Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter Turning Democrat
Arlen Specter is expected to announce that he is switching parties according to the Washington Post. Not exactly clear what this means for EFCA (he has already suggested numerous compromises that he supports, but has said he will vote against cloture and against the bill). It does give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate once Franken is sworn in. Stay posted.
Newt Chimes In on EFCA
Newt Gingrich recently added his two cents to the Employee Free Choice Act debate, and highlighted the issue we've been warning of as the more insidious: mandatory arbitration. He has this to say:
Not to mention the fact that negotiations over these issues are detailed, and typically have never been completed within the EFCA-mandated time frame. On that point, we have had NO RESPONSE at all to our $10,000 reward offer for any government arbitrator who can show they have negotiated a first contract within 90 days, ever.
In the history of this country, government has never proved its capacity or capability to exceed the performance and productivity of those engaged in private enterprise. Why, then, should we trust government to know enough about the nuances and market forces at play in a particular industry to set wages and benefits for workers?
Not to mention the fact that negotiations over these issues are detailed, and typically have never been completed within the EFCA-mandated time frame. On that point, we have had NO RESPONSE at all to our $10,000 reward offer for any government arbitrator who can show they have negotiated a first contract within 90 days, ever.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Blanche Lincoln - Opposed to EFCA, Willing to Compromise?
Blanche Lincoln announced yesterday that she will oppose EFCA in its current form - this announcement is a huge blow to unions if they were hoping to get card check this year. She did make clear that she could not support EFCA "in the form it is in now" clearly telegraphing that she might consider compromise legislation later. An AFL-CIO official quoted in the same article read her annoumcement exactly the same way.
This announcement is probably more critical than the Specter announcement a couple of weeks ago. Unions need every Democratic Senator going their way if they have any hope of the full enchilada, and I suspect that at least a couple of other Democrats will make similar announcements now that they have cover to do so.
What does this mean? Unions are going after targeted Congressional districts and key Senators during the upcoming recess and are cointinuing to press on EFCA. But at some point they have to decide what they are willing to accept. I think within the next month or so we'll see Franken seated from Minnesota and then some compromise proposal for quick elections, equal access, baseball arbitration and increased penalties. More important, I think there are at least 60 votes for that as we sit here today. Stay tuned...
This announcement is probably more critical than the Specter announcement a couple of weeks ago. Unions need every Democratic Senator going their way if they have any hope of the full enchilada, and I suspect that at least a couple of other Democrats will make similar announcements now that they have cover to do so.
What does this mean? Unions are going after targeted Congressional districts and key Senators during the upcoming recess and are cointinuing to press on EFCA. But at some point they have to decide what they are willing to accept. I think within the next month or so we'll see Franken seated from Minnesota and then some compromise proposal for quick elections, equal access, baseball arbitration and increased penalties. More important, I think there are at least 60 votes for that as we sit here today. Stay tuned...
Monday, April 06, 2009
Employee Free Choice Act: Reading Tea Leaves on EFCA – Or “It’s The Petitions, Stupid”
In the couple of weeks since Arlen Specter’s blockbuster announcement that he would vote against cloture and (maybe) vote against EFCA, quite a few pundits have claimed the so-called “Free Choice” Act is dead for the near future. I’ve already argued that news of EFCA’s death is greatly exaggerated, but I’d like to point out a couple of observable facts that I think are worth considering as we handicap the future of EFCA.
It’s been interesting to observe how unions have responded to Specter’s announcement. Most interesting to me was that there wasn’t much of a response to the initial story at all. That could have been posturing, but to the extent they reacted at all unions mainly focused on the large amount of wiggle room Specter gave himself in his floor speech. Specter later had to clarify that he would never support a version of EFCA that included card-check because many union sources claimed that he would based on his speech and some of the interviews immediately afterward.
Actions speak louder than words, and last week unions took the bold action of launching an ad campaign going up on the side of buildings around Washington D.C. (the one I saw was over the Sierra Club headquarters, but there are many others).
These building-sized banners feature huge pictures of union members discussing why they support the “Free Choice” Act. These banners are intended to turn up the heat on Congressmen and Senators who might think that Specter’s announcement could let them off the hook on EFCA. Looking at union actions, for the moment at least, it appears that unions believe that EFCA is still a possibility and they remain very much engaged in lobbying for their Act.
But there is another, even more interesting behavior to observe: NLRB petition activity is at an all-time low in the first quarter of 2009. Take a look at this:
It may be a little hard to read the numbers, but these are the important ones: In the five years prior to 2009, on average there were 738 RC petitions filed in the first quarter (there were 964 total petitions filed on average during the same period). This year unions filed only 483 RC petitions in the first quarter – a massive 35% decline.
What could explain this incredible drop in RC petition activity. A number of possibilities come to mind. First, this was a historical election year and it is certainly plausible that unions and their organizers were pre-occupied in January with inauguration-related activities. But one would expect for petitions to pick up in February and March if that were the case.
Another explanation could be weather. This was a pretty tough winter, and that could have reduced petition activity (the first quarter is generally lighter in volume than other quarters). But this winter was not dramatically worse than similar first quarters over the last 5 years. Weather can’t possibly account for the 35% slide.
The economy has seen its worse decline since World War II, so that could have some bearing on the situation. But typically the worse the economic situation the better it is for unions. If anything one would expect the rapid slide (including the decline in 401(k) plans and massive unemployment) would create historical opportunities for unions to organize. But that’s not happened.
The most likely scenario – and the one I think is at play – is that union organizers are waiting for the law to change. We just spoke last week to an organizer recently laid off from a major union. He said that his union was sitting on cards while they wait for Congress to act. His union (which I won’t name to protect him – suffice it to say that it is one of the biggest there is) is that confident that the law is going to change, and sooner rather than later. That union, by the way, is probably in a pretty good position to know – it wrote a lot of the big checks in the last few elections.
I believe this strategy, if it is in fact being employed, is idiotic. And that’s what scares me the most. From where I sit I would guess the best-case scenario for 2009 is some kind of compromise legislation that includes quick elections and then whatever else unions can get (Specter mentioned baseball arbitration and equal access as possible reforms he would consider).
But if quickie elections are the compromise why would you sit on cards? The marginal advantage of a 21-day election over a 30-day election is certainly not worth sitting around for months letting authorization cards get stale. It just makes no sense. It is professional suicide to give up a year’s worth of elections (during probably the best historical time to organize workers since the Wagner Act was originally passed) betting on the possibility of legislative change. That is unless you know something about what is going to happen quickly, something that makes those cards valuable in and of themselves.
That is what bothers me. The only logical reason unions would basically quit filing petitions is if they think they’re getting card check in some form in the next year or so. That is the only plausible explanation. Of course unions could be wrong about the prospects of the legislation, and they may start filing a bunch of petitions now that Specter’s position is clear. But as of now, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
I’m not saying the fix is in. But I am saying that you should observe the behavior of unions – especially the behavior of union organizers – over the next few weeks to get a handle on what the unions believe is going to happen on EFCA this year. Might be a good time to pick up my EFCA Cheatsheet and brush up on EFCA planning - you know, just in case.
It’s been interesting to observe how unions have responded to Specter’s announcement. Most interesting to me was that there wasn’t much of a response to the initial story at all. That could have been posturing, but to the extent they reacted at all unions mainly focused on the large amount of wiggle room Specter gave himself in his floor speech. Specter later had to clarify that he would never support a version of EFCA that included card-check because many union sources claimed that he would based on his speech and some of the interviews immediately afterward.
Actions speak louder than words, and last week unions took the bold action of launching an ad campaign going up on the side of buildings around Washington D.C. (the one I saw was over the Sierra Club headquarters, but there are many others).
These building-sized banners feature huge pictures of union members discussing why they support the “Free Choice” Act. These banners are intended to turn up the heat on Congressmen and Senators who might think that Specter’s announcement could let them off the hook on EFCA. Looking at union actions, for the moment at least, it appears that unions believe that EFCA is still a possibility and they remain very much engaged in lobbying for their Act.
But there is another, even more interesting behavior to observe: NLRB petition activity is at an all-time low in the first quarter of 2009. Take a look at this:
It may be a little hard to read the numbers, but these are the important ones: In the five years prior to 2009, on average there were 738 RC petitions filed in the first quarter (there were 964 total petitions filed on average during the same period). This year unions filed only 483 RC petitions in the first quarter – a massive 35% decline.
What could explain this incredible drop in RC petition activity. A number of possibilities come to mind. First, this was a historical election year and it is certainly plausible that unions and their organizers were pre-occupied in January with inauguration-related activities. But one would expect for petitions to pick up in February and March if that were the case.
Another explanation could be weather. This was a pretty tough winter, and that could have reduced petition activity (the first quarter is generally lighter in volume than other quarters). But this winter was not dramatically worse than similar first quarters over the last 5 years. Weather can’t possibly account for the 35% slide.
The economy has seen its worse decline since World War II, so that could have some bearing on the situation. But typically the worse the economic situation the better it is for unions. If anything one would expect the rapid slide (including the decline in 401(k) plans and massive unemployment) would create historical opportunities for unions to organize. But that’s not happened.
The most likely scenario – and the one I think is at play – is that union organizers are waiting for the law to change. We just spoke last week to an organizer recently laid off from a major union. He said that his union was sitting on cards while they wait for Congress to act. His union (which I won’t name to protect him – suffice it to say that it is one of the biggest there is) is that confident that the law is going to change, and sooner rather than later. That union, by the way, is probably in a pretty good position to know – it wrote a lot of the big checks in the last few elections.
I believe this strategy, if it is in fact being employed, is idiotic. And that’s what scares me the most. From where I sit I would guess the best-case scenario for 2009 is some kind of compromise legislation that includes quick elections and then whatever else unions can get (Specter mentioned baseball arbitration and equal access as possible reforms he would consider).
But if quickie elections are the compromise why would you sit on cards? The marginal advantage of a 21-day election over a 30-day election is certainly not worth sitting around for months letting authorization cards get stale. It just makes no sense. It is professional suicide to give up a year’s worth of elections (during probably the best historical time to organize workers since the Wagner Act was originally passed) betting on the possibility of legislative change. That is unless you know something about what is going to happen quickly, something that makes those cards valuable in and of themselves.
That is what bothers me. The only logical reason unions would basically quit filing petitions is if they think they’re getting card check in some form in the next year or so. That is the only plausible explanation. Of course unions could be wrong about the prospects of the legislation, and they may start filing a bunch of petitions now that Specter’s position is clear. But as of now, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
I’m not saying the fix is in. But I am saying that you should observe the behavior of unions – especially the behavior of union organizers – over the next few weeks to get a handle on what the unions believe is going to happen on EFCA this year. Might be a good time to pick up my EFCA Cheatsheet and brush up on EFCA planning - you know, just in case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
