Sorry for the alphabet soup in the title of this post! Anyway, the New York Times wrote an editorial yesterday, fully supporting EFCA and urging the new labor secretary (in all probability), Hilda Solis, to push for the legislation.
What's amazing though is just how thin the Times arguement was in favor of EFCA. The Times takes the position that any increase in unionization would be great for America, thus, we should support EFCA right away. But this really misses the larger point of what has irked EFCA's opponents -- namely that the elimination of the secret ballot coupled with neutrality agreements and interest arbitration is a radical and unfair departure from what is traditional labor relations in the United States. The Times makes no defense of the card check method, neutrality, or interest arbitration -- it almost seems as if organized labor decided to pass a law making it mandatory tomorrow that everyone joined a union -- no matter what -- that the Times would be in favor of it! It's clear that the Times is simply advocating an end and not at all worried about the means -- even when the means would be outraegous.
Furthermore, in their other advice to Solis, the Times stays silent on whether or not the incoming labor secretary should continue to require detailed financial information on LM-2 forms. Those of us that follow labor relations are well aware that scaling back the recent LM-2 changes is high on labor's priority list -- perhaps second only to EFCA. Of course, the real losers would be rank and file members who would lack information about how their dues are being spent. Newspapers are supposed to be all in favor of accountability, open records, etc. Well, at least good newspapers anyway. Perhaps the Times position on that issue will show if they are really looking out for the little guy or just trying to protect their union boss friends.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Al Sharpton Against Card Check!
Well, this blog can't quite remember the last time that we agreed with Al Sharpton about much, but hey what's the old phrase -- politics makes strange bedfellows? It turns out that Sharpton is very much opposed to card check and explains why in his weekly radio show -- here is a youtube capture of the audio file.
While we know that Sharpton says lots of, well, outlandish things, he does make excellent points regarding card check. Check it out for yourself.
While we know that Sharpton says lots of, well, outlandish things, he does make excellent points regarding card check. Check it out for yourself.
Hilda Who?
That was the question that several friends of this blog asked when President-Elect Obama officially nominated his Secretary of Labor this past week. The position went to Rep. Hilda Solis, a Democratic Congresswoman from California. On it's face, the nomination probably isn't a bad choice for organized labor -- Solis has a voting record that is pretty much in-line with what organized labor wants and she will probably continue to press for union-friendly policies at her new job.
But is organized labor really happy with this selection? Yes, in their press releases they are going to praise her, but deep down there is a suspicion that this can not be the person that the unions truly wanted for the job. Let's briefly review --- organized labor spent hundreds of millions of dollars electing a Democratic congress and President. No special interest group did more to elect Democrats. There is a major piece of legislation that could come for a vote in the first 100 days and is going to need as many vocal advocates as it can get because the bill is a complete piece of junk. And considering all of that, the best the Obama team could do was nominate a no-name Congresswoman from California who is not well-known in labor circles?
The Wall Street Journal has some interesting quotes from management side types, both of whom squarely hit it on the head. Peter Kirsanow, a former NLRB member, reaction was that, "She's clearly not as well-known and doesn't have a track record... Cabinet picks need to have a certain amount of stature so they're not buffeted by various interests" and Randy Johnson from the Chamber said, "Because she hasn't taken a hard stance on labor issues, perhaps she'll have more of an open door." I think both of those comments are correct and the fact that a real, hard-core, well-known friend of labor was not selected for this important job has to be disappointing for organized labor, even if they are all smiles on the surface.
But is organized labor really happy with this selection? Yes, in their press releases they are going to praise her, but deep down there is a suspicion that this can not be the person that the unions truly wanted for the job. Let's briefly review --- organized labor spent hundreds of millions of dollars electing a Democratic congress and President. No special interest group did more to elect Democrats. There is a major piece of legislation that could come for a vote in the first 100 days and is going to need as many vocal advocates as it can get because the bill is a complete piece of junk. And considering all of that, the best the Obama team could do was nominate a no-name Congresswoman from California who is not well-known in labor circles?
The Wall Street Journal has some interesting quotes from management side types, both of whom squarely hit it on the head. Peter Kirsanow, a former NLRB member, reaction was that, "She's clearly not as well-known and doesn't have a track record... Cabinet picks need to have a certain amount of stature so they're not buffeted by various interests" and Randy Johnson from the Chamber said, "Because she hasn't taken a hard stance on labor issues, perhaps she'll have more of an open door." I think both of those comments are correct and the fact that a real, hard-core, well-known friend of labor was not selected for this important job has to be disappointing for organized labor, even if they are all smiles on the surface.
EFCA -- Week In Review
It's been quite the week for EFCA-related news, showing that the bill is going to be a major issue in the next Congress.
First, mid-week, Sen. Blanche Lincoln scaled back her support for the bill. She said in an interview that the bill was "not necessary" at this time, news which certainly left union heads both depressed and furious. Lincoln did leave herself some wiggling room, so if the bill looks like it will be a slamdunk, then she can hop back on the band wagon. BUT, her comments were obviously welcomed news for the anti-efca side of the debate.
Why did Lincoln (sort-of) come out against the bill? While we hope that the merits of the legislation played into her decision in some way, it's clear that politics played a major role. Tim Griffin, a possible Republican challenger, is planning on doing what we have urged many other Republicans to do in the past -- that is, make card check an issue. Lincoln is smart and knows that the bill is a huge political loser in the state of Arkansas, so taking a more nuanced position on it might help her save her Senate seat.
One has to wonder if maybe more conservative Democrats aren't going to follow her lead. The key probably is if a.) they have a credible challenger and b.) that challenger is willing to use card check as a political weapon. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks.
For an excellent blog posting on the state of EFCA and political games being played, see Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic's Blog. Marc is 100 percent right -- the stakes could not be higher for organized labor. If they fail, there will be blood on the streets (or the floor of the Senate). One alternative Marc mentions is maybe waiting til 2010, but we doubt that will happen. This bill is a monster and it's hard to fathom that the Democrats will really want to wait until right before a midterm election to try to pass it.
First, mid-week, Sen. Blanche Lincoln scaled back her support for the bill. She said in an interview that the bill was "not necessary" at this time, news which certainly left union heads both depressed and furious. Lincoln did leave herself some wiggling room, so if the bill looks like it will be a slamdunk, then she can hop back on the band wagon. BUT, her comments were obviously welcomed news for the anti-efca side of the debate.
Why did Lincoln (sort-of) come out against the bill? While we hope that the merits of the legislation played into her decision in some way, it's clear that politics played a major role. Tim Griffin, a possible Republican challenger, is planning on doing what we have urged many other Republicans to do in the past -- that is, make card check an issue. Lincoln is smart and knows that the bill is a huge political loser in the state of Arkansas, so taking a more nuanced position on it might help her save her Senate seat.
One has to wonder if maybe more conservative Democrats aren't going to follow her lead. The key probably is if a.) they have a credible challenger and b.) that challenger is willing to use card check as a political weapon. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks.
For an excellent blog posting on the state of EFCA and political games being played, see Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic's Blog. Marc is 100 percent right -- the stakes could not be higher for organized labor. If they fail, there will be blood on the streets (or the floor of the Senate). One alternative Marc mentions is maybe waiting til 2010, but we doubt that will happen. This bill is a monster and it's hard to fathom that the Democrats will really want to wait until right before a midterm election to try to pass it.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Employee Free Choice Act - Bailouts and Pay to Play
The timing couldn’t be worse.
As unions prepare for the upcoming epic battle over the so-called “Free Choice” Act, they were dealt a couple of embarrassing public setbacks last week. The Detroit 3-UAW bailout and the “pay to play” scandal in Illinois create a lot of questions about union claims of fighting for the little guy at a time when they really need that narrative to resonate with voters and their supporters in Congress. What impact, if any, will these have on the push for the Free Choice Act in the next few months? My thoughts are below.
Senate Republicans led a rejection of the proposed bailout for the Detroit 3. In the process the CEOs of the Detroit 3 and Ron Gettelfinger of the UAW were grilled for hours by members of both chambers of the Congress. This was a “do-over” from the hearing held before the Thanksgiving holiday (this time the CEOs drove – I don’t think anyone asked whether Gettelfinger flew or not…). And it was great theater.
First, the UAW played this thing about as well as it could be played. They made two non-concession concessions on the eve of the Senate hearings (getting rid of job banks – FINALLY – and allowing 3 companies about to declare bankruptcy to put off their VEBA payments for a year). Almost everybody gave them a pass and went after the CEOs. Masterful PR move.
But the UAW wasn’t ready for Senator Corker from Tennessee. You probably heard about Corker’s grilling of Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli (rightfully so – the whole “looking to get married” discussion was made for TV, but the “I spoke with one of your Cerebrus Board members yesterday” was devastating in my opinion). Senator Corker’s questioning of Gettelfinger look it up on YouTube – it was classic.
In the end Senate Republicans were able to stop the auto company bailout. Now it looks like Bush will go ahead and bail them out at least long enough for Obama to get into office, but the UAW got a fair amount of mud on its face during the hearings. The latest public opinion polls I’ve seen put significant blame on the UAW for the current crisis. Not exactly the kind of publicity you are looking for when you head out to target non-union companies with a stack of authorization cards in hand.
Speaking of bad publicity, the SEIU allegedly played middleman in the Blagojevich “pay to play” scandal. While the union claims that it is all a big misunderstanding, it is clear at this point that a high level SEIU official (reports claim it was Illinois SEIU officer Tom Balanoff) at least had the ethical bad sense to shuttle messages regarding the pay to play scheme between representatives of Blagojevich, the SEIU and perhaps the Obama transition team.
This is just the latest in a series of questionable ethics decisions by SEIU leaders across the country, including several high-profile embezzlement cases. Most recently the union is accused of misusing a non-profit organization that over the course of the last two years spent exactly none of its revenue on its stated purpose, housing for the poor. And speaking of pay to play, Blagojevich has an Executive Order sitting on his desk even today that would hand another 1,200 dues-paying members over to the coalition that he wanted desperately to hire him and his wife.
What impact will these events have on the Free Choice Act debate? Probably not much. It won’t surprise me if unions push for an up or down vote on the 2007 version of EFCA in the first couple of months of the new administration, whether Obama wants them to or not. The idea would be to get a crystal clear view of which side everyone is on. If the bill fails to get past the Senate unions will then start twisting arms of moderate Democrats and Republicans about a compromise version.
Union corruption is nothing new. But these stories don’t exactly make unions look like the positive agents of economic change that they’d like to pretend they are. Nevertheless, if unions get their fondest wish – card-check and mandatory arbitration – they are going to have a lot of work to do to prove to prospective members that they are worthy of trust. The good news for organizers is that with the rules re-written to make it nearly impossible to turn them away, it may not matter how bad their reputations get. They’ll just make employees the proverbial “offer they can’t refuse” and then let the arbitrators sort things out.
Great system if you have the means (like about $450 million in political contributions) ... pay to play indeed.
As unions prepare for the upcoming epic battle over the so-called “Free Choice” Act, they were dealt a couple of embarrassing public setbacks last week. The Detroit 3-UAW bailout and the “pay to play” scandal in Illinois create a lot of questions about union claims of fighting for the little guy at a time when they really need that narrative to resonate with voters and their supporters in Congress. What impact, if any, will these have on the push for the Free Choice Act in the next few months? My thoughts are below.
Senate Republicans led a rejection of the proposed bailout for the Detroit 3. In the process the CEOs of the Detroit 3 and Ron Gettelfinger of the UAW were grilled for hours by members of both chambers of the Congress. This was a “do-over” from the hearing held before the Thanksgiving holiday (this time the CEOs drove – I don’t think anyone asked whether Gettelfinger flew or not…). And it was great theater.
First, the UAW played this thing about as well as it could be played. They made two non-concession concessions on the eve of the Senate hearings (getting rid of job banks – FINALLY – and allowing 3 companies about to declare bankruptcy to put off their VEBA payments for a year). Almost everybody gave them a pass and went after the CEOs. Masterful PR move.
But the UAW wasn’t ready for Senator Corker from Tennessee. You probably heard about Corker’s grilling of Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli (rightfully so – the whole “looking to get married” discussion was made for TV, but the “I spoke with one of your Cerebrus Board members yesterday” was devastating in my opinion). Senator Corker’s questioning of Gettelfinger look it up on YouTube – it was classic.
In the end Senate Republicans were able to stop the auto company bailout. Now it looks like Bush will go ahead and bail them out at least long enough for Obama to get into office, but the UAW got a fair amount of mud on its face during the hearings. The latest public opinion polls I’ve seen put significant blame on the UAW for the current crisis. Not exactly the kind of publicity you are looking for when you head out to target non-union companies with a stack of authorization cards in hand.
Speaking of bad publicity, the SEIU allegedly played middleman in the Blagojevich “pay to play” scandal. While the union claims that it is all a big misunderstanding, it is clear at this point that a high level SEIU official (reports claim it was Illinois SEIU officer Tom Balanoff) at least had the ethical bad sense to shuttle messages regarding the pay to play scheme between representatives of Blagojevich, the SEIU and perhaps the Obama transition team.
This is just the latest in a series of questionable ethics decisions by SEIU leaders across the country, including several high-profile embezzlement cases. Most recently the union is accused of misusing a non-profit organization that over the course of the last two years spent exactly none of its revenue on its stated purpose, housing for the poor. And speaking of pay to play, Blagojevich has an Executive Order sitting on his desk even today that would hand another 1,200 dues-paying members over to the coalition that he wanted desperately to hire him and his wife.
What impact will these events have on the Free Choice Act debate? Probably not much. It won’t surprise me if unions push for an up or down vote on the 2007 version of EFCA in the first couple of months of the new administration, whether Obama wants them to or not. The idea would be to get a crystal clear view of which side everyone is on. If the bill fails to get past the Senate unions will then start twisting arms of moderate Democrats and Republicans about a compromise version.
Union corruption is nothing new. But these stories don’t exactly make unions look like the positive agents of economic change that they’d like to pretend they are. Nevertheless, if unions get their fondest wish – card-check and mandatory arbitration – they are going to have a lot of work to do to prove to prospective members that they are worthy of trust. The good news for organizers is that with the rules re-written to make it nearly impossible to turn them away, it may not matter how bad their reputations get. They’ll just make employees the proverbial “offer they can’t refuse” and then let the arbitrators sort things out.
Great system if you have the means (like about $450 million in political contributions) ... pay to play indeed.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Follow The Money
Probably the best that has happened for the opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act are the two "scandals" now on the front pages: the UAW Bailout (the bailout of the Big 3 automakers), and the Blagojevich revelations. In both cases, Big Labor is a key player. You can follow the money as it is sucked from the pockets of Big Three employees via dues (and hamstringing the Big Three automakers in the process), and spent on crooked politics (the now-infamous "Chicago Way") and politicians like Blagojevich. As much as the SEIU would like to paint themselves as having no role in the political scandal, it doesn't take much effort to follow the money, as this short video indicates.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Small & Mid-Sized Retailers At Risk
Our good friends at Fisher & Phillips posted a concise article outlining why retailers who haven't had to be too concerned with union encroachment will be highly susceptible under the Employee Free Choice Act. Three key reasons for this are: 1) this sector is mostly non-unionized, so is an attractive target, 2) exempt managers are often not present at the locations (to spot potential card-signing activity), and 3) employees are often more interested in short-term (more pay) than long-term (job security via fiscal health of the company) due to their transient nature.
A little communication can go a long way! Having a standardized tool greatly aids this process. This was a key factor in the development of the EFCA Tool Kit.
Retailers - take warning!
A little communication can go a long way! Having a standardized tool greatly aids this process. This was a key factor in the development of the EFCA Tool Kit.
Retailers - take warning!
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Teenage Targets for Unions
Not many teens have enough resolve to fight as this 16-year-old did when told, "pay union dues or lose your job."
Similar pressure has been used to get teens to sign authorization cards, even in our current environment. This will only get worse when EFCA passes. The most vulnerable groups to get cards signed are those least likely to understand the significance of a signature no a card - including teens and those with language barriers (Hispanics, Asian, etc).
Similar pressure has been used to get teens to sign authorization cards, even in our current environment. This will only get worse when EFCA passes. The most vulnerable groups to get cards signed are those least likely to understand the significance of a signature no a card - including teens and those with language barriers (Hispanics, Asian, etc).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
