution!" he said.

The labor leader also encouraged activists to "move the process along" in Massachusetts to ensure a quick successor for Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in case of an absence, to fill his seat with a reliable 60th vote for cloture on the "card check" bill.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on June 22, 2009 by EFCAreport

EFCA Round-Up: Monday, June 22, 2009

At ShopFloor.org, NAM criticizes the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka for accusing the Association of acting through "front groups":

Labor calling business coalitions “front groups” is meant to imply shadowy, dishonest organizations created to hide one’s alliances. It cannot conceivably be applied to the Coalition for Democratic Workplace, the group the National Association of Manufacturers is active in. In our Shopfloor.org posts on the CDW’s activities, we almost always include a line associating the NAM with its efforts, such as, “The National Association of Manufacturers is a member of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and glad of it.” And here’s the CDW’s membership list.

If Trumka wants his attacks against “front groups” to have some modicum of intellectual honesty, he might want to level them via some other group than the International Centre for Trade Union Rights.

The Alliance for Worker Freedom has issued a new press release asserting that bailing out the failing union multi-employer pension system is the true aim of EFCA:

“The unions’ ulterior motive behind the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is to use the forced binding interest arbitration clause to mandate companies fund the underperforming and underfunded union pension plans,” says AWF Executive Director Brian Johnson. “For companies, the choice is clear: shut down immediately or go out of business due to loss of capital to pay for operating costs by being forced to fund a failing system – it’s that easy.”

The Hill reports that neither Democrat Senator from Montana -- Sen. Max Baucus or Sen. Jon Tester -- will proclaim support for EFCA as currently drafted:

"It would be very hard to support the bill in its current form, but that is why I'm working with my colleagues in the Senate to bring some common-sense modifications to the bill to make sure it balances workers' interests with small-business interests," Baucus told The Missoulian, which did a two-part series on EFCA's potential impact on Montana.

Tester's spokesman meanwhile said EFCA "isn't ready for a Senate vote yet," and added that Tester would weigh the bill's pros and cons before deciding on how to vote.

Finally, at Think Progress, Matthew Yglesias makes the following observations about the filibuster:

I don’t think you need to appeal to the idea that people prefer to pander to the caucus’ worst instincts so much as simply the fact that legislators prefer to do nothing at all. The supermajority—and, more broadly, the extreme difficulty of moving legislation—makes it easier for elected officials to make contradictory commitments to various people. Consider that as long as Democrats clearly didn’t have the votes to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, they could promise labor law reform to unions while also reassuring business that no such law was going pass. After the election suddenly there were sixty members who’d promised to vote for EFCA, which created an awkward situation for those members who, in fact, preferred to do what business wanted and killed it. They had to flip-flop in a not-very-pretty way and anger a lot of people. If it took 67 votes to move a bill, they would have been in much better shape, loyal friends to Wal-Mart and the AFL-CIO alike.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on June 13, 2009 by EFCAreport

Columnist Tells Starbucks to "Smell the Coffee and Fight Back"

At Town Hall, Carl Horowitz examines the ongoing corporate campaign by Labor and its allies against Starbucks. Horowitz generally notes the irony in the Far Left-Labor alliance continually hammering the coffee giant, which has always "sought to be a hybrid of profit-seeking and social responsibility."  Among other elements of this campaign, Horowitz notes recent developments following Starbucks' announcement just months ago, that it was forming the "Committee for a Level Playing Field", along with CostCo and Whole Foods to explore alternatives to EFCA:

EFCA, as many are aware, has stalled. In 2007, the House passed the measure, but Senate Republicans successfully blocked it. The bill, not unpredictably, has been re-introduced in the new Congress; President Obama has vowed to sign it. Yet even with wide Democratic majorities in the House and Senate this time, the measure remains highly vulnerable to filibuster. A number of Senate Democrats such as Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and party convert Arlen Specter (Pa.) believe the Employee Free Choice Act is ill-suited to deal with the current recession, if not necessarily wrong in principle. Union leaders such as Service Employees President Andrew Stern have expressed pessimism over the prospects for passage.

Here’s where the Seattle-based Starbucks fits into the picture. This March, Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, Whole Foods’ John Mackey and Costco’s James Sinegal announced the formation of an ad hoc group, the Committee for a Level Playing Field for Union Elections. The purpose is to create a Third Way that would protect union organizing rights while retaining the secret ballot. The project would guarantee a fixed time period in which to hold a secret-ballot election and increase penalties upon employers and unions who violate the law.

Many activists on the Left are enraged at this seeming sellout, which in fact is more tilted toward union interests than it looks. It’s another phase in a continuing battle against Starbucks.

His conclusion?   Starbucks should "smell the coffee and fight back."

Tags: , ,
Posted on May 28, 2009 by EFCAreport

Why The Delay In President Obama's NLRB Nominations?

Over a month ago, on Friday, April 24, 2009, President Obama announced his intention to nominate SEIU counsel Craig Becker and union attorney Mark Pearce as Members of the National Labor Relations Board.  But since then, the White House has declined to formally nominate either.  Why the delay?  Some insight this week via Kiplinger: 

Since early 2008, the two existing board members, one Democrat and one Republican, have acted under a legal maneuver blessed by the Bush Justice Department that allowed them to issue hundreds of decisions in less controversial cases on which they agreed. But on May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that a decision by the two members doesn't count because the board lacked a quorum. On the same day, a federal appellate court in Chicago took the opposite view, holding that a separate decision taken by the two members was appropriate and binding.

With the courts at odds, confusion reigns. Dozens of companies are going to court to challenge other rulings, but the two existing NLRB members say they will continue to issue rulings when they agree. The Washington court gave the board an easy out, saying that once a quorum is present, the board can reaffirm all of the rulings in question. But there's the rub.

Obama has announced his intention to nominate two members  -- Craig Becker, the associate general counsel to the Service Employees International Union and Mark Pearce, who has teaches labor law -- but has yet to submit the paperwork. When he does, it will take several months to win confirmation. In the meantime, the Board is in limbo, as are the companies and workers who need answers.

In addition to rubber-stamping all of the questionable two-member Board decisions, the Obama Board, headed by Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, is likely to begin overruling current law set in several areas by the fully-constituted Bush Board.  We outlined several of these issues in previous posts here and here.  While the passage quoted above suggests it might be some time before employers need to fully contemplate that, the Kiplinger piece continues:

There is another option -- a recess appointment this week. But that's the kind of move that Obama is likely to be reluctant to take because of the anger it arouses among the opposition party. Still, it may be the lesser of the evils facing the NLRB and those who depend on it.

On the one hand, President Obama must certainly be weighing the risks of enraging the GOP filibuster bloc by making a recess NLRB appointment at a time when he is seeking to have his first Supreme Court justice confirmed.  On the other, he may need to show organized labor some attention with EFCA's progress slowed and the President having been less than entirely enthusiastic about the bill in its current form.  Employers would be wise to keep an eye on this in the coming week.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on May 15, 2009 by EFCAreport

President Obama Remarks on Need for Compromise on EFCA

Earlier today, USA Today reported that President Obama spoke at a New Mexico town hall meeting about the Employee Free Choice Act.  USA Today's coverage suggested that the President expressed reservations regarding the card-check provisions.  Now that others are reporting his comments more fully, it seems that the President, in fact, reiterated his support for the main idea behind EFCA -- facilitating union organizing -- but also acknowledged the practical reality that the bill probably cannot be passed in its current form.  He also presented, without endorsing, the "other side of the argument" on behalf of the opposition.  The official transcript of his remarks, via KOAT:

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, let me talk about the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the things that I believe in -- and if you look at our history, I think it bears this out -- even if you're not a member of a union, you owe something to unions, because -- (applause) -- because a lot of the things that you take for granted as an employee of a company -- the idea of overtime and minimum wage and benefits -- a whole host of things that you, even if you're not a member of a union, now take for granted, that happened because unions fought and helped to make employers more accountable. (Applause.)

The problem that we've seen is that union membership has declined significantly over the last 30 years. And so the question is, why is that? Now, part of it, the economy has changed and the culture has changed, and there hasn't been a very friendly politics in Washington when it comes to union membership. But part of it just has to do with the fact that the scales have been tilted to make it really hard to form a union. So a lot of companies, because they want maximum flexibility, they would rather spend a lot of money on consultants and lawyers to prevent a union from forming than they would just going ahead and having the union and then trying to work with -- and collectively -- allow workers to collectively bargain.

So there's a bill called the Employee Free Choice Act that would try to even out the playing field. And what it would essentially say is, is that if a majority of workers at a company want a union then they can get a union without delay -- and some of the monkey business that's done right now to prevent them from having a union.

Now, I want to give the other side of the argument. Businesses object to some of the provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act, because one of the things that's in there is something called card check, where rather than have a secret ballot and organize a big election, you could simply have enough employees, a majority of employees, check a card and that would then form the union. And the employers argue we need to have a secret ballot.

I think that there may be areas of compromise to get this bill done. I'm supportive of it, but there aren't enough votes right now in the Senate to get it passed. And what I think we have to do is to find ways in which the core idea of the Employee Free Choice Act is preserved, which is how do we make it easier for people who want to form a union to at least get a vote and have a even playing field -- how do we do that, but at the same time get enough votes to pass the bill. That's what we're working on right now. I think it's going to have a chance of passage, but there's still more work to be done. (Applause.)

This reflects a somewhat pragmatic approach.  Special interests have wasted no time in excerpting and splicing the President's words to ignore his reference to "compromise" efforts, and to exaggerate his support for the current bill.  See this SEIU mash-up already up on YouTube and compare it to the official transcript above:

Tags: , , ,
Posted on May 13, 2009 by EFCAreport

Union Lobbying Group Launches Specter Ad

Earlier this week, the Washington Post's editorial page criticized the business community for a perceived intransigence on EFCA and the Senate effort underway to craft a "compromise" proposal.  Now it seems there are special interests on the other side of the debate equally dug in on their position.

Union lobbying organization American Rights At Work has launched an ad pressuring new Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) to support EFCA instead of exploring alternative avenues to reform American labor law.  The ad "Where will Specter stand?" will run on cable and broadcast television stations in Pennsylvania throughout May.

Senator Specter, of course, was instrumental in generating the discussions now underway in the Senate.  His public announcement in late March that he would not vote for cloture opened the door -- and some would suggest provided political cover -- for Democrats like Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others to openly  acknowledge their discomfort with the bill as drafted.  Contrary to the ad's suggestion, Senator Specter's previous "support" for EFCA was never absolute -- indeed, it was highly qualified.  On the Senate floor in 2007, he declared his belief that EFCA was a seriously flawed proposal, but that labor law reform was necessary.  He advocated a more thorough debate and a bipartisan, analytical approach to that reform in his 2007 floor speech, his 2008 Harvard Journal on Legislation Policy Essay, and in the Senate in late March.

Now that he has switched parties and has reached out to EFCA's supporters to begin exploring reform by alternative routes, it seems groups like ARAW want him to understand that anything short of full support for EFCA in its current form is unacceptable.

More:

Tags: , ,
Posted on May 12, 2009 by EFCAreport

VP Biden and Former VP Cheney Each Talk EFCA On Tuesday

On Tuesday, the current Vice President and his predecessor each discussed the Employee Free Choice Act to their respective audiences. 

According to Sam Stein's report in the Huffington Post, former VP Dick Cheney answered questions on Neil Cavuto's show about the pending legislation.  After declaring that he was an IBEW member for six years as a young man, Cheney stated:

...if people want to join a union, fine, that's their business. There are provisions for that, that allow unions to be represented. But I think what the unions are trying to do here is dramatically expand the base, in terms of membership, and they will in turn generate vast sums of money, in terms of dues and political contributions, and I think it does have wide-ranging ramifications and that the current system, where we have secret ballots for people to decide whether or not they want to be represented by a union is a good way to go. We ought to preserve it.

At the same time, Vice President Biden was addressing an American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) conference.   At The Hill's Briefing Room, Michael O'Brien reports his remarks thus:

"We Bidens, we owe you," Biden said of the union's support for his political runs and for his son Beau Biden's run for attorney general in Delaware.

Biden said there is "no way" for the administration to work to restore the middle class without strengthening organized labor.

"That's why we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," the vice president said. "You know, I think it should be pretty simple. If a union is what you want, then a union is what you should get."

Biden also suggested that as long as the Obama administration has labor's support, the administration will support labor.

More comment:

Tags: , ,
Posted on April 23, 2009 by EFCAreport

EFCA Round-Up: Thursday, April 23, 2009

Roll Call today notes that organizations on both sides of the EFCA debate spent the recent congressional recess blanketing lawmakers’ districts with rallies, press ops, advertisements and phone calls.  Among those speaking out:

A coalition of minority business leaders — including the Asian American Hotel Owners Association; the National Association of Black Hotel Owners, Operators & Developers; the National Black Chamber of Commerce; the Latino Coalition; and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce — held their own press conference Tuesday to continue lobbying against the card check bill.

“They want to come in and run your business for you and probably run it into the ground,” National Black Chamber of Commerce President Harry Alford said.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that longtime EFCA advocate Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) predicts revisions to the bill in the coming months:

Although Brown backs the legislation in its current form, he says it won't get enough votes for passage in the Senate now that former backers including Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter have withdrawn their support.

He said he expects a compromise will be reached to continue the secret-ballot elections, but require them to be conducted swiftly and handled in a way that doesn't inordinately favor businesses.

And Human Resources Executive Online carries a story regarding ongoing efforts toward the reunification of the AFL-CIO, Change to Win and the NEA into a single labor coalition:

Labor unions view the Obama administration as "representing the redefinition of the government's role," says Change to Win spokesman Greg Denier, adding that labor leaders are already uniting to work for the enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act.

 

Many believe a reunited labor movement would strengthen the unions' ability to work with the new administration and advance its agenda.  

Tags: , ,
Posted on April 21, 2009 by EFCAreport

SEIU, Change to Win Ready to Move Past Card-Check?

Perhaps getting a better read on political reality than many of their colleagues in the labor movement, SEIU President Andy Stern and Change To Win Chair Anna Burger told the WaPo's editorial board that labor may need to look for reform opportunities which do not include card-check recognition. A few of the potential elements mentioned by Mr. Stern were covered in MLA's white paper "The Employee Free Choice Act in the 111th Congress." From WaPo's 44 blog:

Speaking to The Post's editorial board, Stern noted that there are ways to try to level the playing field in union elections without giving workers a way around the secret ballot requirement, such as shortening the window before elections are held -- thus giving employers less time to pressure workers -- and stiffening penalties for employer violations.

"We are on the hunt for a solution," he said. "No matter what you do, you have to change the election process. Whether it's majority sign up or not, workers have to have a choice about having an election. The bill has to address ... fast elections, eliminating employer behavior and what happens if there are employer violations. Regardless, that needs to be done."

Mr. Stern, who is widely regarded as one of the most influential people in the labor movement, seems to recognize President Obama's lack of enthusiasm for advancing the legislative battle over EFCA at this point in time. Yet:

...he believes that unions must get behind some other substantive reform, instead of waiting until 2011 in hopes of a bigger Democratic majority after the next election. "We need to get something that's significant done," he said.

More:

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on April 16, 2009 by EFCAreport

Might EFCA be a Topic of Senate HELP Committee's April 21 "Green Skills" Hearing?

The Senate HELP Committee has scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday, April 21, 2009, entitled "Empowering Workers to Rebuild America's Economy and Longer-Term Competitiveness: Green Skills Training for Workers."  No announcements yet regarding substantive detail or witness appearances.   Observers will note that the name of the hearing includes language resembling that of past hearings to discuss EFCA, but with the added "Green" angle.  Regular readers of this blog recognize that creating so-called "Green jobs" was one of the five pillars of the economic recovery plan announced by President Obama in a Georgetown speech earlier this week.  

The Blue Green Alliance is a joint effort of the environmental and labor lobbies to advance issues of purported common interest.  Many commentators and bloggers have tried to make the argument that the Employee Free Choice Act would benefit the environmental movement.   Much of this argument is based on (a) wishful thinking, and/or (b) the political reality that more union density likely means more campaign money for Democrats which may, in turn, lead to a larger Democratic majority able to pass a greater segment of its agenda -- notably, greater environmental regulation.

But Slate's Brady Yauch questions how easily this might be accomplished in The Big Money:

The green jobs initiative gets even stickier when it comes to unions—a major supporter of the Obama administration and his fellow Democrats. GJF's report noted that very few workers at wind and solar jobs were backed by collective bargaining agreements. And in at least two cases, the company leaders were found to have run aggressive anti-union campaigns, aided by union-busting consultants.

Unions have been in the spotlight recently, most notably for their contribution—as their critics like to point out—to the demise of Detroit's Big Three. As lawmakers and business leaders across the country battle over the Employee Free Choice Act (which would make it easier to unionize workplaces), that fight is likely to get quite heated. But as money from the stimulus plans starts to make its way to the coffers of green companies, the importance of the union in the nation's manufacturing heartland will flare up once again.

Now, if the Obama administration decides to add stipulations to federal money, in effect, forcing green companies to accept unionization or implement wage requirements, then the political battle over the stimulus package will likely reach new levels. Forcing the nation's major companies to accept de facto unionization is not going to sit well with the business elite. But if the administration doesn't ensure that some of the new green manufacturing jobs help boost union membership, it may suffer a serious backlash from one of the biggest supporters of the Democratic Party.

The entire piece is definitely worth a read in advance of next week's hearing.

Tags: ,
Posted on March 14, 2009 by EFCAreport

Barron's: "Save the Secret Ballot"

In today's Barron's Online, Jim McTague has published an excellent piece critical of EFCA and in support of the secret ballot, generally.  In "Card Check Makes for Strange Bedfellows," McTague writes:

Obama's stance on the Employee Free Choice Act, introduced in Congress last week and likely to be retooled many times before coming to a vote, is outrageously backward for a man who says he's a progressive change agent. With the stroke of a pen, our president would reverse one of the great, unsung civil-rights movements in the history of Western democracies, a battle that set liberal reformers against corrupt, vested interests who controlled the general electorate through bribery and intimidation, and consequently accrued outsized political and financial power. The secret ballot (the anonymous ballot used today in the elections of modern democracies) finally broke the corrupt grip of these despicable men. They no longer knew with certainty if the voter whom they'd either blackmailed or bribed had cast his ballot as promised. Paying for votes immediately became a mug's game.

Even Chairman Mao in the 1960s recognized secret balloting's benefits for parliamentary elections. In the 1980s, the Chinese began using secret balloting in local elections, in part to stem bribery.

Secret balloting in the U.S. was inspired by 19th-century progressive reformers in England and Australia, who saw that open balloting left voters vulnerable to intimidation by political machines and landed aristocrats. Before the so-called Australian ballot became pre-eminent here, many voters in presidential elections either cast their votes orally, with a poll worker recording it on a ballot, or had poll workers help them check off candidates' names.

Open-ballot advocates claimed this helped the illiterate participate in elections. But they lost that argument: In 1892, the secret ballot was adopted by most U.S. states. In that year, Democrat Grover Cleveland defeated Republican Benjamin Harrison in the first U.S. presidential election conducted largely by secret ballot.

His conclusion is one we've argued before: after pointing out that EFCA's proponents argue that employer coercion and intimidation during organizing drives is already against the law, but the law is rarely enforced, McTague asks simply:

SO WHY NOT JUST ENFORCE CURRENT law instead of giving the union movement the opportunity to engage in the same sort of coercive behavior it condemns?

It's an excellent question that no one supporting card-check has chosen to answer.

Tags: ,
Posted on March 2, 2009 by EFCAreport

NYT: "In Obama, Labor Finds the Support It Expected"

In today's New York Times, Steven Greenhouse reports:

If an index is needed for how much closer organized labor is to President Obama than to his predecessor, it might be the number of times Mr. Sweeney, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president, has visited the White House since Inauguration Day — at least once a week for receptions, bill signings and a meeting on fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Obama has delighted labor by issuing four pro-labor executive orders that reversed Bush policies. He has also appointed a union-friendly chairwoman to the National Labor Relations Board and named a labor secretary whose parents were both union members.

But those changes worry corporate America, especially as Mr. Obama has signaled he will push for legislation that would expand labor’s thinned ranks by making it far easier to unionize workers. Labor leaders expect Vice President Joseph Biden to spell out the administration’s battle plans for the bill on Thursday, when he is scheduled to speak at the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s winter meeting in Miami Beach.

At NAM's ShopFloor.org, Carter Wood keenly observes:

...that’s good, descriptive writing by the Times’ reporter. The journalistic shorthand for the Employee Free Choice Act is frequently, “a bill that would make it easier to form a union.” But that doesn’t really tell the story. Steven Greenhouse adds explanatory motive and a strengthening “far” in his description: “legislation that would expand labor’s thinned ranks by making it far easier to unionize workers.” 

Elsewhere, the Times piece suggests EFCA may come up for a vote in "May, June or July," and asserts that union leadership is "confident" that it will come up with 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. 

Tags: , ,
Posted on February 25, 2009 by EFCAreport

Solis Confirmed as Secretary of Labor, 80-17

The Senate voted yesterday to confirm Rep. Hilda Solis (D-El Monte, CA) as Secretary of Labor.  The vote was 80-17.  All fifty-eight (58) Democrats and Independents casting ballots voted yes (with Sens. Harkin and Kennedy not present). 

Today marks Secretary Solis' first day on the new job.  Per the Associated Press:

Her background as a fierce advocate for organized labor makes her a favorite of union leaders eager to wield more clout after years on the sidelines. She is the daughter of immigrants — her father was a Teamsters shop steward in Mexico while her mother, a native of Nicaragua, worked on an assembly line and was a union member.

Solis has pledged to increase oversight of wage-and-hour laws, worker health and safety regulations and rules covering overtime pay and pay discrimination.

"For Secretary Solis, this is not just another job, but the culmination of a lifetime of action serving as a voice for people who work," said Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union.

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney called her confirmation "a huge victory" and said Solis would represent "working people, not wealthy CEOs."

More coverage:

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted on February 24, 2009 by EFCAreport

Preliminary Solis Confirmation Vote Set for Today

MSNBC reports this morning:

*** Remember that Solis confirmation? [NBC reporter Ken] Strickland also notes that while it seems apparent to Senate Democrats that Hilda Solis will eventually be confirmed as Obama’s Labor secretary, Republicans are making Majority Leader Harry Reid jump through hoops to get her there. This morning, Solis' nomination will face a procedural vote on the Senate floor that neither Eric Holder nor Timothy Geithner faced in their somewhat bumpy rides to confirmation. This vote will happen immediately following the one on DC voting rights. Strick adds that Republicans are forcing Reid to muster 60 votes to advance the nomination because of her ties to a pro-labor lobbying group, as well as her support for the contentious Employee Free Choice Act. Reid's office is optimistic that the majority leader will be able to reach an agreement with Republicans for Solis to have her final confirmation vote before week's end, possibly as early as this afternoon.
 

Many supporters on the political left, not to mention organized labor, have criticized the Senate's reluctance to confirm Rep. Solis as evidence of anti-union and anti-EFCA sentiment.  On the other hand, some defend further deliberation on account of Rep. Solis' refusal to comment on anything in her January 9, 2009 Senate Committee hearing, including her position on EFCA -- a bill she co-sponsored in 2007 and lobbied for as a member of the Board of American Rights at Work.  One of Rep. Solis' only public statements about EFCA -- featured on her House of Representatives webpage -- might well have been cause for concern, as it suggested a significant misunderstanding about the bill itself.  

The initial cloture vote is expected around 11:00 a.m. today. 

UPDATE (1:00 p.m.):  The Washington Post reports that Senate Republicans have assured Democrats that they will not filibuster the issue, and that the actual confirmation may come up for a vote as early as this evening.

Additional coverage:

 

Tags: , ,
Posted on February 17, 2009 by EFCAreport

EFCA is Intended to Replace the Secret Ballot

Over at NAM's ShopFloor.org, Carter Wood includes a collection of recent letters sent to editors throughout the nation by union activists seeking to debunk the "lies," "misinformation," and "mischaracterization" that EFCA will eliminate secret ballots.  The sophistry behind these silly talking points has been rebutted numerous times before.

Reviewing our recent post on the civil war within UNITE-HERE, however, this item jumped out at us.  In a September 2008 internal memo regarding political strategy, John Wilhelm, President of UNITE-HERE's Hospitality division wrote:

Moreover, in the process for workers to gain union representation, EFCA preserves all the current NLRB procedures and employer opportunities except that it substitutes card check for secret ballot elections....

We suspect we know what his critic Bruce Raynor thinks, but is Mr. Wilhelm also "lying" or "misinforming" about the intent of the bill?

Tags: ,
Posted on February 17, 2009 by EFCAreport

UAW President Likens EFCA Opponents to Racists

The blog of the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey is unwilling to let UAW President Ron Gettelfinger get away with one of the more outrageous broadsides in the ongoing "debate" over EFCA.  Late last week, CIANJ highlighted a response to Gettelfinger's recent Detroit News piece.  Apparently unable to muster a compelling, objective argument in support of EFCA, Mr. Gettelfinger instead devoted a column to tarring those who would oppose EFCA -- and use the legitimate, lawful rules of the Senate to do so -- with the broad-brushed smear of racism.

After introductory allusions to the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960's, racist employers, and "cowardly terrorists" who would attack black voters in the night, Gettelfinger submits:

The effort to stop social progress was led by Dixiecrats -- Southern Democrats who stood for the privileged elite against the will of a majority of the American people. Today, their spiritual heirs have changed political parties, but they still reward the fortunate few who hold wealth and power and trample the needs of everyone else.

CIANJ's piece extensively quotes a response from Coalition for a Democratic Workplace's Chairman Brian Worth.  Elsewhere, Mr. Worth's rebuttal appropriately calls Mr. Gettelfinger on his unfortunate diatribe:

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger crossed the line when he injected race into the debate over whether American workers should have the right to vote in private during union organizing elections ("Worker rights bill deserves debate, vote," Feb. 6). By comparing opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act to the Southern senators who blocked civil rights legislation in the 1960s, Gettelfinger undermines his own credibility and does a disservice to the labor movement.

Ironically, if one were to lend any legitimacy by continuing analysis of Mr. Gettelfinger's analogy, it should be striking that it was the right of African-Americans to vote freely -- and by secret ballot, protected from the coercion and intimidation of the "cowardly terrorists" -- that so many brave people fought for during the Civil Rights era. 

How undermining the protection afforded by a secret ballot in representation elections better protects voters remains a question EFCA proponents are unable to answer.

Tags: , ,
Posted on February 15, 2009 by EFCAreport

Pennsylvania Sunday Papers on EFCA and Sen. Specter

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette both carry pieces today on the probability that EFCA may be re-introduced in the coming weeks.  We have previously observed -- both in prior blog posts and in our white paper on EFCA in the 111th Congress -- the central role Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter (R) will play in EFCA's prospects this year.  That notion is reflected throughout today's PA newspapers.     

The Post-Gazette today declares "Specter: The man in the middle."  The piece notes the pressure on Specter from organized labor regarding the effort to pass EFCA:

The bill, which would make it easier to organize workers, is labor's top priority and considered anathema by the business community, which claims it would eliminate the right to a secret ballot. Most political experts say labor, which has supported Mr. Specter in his past two re-election bids, has to be behind him in order for him to win in the general election.

"Arlen Specter will not be our candidate in 2010 if he doesn't support an opportunity for Americans to have free elections in the workplace," said Bill George, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, who added if Mr. Specter wins his union's endorsement he expects a lot of labor members to cross over in the Republican primary to vote for him.

Suggesting that the bill will be re-introduced in Spring or Summer, the Tribune-Review reports:

Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter was the only Republican to vote for the Senate measure. Sweeping Democratic gains at the polls in November -- Democrats hold 58 Senate seats -- puts card-check back in play.

It is unclear whether Specter will support the bill again. His office declined to comment.

Specter, who stands for re-election next year, is under fire from fellow Republicans for agreeing to vote for the $787 billion stimulus package and would face more political rage in the Republican primary if he votes for card-check. Yet, should he win the primary, voting for card check could help significantly in the general election in a state with nearly 1.25 million more Democrats than Republicans.

The Tribune-Review follows up with an Opinion piece, asking "Nervous, Sen. Specter?"  Featuring quotes from a potential GOP primary challenger, the paper submits:

Arlen Specter isn't in just a bit of hot water these days — he's fully immersed in a scalding cauldron.

That's how we read the results of a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday that illustrates the difficulty Pennsylvania's senior senator might have getting re-elected next year.

With more than a year to go before Specter would even face a challenge in the Republican primary, more people believe Specter should be retired than retained. Forty-three percent of the survey's respondents said Specter should be retired; just 40 percent favor retaining him.

If Senator Specter remains intent on pursuing alternative routes to labor law reform, the tightrope he must walk may be getting more challenging.  But, even these articles note, it is a position in which he has often found himself during his tenure in the Senate.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on February 4, 2009 by EFCAreport

Labor Holds EFCA Rally on Capitol Hill; No News About Timing of Introduction

Today’s rally in support of the Employee Free Choice Act came and went without the bill’s re-introduction as some speculated might happen. 

By most accounts, a few hundred union leaders and supporters joined a few Senators and Congressmen at the Capitol for the rally. The AFL-CIO reported that “thousands” turned out to hear speeches by the legislators present and some employees who spoke of their experiences during union organizing drives.

One of the professed purposes of today’s event was to highlight the delivery of a million or so signatures in support of EFCA to Congress. The DC Examiner’s Bret Jacobson was not impressed:

Consider the larger picture. One million would represent only about one-sixteenth of the unions’ current total membership. Should Congress overhaul an entire labor legal system and remove workplace rights, when only one out of every 16 union members can be bothered to send in propaganda that labor officials have made their highest priority?

As for when we might see the re-introduction of the bill in the 111th Congress?

The American Prospect’s “Tapped” blog reported this afternoon:

Politically, it looks like both the House and Senate versions of the EFCA bill, which will not have substantially changed since the last attempt to pass it in 2007, will be introduced in the coming weeks, according to Senator Tom Harkin, who has been tasked by Senate Health Education and Labor Committee Chair Ted Kennedy with managing the bill, and Representative George Miller, the lead House sponsor. Walking to a Senate Democratic lunch with President Barack Obama, Harkin suggested the delay on introducing the legislation was related to Al Franken's continuing legal battle over Minnesota's senate election. The senator also expects the nomination of Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor will clear the Senate before the Easter recess.

Tags: , ,
Posted on February 4, 2009 by EFCAreport

More on today's rally

From the Washington Examiner:

Thousands of workers from across the nation will gather on Capitol Hill today to hold a massive petition delivery event urging passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Kicking off the delivery of 1.5 million signatures in support of the legislation to members of Congress; activists from the nation's unions and progressive organizations will join workers to showcase the broad public support for the bill.

Workers will tell their personal stories about why the Employee Free Choice Act is important to them, joined by two of the bill's key leaders Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Representative George Miller (CA-7). United Steelworkers' International President Leo Gerard will emcee the event, which will also feature Sierra Club President Allison Chin and others. Afterward, workers will personally deliver the signatures to their members of Congress on behalf of working families in their state, encouraging them to support the bill.

This kick-off event will be followed by an ongoing series of events in cities and towns across the country to highlight the groundswell of support for the Employee Free Choice Act as a key piece of creating an economy that works for everyone again.

 

Tags: , ,