I just had one of those "driveway moments" you hear about so much during NPR fundraising weeks. I was listening to an All Things Considered report on the Employee Free Choice Act, one of my favorite acts and just reintroduced into Congress, and even though I had already arrived home, I couldn't tear my ears away from the radio. Because the report troubled me.
As I explained in the post linked to above, the EFCA proposes a bypass of the National Labor Relations Board union certification process - instead, employees can just sign certification "cards" and if a majority wants to form a union, there you go. Proponents believe this is a necessary improvement due to employer abuses of the NLRB election process. There are plenty of good faith arguments available to opponents (challenging the allegations of abuse, say, or preferring an alternative such as sanctions against abusive employers), but it's not their primary objection. No, they "worry" that workers will get strongarmed by unions because of a lack of secret ballot, and out of concern for the workers oppose the EFCA.
It's fairly and rather obviously galling. But I knew that already, and it was not the reason I was dismayed into staying in my car for a couple minutes. That happened because NPR seems to buy this crock. When Michele Norris asks Ron Elving why businesses oppose the act, he just parrots back the patronizing secret ballot nonsense (and it is nonsense) instead of simply saying "They're businesses! Of course they're against anything that will help workers unionize!" Ok, realistically, he could have just said businesses believe they will lose a lot of money if they have to deal with a more unionized workforce. Also troubling was that there was also no mention of proponents reasons for the bill whatsoever - not even couched as allegations of abuse, which would have been fine by me.
The headline of the story was that the EFCA is launching a lobbying "spendathon" in the coming weeks. Thinking about this saddens me further, because if this is the story from ostensibly non-corporate NPR, what chance is there that any other outlet will call out the opponents on their silly argument? Furthermore, I think the ugly tone of the conversation about the mortgage bailout indicates a rough road ahead for pitching the EFCA during a recession. If only one of its Senate co-sponsors during the last Congress were now sitting in the Oval Office! Oh wait, one of them is. There may be hope yet.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Because, maybe, just maybe, there is more than a modicum of TRUTH to the argument in support of the secret ballot (overseen by a Federal Board). Just because one's sensibilities lie with the left, doesn't mean everything the unions want is necessarily good for the country.
I don't always agree with everything unions do, but I do think that they should be able to organize whenever they want.
And I certainly grant that there could be some truth to the view that values a "secret ballot" over safer organizing. The problem is, it's not much of a secret ballot anyway - watch these two minutes of congressional testimony - and especially when the argument comes from employers, who have a vested interest in preventing organizing, it's completely, completely disingenuous. If workers made the argument, it would at least be in good faith, and I would just say they're wrong.
All that video implies is that the ballot is NOT SECRET ENOUGH. I would not want to be sitting on my assembly line with the union organizer and 3 or 4 co-workers saying, "...so you're ready to sign, right?" Its flat out wrong, regardless of your politics.
Here's what George McGovern has to say. If the link is broken, just google wsj and efca.
Reference: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
What the video tells us is that the very situation you wish to avoid is exactly what you'd get in the status quo - at the hands of your employer.
Moreover, even a "secret ballot" doesn't mean there would be no discussion of the election. The employer would lobby you, as would your coworkers who want to organize, and while it may be annoying, it's very tough to stop in a way that passes legal muster.
If there are genuine abuses from other employees, we can address that later, but in the meantime, the focus should be on employer abuses, which are a little more sinister. It's worth noting that when employers want to union bust, their rhetoric rarely takes on the union directly - instead, they try to divide it and pit members against each other or against the leadership. Sort of like what's happening here. If you really believe the Chamber of Commerce is genuinely worried about the civil rights of a worker who's weighing whether or not to join a union, you're kidding yourself.
How, exactly, are employer abuses more "sinister" than union abuses? You're putting forward rhetoric here with no factual support. Further, throwing up your hands and saying there is nothing we can do about employer intimidation in a secret ballot(which I vehemently disagree with) is not a segue into a persuasive argument for a union-led open ballot. Instead of blithely dismissing employee intimidation as something to be "addressed later," how about working toward eliminating as much outside influence as possible in the voting process?
I've seen variations in these statistics, but when union leaders sign up 2/3 to 3/4 of all employees through the card check process, the chance of forming a union is still only about 50%. Obviously, there is something skewing the employee's vote. Employer intimidation may very well depress the ultimate vote, but it would be hard to argue that a card check process doesn't inflate it.
I'm not in a union, but if asked, I would greatly appreciate the ability to make my own private decision. An employer or union rep may think they know how I will vote, but it's still my choice, and without a guaranteed knowledge of how I voted, recriminations are much more difficult for either the employer or my peers.
Post a Comment