It’s Time to Pass EFCA
By Jake Blumgart - Jan 21st, 2009 at 1:09 pmObama has been getting a lot of rhetorical mileage out of the concept of post-partisan politics, and he has been making a number of appeasing gestures toward the right to lend some real-world weight to his high-flying oratory.
But leaving aside the possibility, let alone the desirability, of truly post-partisan politics, Obama should ease up on his conciliatory tendencies and lend some of his considerable political capital to one of the most important–and divisive–bills on the legislative agenda: the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
Organizing and certifying a union in the United States is a byzantine process that favors employers and puts the labor movement at a distinct disadvantage. For example, the penalties for illegally firing union supporters are slight, and under currents labor laws, employers do not have to sign a contract with the union even if (and it’s a big if) the union gets certified in the first place. In short, the system is grossly unfair.
EFCA would right these wrongs. It is essential for a rejuvenated labor movement, and a rejuvenated labor movement would strongly reinforce the emerging progressive majority.
This legislation is of vital importance in the struggle to strengthen our middle- and working-classes, and slow our slide into Gilded-Age-levels of income inequality. Well worth chucking the “post-partisan” sound bites, I think.
So reading this, as far as I can tell, passing the EFCA is good because it strengthens the left-wing majority, not because it would actually do anything worthwhile.
Labor has historically been very tightly associated with organized crime. Auditing of labor’s books in the past 8 years (Elaine Chao was one of the few positive highlights of the Bush administration) turned up massive amounts of improper use of member dues. And has Big Labor ever really stayed away from using intimidation tactics to get its way?
And if you honestly think it is vital that we have a strong union system, would you be as equally supportive of measures designed to ensure that unions focus only on worker advocacy - things like paycheck protection, to keep unions from using member dues for political activity without their consent, or strengthening and expanding right to work laws, to make sure employees can’t be forced into unions against their will?
January 21st, 2009 at 3:23 pmYou appear to have read only one sentence of my posting.
Strengthening the left-liberal majority, such as it is, is worthwhile in and of itself, but it is not the only benefit of the Employee Free Choice Act. In my brief entry I name quite a few others, including strengthening the working and middle-classes, redressing income disparity issues, promoting workplace democracy, and punishing illegal and immoral worker’s rights abuses.
Organized labor has certainly had same history with organized crime, but the American labor movement has hardly been defined by the experience—except in the narratives spun by anti-union pundits and politicians. And the intimidation tactics that some unions stoop to is dwarfed by the 50% percent of employers who threaten to close up shop when faced with unionization and the 92% that subject their employees to mandatory anti-union propaganda.
(Also, “Big Labor” is not a particularly apt description at this point: only 12.5% of workers are unionized, although according to a recent survey, 60 million American workers would join a union if they could.)
January 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pmAlso, Elaine Chao is a corporate stooge. What would you say her greatest accomplishment was? Supporting Bush when he denied federal contractors access to regional prevailing wages in the wake of Katrina? Or her failure to penalize mine companies for their over 4,000 mine safety violations?
January 21st, 2009 at 4:22 pmAnd what of all the negative costs of a strong labor movement? The ability of unions - in large part due to the legal protections they enjoy, particularly with regards to political expenditures, accountability, etc. - has led to some serious downsides.
Unions routinely push wages to unsustainable, above-market levels. Sure, that’s great for workers, but it forces business owners to absorb the costs as lower profits (unless you’re a big three automaker in which case you absorb the costs as net losses) and consumers in the form of higher prices. And it’s not even good for workers as it leads to companies folding in the long term.
And you want to talk about workplace democracy? How exactly is card check promoting democracy when it is effectively abolishing the secret ballot? Even Congressional Democrats pushing the EFCA know it’s bad for workplace democracy. In a letter to Mexican officials they themselves said
“As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections…we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.”
So a secret ballot somehow works to protect workers in Mexico, but it doesn’t here? Care to explain to me how EFCA is anything but a cold political move on this front?
As for Elaine Chao, how about her strengthening of the Office of Labor Management Standards? Prior to Chao’s tenure as Secretary unions existed largely free of oversight and there was barely any transparency into their use of member dues. Her willingness to actually make the OLMS a serious part of the Department of Labor has unveiled a great deal of corruption, particularly embezzlement of funds by union bosses. You don’t think that’s working on the behalf of laborers?
And for the record, you never responded to my question on issues like instituting paycheck protection or strengthening right to work laws.
I’d like to add another question for you, how do you justify left-wing efforts to gut the OLMS? Do you have any good reason for removing oversight on unions, particularly when it has revealed and led to action against numerous cases of embezzlement of member dues? Or is this just another case of doing something because it strengthens the majority by giving unions more power?
January 21st, 2009 at 10:49 pmOh my, I have neglected my duties. Apologies, Waterman. I’ll get back to you when I’ve go a minute.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:40 pm