Obama Team Restates Strong Support For Union Bill

An aide to Barack Obama reaffirmed the President-elect's support for the labor movement's chief legislative priority in a one-word statement issued to the Huffington Post on late Tuesday.

Asked if Obama's support for the Employee Free Choice Act remained as strong as his public proclamations suggested on the campaign trail, transition spokesman Dan Pfeiffer responded, succinctly, "Yes."

The reaffirmation may not seem like a political breakthrough on its surface. But in the current political climate, in which the Obama team has steadfastly refused to comment on various legislative priorities, it does signal that the President-elect is not shying away from progressive pledges made during his campaign.

Moreover, it clears the air of some confusion that was prompted by a statement from Rahm Emanuel in late November. Appearing at a Wall Street Journal CEO Council conference, the incoming White House chief of staff spoke opaquely about the so-called "card check" bill, leaving the impression to some that it would not be a priority.

"Let me take your question and go somewhere else," he said of the measure, which would allow workers to form unions more easily by simply signing cards rather than engaging in a ballot process.

Some were concerned by Emanuel's remarks, taking them as a signal that Obama would push back aspects of the pro-labor agenda in order to tackle other pressing economic matters. Press reports enforced the theory that Emanuel had "declined to say whether the White House would support the legislation."

In private, however, Obama allies insisted that the Emanuel's statement was not a dodge but rather a joke, meant to lighten the mood and change the subject in front of an audience of business leaders hostile to the legislation. Pfeiffer's remark -- even in its brevity -- should go a bit further in assuaging concerns over Obama's pro-labor commitments.

Update: Pachacutec of FireDogLake wrote yesterday about his unsuccessful attempts to get this very question answered by the Obama transition team. He's got much more on the matter here.

Comments

[daviddenholm]

11:07 AM on 12/04/2008

There seems to be a little confusion about whether the "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA) would "deny" workers the right to a government supervised secret ballot election. Under the present law it takes a "showing of interest" of 30% of employees signing a petition (card) to call for a union representation election. The union is free to present the cards to the employer and the employer is free to voluntarily recognize the union as a representative of the employees on the basis of the cards. There is very substantial evidence that signed cards are not an accurate indicator of employee sentiment. The AFL-CIO's own research indicates that 28% of those who sign cards vote against union representation. Other research finds that unions must have cards signed by 65% of employees to have a 50-50 chance to win an election. A review of NLRB election results finds that in many cases the vote in favor of union representation is less than the 30% required ot petition for the election. Unions blame these differences on employer intimidation. It is just as likely that some employees sign cards for a variety of reasons with no intention of voting for union representation when they have a secret ballot vote. Under the proposed EFCA if a bare majority of employees sign cards the union would be certified as the exclusive representative of all employees. No matter how you cut it, that would deny employees the right to a vote on union represention.

[truthteller821]

09:36 AM on 12/04/2008

It's been under-reported, but MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who has been named as a possible Labor Sec'y, recently denounced the Employee Free Choice Act on a CNBC interview, calling it "divisive" and saying she would advise Obama to focus on other issues. The link is: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=924171585&play=1

Monday, November 10, 2008 Interview
CNBC: “Where do you come down on the Employee Free Choice Act and whether or not that should be implemented in the first year as the campaign seemed to suggest during the campaign?”

Granholm: “Well I think we’ll allow the Obama – the President Elect to make that decision about what he’s gonna do but I’ll tell you…”

CNBC: “What’s your thought?”

Granholm: “It’s not a time to get into divisive – uh divisive legislation and I think…”

CNBC: “You can’t…. you can’t choose? You’ve got two big sides to... I mean, who can blame you? Right?”

Granholm: “Well all I can - I can tell you this. I’m going to be interested in the things that affect this economy right now and the things that affect this economy in the short term are gonna be a stimulus package for the states. It’s gonna be making sure that we have a middle class tax cut and gonna be extending unemployment insurance benefits. Those are the things that we’ll be talking about and what I advise the President in a private meeting will stay in private…”

[Ramirez]

12:13 PM on 12/04/2008

Good post. This bill is so bad for our nation that even some Democrats have noticed it.

[kinnycut]

09:00 PM on 12/03/2008

The Employee Free Choice Act will create better paying jobs by allowing unions to form quicker. This law simply removes a step in the process. The reason unions don't get started because workers who originally signed for a union are scared away from voting it in by their employers. This law allows your signature card to become your vote for the union and how you vote is a still a secret because only you no what you signed on the card. This secret ballot nonsense is a Republican talking point to stop this great law. This law will be a great help to all those trying to organize unions in these stupid "Right to Work" states because it makes a big step toward rendering those ridiculous state laws useless. Obama better not go back on that promise because he received heavy union support because of it.

[Kartoffel]

09:16 PM on 12/03/2008

"Obama better not go back on that promise because he received heavy union support because of it."
=================================================

I thought Barack Obama was going to be a president who isn't owned by special interests. Was I mistaken?

[Ramirez]

09:29 PM on 12/03/2008

"...how you vote is a still a secret because only you no what you signed on the card."

That is not true. The union reps who stood over you as you signed the card know whether or not you signed the card. If you do not sign you will be encouraged to do so, and they will return to your home as often as it takes to bring you in line.

The reason unions oppose the right of secret ballot is because unions invariably lose when employees can vote without threat of repercussion.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

08:17 PM on 12/03/2008

''I'm a former Organizer for the Teamsters union. In fact, I was the President of my union for many years, and a lifelong union member who grew up in a union household.'' Is that a fact, joeibt? Considering your animus against Unions, how can you actually be ''a lifelong Union member"?

Or are you actually just a shrewd anti-union lobbyist posing as the above? Just spewing out more of the same Orwellian LIES that you're cynical enough to believe that the People still buy? For someone so political, it's really curious that you only have two entries on Huffingtonpost.

Want the Truth?: www.freechoiceact.org

[DFL]

08:01 PM on 12/03/2008

UNION WORKERS DONT QUIT, THEY RETIRE.

[Sharke]

07:56 PM on 12/03/2008

Unions continued:

So the consumer pays more for the product. Not only does this make everyone else poorer, but it also means that consumers have less to spend on "other things." This causes unemployment in the areas of industry which produce those "other things."

Unions pat themselves on the back after securing higher wages for their members, but it has always been at the expense of the consumer and of other workers. This is the reality which unions seek to evade. Higher consumer prices hit poor people the hardest. But who cares, when union members are enjoying cushy above-market pay levels with all the trimmings? I'm alright, Jack.

There is only one way to increase REAL wage levels. That is, the actual spending power (prosperity) of workers. That is, to improve the means of production so that each worker is more productive. The socialist left can evade this reality until they're blue in the face - it does not alter the facts. Technological innovation in the means of production is responsible first and foremost for the increases in living conditions - not unions.

Unions have a legitimate and essential role. That is, to ensure that their members are paid at least the fair (market) rate and that their working conditions are safe and comfortable. Everything else they do in the name of their members comes at a price, which the rest of us pay. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[canucklivinginUSA]

08:12 PM on 12/03/2008

Nicely said Sharke

[Sharke]

07:56 PM on 12/03/2008

Unfortunately those quick to hype unions are evading the realities of economics and business.

Wages, ultimately, come from revenues. Without revenues, there could be no wages.

In an typical manufacturing operation, around 60-75% of revenues cover labor costs. Of the rest, some covers materials, fuel, premises etc, more still is reinvested in the company. After that, a paltry 3-5% ends up as "profits" .

The trouble with the rhetoric of the socialist left is that they persistently evade this reality and act as if the only thing between the worker and higher wages is the "greed" of business owners. According to them, if only the greedy capitalists would take less in profit, workers could enjoy a higher standard of living.

Yet, even if profit margins were halved, this would make little difference to the huge proportion of revenues which pay labor costs. The question remains then: how do unions procure significant wage increases?

There are two basic ways. Firstly, the company can seek to lower overall labor costs by laying people off and streamlining the operation. This is of course, not acceptable to union leaders.

Secondly - and this is mostly how unions have procured wage increases over the years - the company can raise the price of their goods. Since wages come from revenues, the only way to increase them without making the operation more efficient is to increase revenues.

[joeibt]

06:31 PM on 12/03/2008

I'm a former Organizer for the Teamsters union. In fact, I was the President of my union for many years, and a lifelong union member who grew up in a union household. If I wasn't for workers rights, my father retained the right to abort me until age 30. I'm still here, and probably more liberal than he is.

The employee Freee choice Act is AWESOME legislation for union organizers and officers. For workers however, it's about the worst thing that could happen, and you should think twice before supporting it. Your arguments for the legislation is the exact reason we need secret-ballot elections. Do employers try to intimidate employees during this process? Hell yes...but not in the same way unions do.

Sad to say, but unions, at least the Teamsters union, are corrupt. They just are. They fix contract ratification votes. They fix shop steward elections, and they fix their own officer elections. Again, I was the President of my union, I know of which I speak. They will do anything and stop at nothing to get an employee to sign cards. Sometimes without their knowledge if you can believe it. However, this is one election they cannot fix. Yet.

The election as sponsored by the NLRB is the great equalizer. It's a fair process that cannot be manipulated by either side. Oh yeah...unions win 60% of these elections

[robotkiller]

05:39 PM on 12/03/2008

How is a secret ballot unfair?

[Ramirez]

09:33 PM on 12/03/2008

Secret ballots are unfair to unions because the unions cannot find out who voted against them.
The absence of pay-back threat makes it hard for unions to win elections.

[robotkiller]

05:36 PM on 12/03/2008

Don't know why my comment was deleted...... Can someone explain how a secret ballot is unfair? This is a serious question.

[manitoumackinac]

05:47 PM on 12/03/2008

The Secret Ballot is not eliminated with the legislation.

[Kartoffel]

09:18 PM on 12/03/2008

Secret ballots will never be used if card check is available, so the end result will be the same as eliminating them.

[robotkiller]

05:34 PM on 12/03/2008

Honestly not being oppositional here, but what is wrong with a secret ballot? How is this not fair?

[robotkiller]

05:40 PM on 12/03/2008

Sorry for the triple post - HuffPo is acting up

[wendynyc]

04:29 PM on 12/03/2008

We need to renegotiate crazy Republican free trade agreements that basically suck out jobs from our country and expect workers to work for minimum wage at WalMart and the like!

[NWBrunette]

01:26 PM on 12/03/2008

A joke and a "yes" does not a legislative agenda make. There's a long way to go before there's anything like a commitment here. They're certainly not going out of there way to talk about it - which is a prerequisite for leadership on any issue.

[RTIII]

06:24 PM on 12/03/2008

Yes, but timing is vital...
.

[slowtono]

01:20 PM on 12/03/2008

So Sammie baby whats with that Obama man blue suit. We Republicans thought that after Bill the dress code for the day was sweat suits? If you want to exploit this story you should start with a comparative point. Lets see....Biden left a $300,000 year expenses paid job to be VP which is a promotion. So whats he worth. And since the democratic parties money spent numbers are going to exceed well over all previous runs for presidential races you should be the first to start reporting about what the Dems spent. The honeymoons ending it's time for facts and figures. You can run old stories are start making news. $150,000 is nothing, SAC's is wal-mart to a Harvard man! Clothing allowances weren't even kept, it was an open check policy. Enjoy!

[RTIII]

06:27 PM on 12/03/2008

If you haven't noticed, every new year brings many "most expensive ever" events because our money is worth less than ever and "inflation" (devaluation) keeps on moving. There are also more of us than ever before so there are also plenty of "most"s, "largest"s, etc. in nearly every venue.
.

[gladys46]

12:45 PM on 12/03/2008

GO UAW .... fight for the rights of living wages for your workers ... if CEO's of WALL STREET can live the lives of greedy p i g s, workers are entitled to commensurate salaries for their dam n labor for "work" !!!