[Peace-discuss] Liberal opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act

Mon Oct 27 17:51:32 CDT 2008

Under existing law, 30% of workers can request a secret ballot
election. The EFCA does nothing to change that. If the EFCA becomes
law, 30% of the workers can still request a secret ballot election, so
in fact the law will still be tilted toward a secret ballot election.

The EFCA would give _workers_ the ability to determine by what process
they shall make the collective decision whether or not to have union
representation. Right now that decision is made in the private sector
by the employer.

It's worth noting that in Illinois today, in the public sector, we now
have card check. If someone works for the state of Illinois - for
example, for the University of Illinois - and would be eligible to
join a union (for example, not management), then the labor law now
governing that person would allow people in that unit to file for
union recognition on the basis of union authorization cards signed by
a majority.

Has anyone noticed any big crisis about the destruction of democracy
in Illinois as a result of that change in Illinois labor law taking
place? I haven't.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Does "bad on labor issues" mean that McGovern was opposed by the AFL-CIO,
> which supported the Vietnam War to the end? Good on him.
>
> The ambiguous position of liberals on labor issues -- do they support the
> union establishment, or workers? -- is nothing to be proud of.
>
> Given (e.g.) the horrific record of the Democrats since they were given
> control of Congress to end the war, a decent person should be isolated from
> (most of) them.
>
> The Wall Street Journal, perhaps because its editorial positions depart to
> the right from the "limits of allowable debate" (as established by, say, the
> NYT) has been willing for years to publish some opinions of those who depart
> from the  consensus to the left.  They may well have done that here.
>
> The "responses" seem to be typified by that of the former New Republic (!)
> editor, (www.ourfuture.org...) below, who smears McGovern without answering
> his objection:
>
>        "The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which
> unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a
> secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would
> simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a
> workplace or bargaining unit ... Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom
> to express their will in private..."
>
> --CGE
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> George McGovern doesn't represent "liberal opposition" - he was always bad
>> on
>> labor issues and doesn't represent any group of liberals on labor issues.
>> Among Democrats, he is totally isolated on this issue, as shown by the
>> votes
>> in the House and the Senate. Note where this appeared: the Wall Street
>> Journal, whose opinion page is the house organ for the greediest fraction
>> of
>> capital.
>>
>> Here are some responses:
>>
>> Wal-Mart Lover George McGovern Throws Unions Under the Bus For His
>> Lobbyist
>> Friend, Rick Berman Ian Welsh, Monday August 11, 2008
>> http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/11/wal-mart-lover-george-mcgovern-throws-unions-under-the-bus-for-his-lobbyist-friend-rick-berman/
>>
>>
>> American Rights at Work: Lies & Distortion on the Secret Ballot
>> http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/lies--distortion-on-the-secret-ballot-20080730-596-84-84.html
>>
>>
>> Dean Baker: "The only change with the Employee Free Choice Act is whether
>> card check recognition is at the discretion of the employer of the worker.
>> In
>> other words, it changes absolutely ZERO about whether the right of workers
>> to
>> organize is determined by secret ballot or not. The only thing it changes
>> is
>> who gets to decide the manner of certification, workers or employers."
>> http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008083419/mcgovern-mystery
>>
>> Mark Weisbrot: Employee Free Choice Act Could Be Biggest Reform Since New
>> Deal
>> http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/employee-free-choice-act-could-be-biggest-reform-since-new-deal/
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:40 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [I know that our associates promoting EFCA are doing so with the
>>> appropriate goal of encouraging and strengthening unions, but there is a
>>> case to be answered -- liberal opposition, as below.  --CGE]
>>>
>>> WALL STREET JOURNAL AUGUST 8, 2008 My Party Should Respect Secret Union
>>> Ballots By GEORGE MCGOVERN
>>>
>>> As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the
>>> presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over
>>> issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or
>>> reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the
>>> curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected
>>> the process.
>>>
>>> Voting is an immense privilege.
>>>
>>> That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this
>>> freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must
>>> raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and
>>> undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.
>>>
>>> The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to
>>> say
>>> it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor
>>> movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks
>>> silencing those who would speak.
>>>
>>> The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions
>>> are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret
>>> ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply
>>> need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace
>>> or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many
>>> documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and
>>> intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
>>>
>>> Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in
>>> private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their
>>> shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
>>>
>>> There's no question that unions have done much good for this country.
>>> Their
>>>  tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a
>>> strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that
>>>  protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to
>>> the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with
>>> care.
>>>
>>> To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that
>>> strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are
>>> the
>>> party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail
>>> to
>>> ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides
>>> would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.
>>>
>>> Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including
>>> Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California,
>>> and
>>> Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing
>>> countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to
>>> whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no
>>> less
>>> for employees in our country.
>>>
>>> I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true
>>> ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a
>>> desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of
>>> being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they
>>> press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a
>>> tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.
>>>
>>> While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends,
>>> there are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and
>>> lonely opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress
>>>  will re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as
>>> Americans,
>>>  we should strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of
>>> expression and freedom from fear that is our ideal and our right.
>>>
>>> Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972
>>> Democratic presidential candidate.
>>>
>>> Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by
>>>> House) http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110fJ89fa::
>>>>
>>>> AFL-CIO page on the Employee Free Choice Act:
>>>> http://www.afl-cio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/
>>>>
>>>> AFL-CIO Q & A on the Employee Free Choice Act
>>>> http://www.afl-cio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/qna.cfm
>>>>
>>>> Roll Call in the House:   H R 800,  1-Mar-2007 241-185 228 Democrats in
>>>> favor, 2 opposed 13 Republicans in favor, 185 opposed (TJ voted no.)
>>>> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll118.xml
>>>>
>>>> Roll Call in the Senate: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture
>>>> on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R.800 ) 51-48 (cloture failed,
>>>> needing 60) All Dems voted yes; SD Tim Johnson was absent due to illness
>>>> All Rs voted no, except for Specter, who voted yes. Lieberman and Sanders
>>>> voted yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00227
>

-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Ambassador Pickering on Iran Talks and Multinational Enrichment
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kGZFrFxVg8A