Archive for October, 2009
Employee Free Choice Act Fought Out In College Paper’s Pages
Thought we’d pass this along. The fight over the Employee Free Choice Act has made its way to the pages of the Concordian, the student-run newspaper of Concord College in Minnesota. Yesterday, freshman Adam Twardoski weighed in with a response against the bill.
Interesting to see how far this fight has come: from an issue below the radar to one so toxic and pervasive that is being beaten back on college campuses.
Of Geese, Ganders, and Capitols
Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation writes in the Washington Times of laws that free enterprise entrepreneurs face but those from which Congress exempts itself:
As my colleagues James Sherk and Ryan O’Donnell point out in a recent Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, many members of Congress can advocate new laws to push workers into joining unions with enthusiasm because their own congressional employees do not and will not have the right to form a union.
It is time for Congress to work under the same rules it imposes on the private sector. If members think that the burden of these unionization laws is not excessive, then they should apply them to their own offices. If they are not prepared to do that, they should not impose them on businesses in Main Street America.
Right now the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the main law governing unionization, applies only to the private sector. Even though other laws allow many federal employees to organize and bargain collectively, employees in the personal offices of congressmen and senators are excluded.
It seems that Congress – at least for their own offices – understands the downside of unionization.
Yet members of Congress who support the current bills – which would do such things as end secret ballots in labor elections and in other ways push workers into unions – claim that the proposed laws would actually improve the workplace without curtailing workers’ rights or burdening employers.
If that is so, they should be happy to add an amendment at last permitting their own staffs to unionize under the NLRA.
Sheesh.
Sen. Feinstein Lauded at Home for Opposition to Employee Free Choice Act
Sen. Diane Feinstein is a leading Democrat whose concerns about the Employee Free Choice Act is stopping the bill from rushing through Congress to the president’s desk.
It’s good to see that she is receiving support from newspaper editors back home, where the Oakland Tribune has weighed in with an editorial that reads, in part: “We applaud Feinstein’s reluctance to promote such an unfair piece of legislation and hope that she does not change her mind.”
It’s no surprise that editors oppose the measure; dozens (if not hundreds) have. It’s blatantly unfair and bad for employers and employees alike. We’re just glad for each one that keeps public opposition to EFCA alive, and we continue to applaud Sen. Feinstein for keeping a protective eye out for our economy and workers.
Employee Free Choice Act: Who Supports, Who Opposes
Truly important news regarding the grotesquely misnamed Employee Free Choice Act has been sparse recently, leaving any number of groups and outlets to chitter-chatter away about any gossip that goes through the mill. Herein the latest recap:
In A Pinch, In A Pension
The Labor Press is reporting:
For union pension plans, last year
Is Organized Labor Losing Card Check?
Thomas Edsall has some tough-love analysis for organized labor and its on-again, really-on-again love affair with Democratic politicians. In the National Journal, he writes:
If there is one Democratic constituency that has taken a beating with the rising influence of Democrats from the high-tech sector and the ranks of the nation’s professionals, it is organized labor. As labor leaders attempt to capitalize on Democratic control of the White House to win approval of key legislation, they face opposition from Democratic representatives and senators from places with declining or nonexistent union membership and indifference from the party’s upscale Starbucks faction, which seemingly could not care less about the future of the labor movement.
As a result, union leaders have been unable to push through a central goal: the “card-check” provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act. The Senate is on the verge of killing card check, which would replace union representation elections using secret ballots with a system guaranteeing union recognition once a majority of employees sign cards affirming their support. For years, card check has been the be-all and end-all for Big Labor, which sees it as crucial to its survival.
Few interest groups have been a better friend to the party than labor. Not only do unions donate millions to Democrats — $617.6 million since 1990, 12 times the amount they gave to Republicans — but for the past decade, they have also been able to persuade their members, including whites, to vote decisively for Democrats.
Past loyalty, however, counts for little in today’s Democratic Party. The harsh reality facing unions is that they are fading as a force in America politics, and fellow Democrats know it. Since the 2002 enactment of McCain-Feingold legislation barring soft-money contributions, labor donations in federal campaigns have fallen from $96.8 million in 2001-02 to $74.6 million in 2007-08. More important, the number of unionized workers, and their share of the national workforce, has been on a steady downward path since 1955, when 35 percent of U.S. workers were represented by a union. By 2008, that percentage had dropped to 13.7.
Mr. Edsall clearly has valid points on organized labor’s large-dollar donation angle and the sway that it tries to use that influence with respect to card check. But it would be unwise to assume that union officials will not get many items on their wish list — items that will come at a heavy expense to an already-battered economy and tens of millions of working Americans.
Let’s hope he’s right about the fate of card check. But hope is not a plan, so it’s critical to keep engaged in the fight against card check and the rest of the disastrous Employee Free Choice Act.
