GOP Blocks Obama's Labor Nominee, Pushes Big Lie on "Card Check"

Despite rising unemployment and a cratering economy, the GOP has placed a hold on the nomination of President Obama's choice for Secretary of Labor, the pro-worker Hilda Solis. The issue at stake is the Employee Free Choice Act, which aims to give workers a level playing field by allowing workers to choose a majority sign-up approach, dubbed "card check" by anti-union flacks, for selecting a union -- rather than keeping that option in the hands of employers.

But the original Wagner Act in the 1930s gave workers the right to use a majority sign-up process if they so choose, rather than the current election system that allows widespread intimidation by employers.

Studies of hundreds of organizing campaigns have found that a fifth of all pro-union activists are fired during a campaign, half of all employers threaten to shut down their plant and roughly 80% of employers hire unionbusting consultants. Employers are still free under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act to hold intimidating one-on-one "sweat" sessions to legally discourage workers from joining a union. And, as I found out while going undercover to a unionbusting seminar, it's equally legal for employers to just lie about the dire consequences facing workers if they join a union, from closed plants to somehow losing seniority and benefits. That's the system the Employee Free Choice Act was designed to reform, by increasing penalties for corporate lawbreaking, allowing employees to choose the majority sign-up approach but still retaining the employees' rights to hold a secret-ballot NLRB election if they want.

As part of a low-keyed effort to push Solis's nomination forward (she's still likely to be selected, after all) some union activists have put together a Facebook page to express support for her, along with contact information on reaching your Senators to give your views on her nomination:

"Americans for Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor" http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=47640477946

We support a swift Senate confirmation of Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor.

The mission of the Department of Labor is to foster and promote the welfare of U.S. employees and retirees by improving their working conditions and protecting their benefits, helping employers find workers and strengthening free collective bargaining.

We believe Hilda Solis is the best choice to lead and inspire the 16,600 Department of Labor employees in support of the rights of working Americans.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held its first confirmation hearing for Secretary of Labor-Designate Hilda Solis on January 9, 2009. Go to the link below to view the question and answer portion of the hearing.

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_01_09/solis.pdf

Comments appreciated. Calls, e-mails, and letters to your U.S. Senators would be even better. Join "Americans for Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor" on Facebook and post statements of support.

To find up to date contact information for your U.S. Senators and other elected officials go to:

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Another Facebook group supporting Solis is:
"1,000,000 Strong For Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor":
Here's the Website

The GOP's opposition to Solis is aided by right-wing and mainstream media outlets echoing the business groups' talking points and lies. You can read more about the media spin in an In These Times article here. Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake and Media Matters have been especially vigorous in their coverage, but no one matches Hamsher's much-needed bite in skewering reporters' mindless repetition of the Big Lies of conservatives. Some of their whoppers, backed with $200 million worth of paid ads and lobbying: The Employee Free Choice Act takes away the secret ballot, names of those who signed cards authorizing a union are shown to employers and posted in the workplace (they're held confidentially by the National Labor Relations Board representative), unions weaken the economy in a time of peril, ad nauseum. (Here are the facts about the legislation the anti-union PR blitz seeks to override.)

Today, she takes on W. James Antle III of the of The American Spectator, starting by debunking his use of bogus anti-union polling she quotes:

"Three out of four voters (74%) oppose the "The Employee Free Choice Act". Union households also strongly oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, 74% oppose to only 20% support.

"When given a more detailed description of the Employee Free Choice Act, nearly 9 out of 10 voters, 86%, feel the process should remain private and only 8% feel it should be public information. Again, even union workers feel strongly that the process should be kept private, as 88% said private and only 8% said public."

We strive for a bit more intellectual rigor around here, so let's look into what Republican pollsters McLaughlin & Associates consider "a more detailed description" of the Employee Free Choice Act. [The Atlantic's Marc] Ambinder:

"Pollster John McLaughlin, working for the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace,the question this way: There is a bill in Congress called the Employee Free Choice Act which would effectively replace a federally supervised secret ballot election with a process that requires a majority of workers to simply sign a card to authorize organizing a union and the workers' signatures would be made public to their employer, the union organizers and their co-workers. Do you support or oppose Congress passing this legislation."

"Worker's signatures would be made public to their employer, their union organizers and their co-workers." Yes, one can see where that might make union members uncomfortable. Who would guess that it's a zombie lie?
.

Even so, the right wing and the GOP have launched a high-profile smear campaign claiming, falsely, that the bill takes away the right to a secret ballot. Based on that lie, GOP leaders , with the help of an anonymous Republican Senator who has put a hold on Solis's nomination, are trying to force the Obama administration and any wavering Democratic Senators into backing away from the Employee Free Choice Act. But the Obama administration and leaders in Congress still support the legislation, even if they're not launching a full-court press to push the bill right now, because the economic recovery package is the top priority.

For now, GOP leaders -- just as with their unionbusting opposition to the auto bailout -- appear to be willing to play "chicken" with the nation's troubled economy by holding up the vote on the Labor Secretary, a key player in the Obama administration's economic recovery team. Stewart Acuff, the special assistant to the AFL-CIO president, bluntly condemns the risky tactic -- and points out its dangers to the GOP itself: " It's a bogus issue for them to use to hold up a Latino woman from a working-class background who understands the labor movement from the ground up and is a strong proponent of workers' rights. It's ridiculous and ultimately damaging to their party."

On top of that, with Obama enjoying nearly 80 percent public support, their obstructionist tactics over Solis throw a roadblock into Obama's plans for an economic recovery, with the Labor Department playing a key role in everything from jobs retraining to stopping wage theft to extending unemployment benefits. And the Employee Free Choice Act, as a new report from American Rights at Work Points out, is an essential part of making any economic recovery plan work. As underscored by the AFL-CIO NOW blog:

Restoring the right to form unions is a key part of an economic strategy to bring shared and sustainable prosperity to the middle class, creating the workforce needed for future economic growth, and ensuring workers have a role in crafting future policies that represent their interests.

The report, drawing on work by policy experts and journalists around the country, links the current economic crisis to a lack of bargaining power in the hands of workers--a problem due in large part to the fact that forming a union has become "a risk, not a right." Workers who try to form unions are routinely harassed, intimidated or fired with little to no legal recourse--denying them the bargaining power they need to improve their wages, benefits and economic security.

"A majority of employers aggressively use both legal and illegal anti-union tactics during union representation elections, which impedes workers' ability to form unions...

If given a free and fair chance, it's likely that many more employees would choose union representation. With expanded collective bargaining power, more workers would move into the middle class, stimulating economic growth and leading to more shared prosperity. "

Given all that, and the perilous state of the economy, it's particularly galling to union supporters that the GOP is using her unwillingness to spell out in detail her views of the Employee Free Choice Act she co-sponsored in Congress as an excuse to block her nomination -- and hold back an economic recovery:

The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, has been pressing for more detailed responses to questions posed on several issues, including the Employee Free Choice Act or card check bill.

The legislation would allow workers to organize simply by handing in enough cards expressing their preference. Under card check, union membership rose steadily in the past century until 1947, when Congress, under pressure from business, began requiring secret ballot elections. Unions claim the election campaigns allow management to dissuade workers with threats. Businesses argue that card check allows unions to pressure workers unduly to organize.

When asked Thursday whether he was satisfied with the answers Solis has given, Enzi said: "What answers?"

"She doesn't even recognize her own record when giving the answers," Enzi said. "Right now there are people who don't want her out of committee. It's not just me."

But while such right-wing spin is just part of a stalling tactic that will ultimately backfire, it's another sign of the importance of the grass-roots lobbying and activism needed to ensure that the President's labor agenda -- and his Secretary of Labor -- gets a fair chance in Congress.

UPDATE: An effective recent video from SEIU -- made before Obama assumed power -- underscores that key members of Obama's administration, including President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Tom Daschle and, yes, Hilda Solis all support the Employee Free Choice Act and the right to organize a union:

Comments

[JamesAntle]

04:41 PM on 01/27/2009

This is simply not an accurate portrayal of what I wrote. I posted one brief blog entry making note of a press release I received. I made clear the bias of the organization that paid for the poll, named the firm that conducted the poll, indicated that the numbers came from a press statement, and said that I had not seen the wording of the questions.

Once I had more information about how the questions were worded, I wrote another blog post saying they were loaded, linking to the same Marc Ambinder entry that Hamsher does. I did not endorse the original numbers.

W. James Antle III

[Art Levine]

07:46 PM on 01/27/2009

Thanks for writing, but I still haven't seen the American Spectator and other right-wing publications backing off of their contention that the Employee Free Choice Act takes away the secret ballot or promotes (mythical) widespread intimidation by union bosses. Take a look at this article in your magazine:
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/24/christmas-card-check

Also, bloggers need to double-check facts and at least link to the opposing point of view, even if it's just a blog post, and, if possible, seek comment from those you're criticizing..

And stop spreading lies about widespread union intimidation (from AFL-CIO NOW):

Claims of union intimidation are far from credible. According to AFL-CIO Associate General Counsel Nancy Schiffer, a study of NLRB decisions found only 42 cases of union fraud or coercion over more than six decades since the NLRB was established. Compared with the nearly 27,000 instances of company violations of workers’ rights in 2006 alone, it’s clear that corporate anti-union scaremongering is a ploy to disguise the anti-worker agenda.

[hey0there]

11:36 PM on 01/26/2009

I personally don't care for her, I think she is rash and on some positions (like h1-B non-immigrant visa workers) I think she doesn't truly understand the issues. So I hope they choose someone else.

[legalclubs]

05:14 PM on 01/26/2009

Wow. This was a one-sided article even for HuffPost.

Nobody can deny that both the unions and employers employ pressure tactics to prevail in their positions with the employees. This is why the secret ballot is so important, it allows that at the end of the day the employees can vote without Guido from the union or their boss looking over their shoulder. Protection from both sides.

On the other hand, the "Card Check" bill allows the union to determine who hasn't signed off on agreeing to unionization and Guido shows after work or even at your home asking you to sign "or else".

Look...fair is fair. If the majority of employees want to form a union, then the can vote on it in secret, but if they don't it isn't right to force a union on a group of employees where the majority is in opposition but for pressuring union tactics.

This is a bad idea and is a type of unfair partisan reward system that will come back to bite the Democrats in 2 years.

[Art Levine]

07:31 PM on 01/26/2009

You've done a great job of recapping right-wing propaganda. But just click on some of the links in my piece to read factual information about the legislation. "Card check," as the right calls it, or "majority sign-up" as union activists refer to it, has been enshrined in law since the 1930s. Kaiser Permanente, American Express, Harley-Davidson, etc. have granted voluntary majority sign-up. What's new in the legislation is that they want to give to the workers the right to choose whether they have an election by majority sign-up or secret ballot. The bill is an amendment to current law that retains the right to secret ballot if just 30 percent of workers want an election.
The right-wing has to feed lies to the public and legislators about the legislation because they'd like to see a low-wage economy, despite its impact on worsening the standard of living of Americans during an economic crisis.

[lj9283]

08:48 PM on 01/26/2009

"EFCA does not strip workers of their right to choose a secret-ballot. EFCA simply gives workers the additional option of selecting a union representative by majority sign-up.

There are three ways for workers to form a union:

1) By secret-ballot: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will conduct a secret-ballot election to select a bargaining representative if at least 30 percent of workers have signed a petition or authorization cards in favor of a union. If a majority of workers voting select a particular union, the NLRB will certify that union as the employees’ bargaining representative. EFCA does not change this process.

2) By voluntary card-check recognition: An employer can voluntarily decide to recognize a union representative if a majority of employees have signed authorization cards in favor of the union. EFCA does not change this process.

3) By NLRB-ordered recognition: As a last resort, the NLRB can order an employer who has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely to recognize a labor union if a majority of employees have signed authorization cards in favor of the union. EFCA does not change this process.

EFCA would simply add a fourth choice for workers seeking to form a union. The legislation would require the NLRB to certify a union representative if a majority -- more than half -- of workers sign authorization cards in favor of the union. "

http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=277768

[legalclubs]

01:25 PM on 01/27/2009

Art,

I read this website, other progressive websites, politically middle of the road websites, as well as conservative websites to get a good feel of what is truly happening and to truly understand the differing positions. So I'm hear to be educated, however, I'm also going to call you out if I think your full of it.

Now I've checked out your links and I've done some preliminary research regarding the bill and I simply don't see that bill "retains the right to secret ballot if just 30 percent of workers want an election." The bill appears to simply add a 4th way to unionize - obtain the signatures of more than 50% of the employees with all the implications of union pressure.

So please explain how this 30% opt out works and where I can read the details. It seems to me that if this was true then the union should obtain more than 70% of the employees' signatures making a secret ballot election irrelevant under the bill. Is this correct? Or is the 30% provision (which I can't find) something that would be impossible to comply with like a competiting "card check" signature mechanism whereby those who were attempting to do so could face union intimidation?

Like I said, I'm hear to learn. So let's see you post and explanation with a link to your source. Otherwise I'll just have to assume your just another one of the guys who makes up the facts to fit your philosophy.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

04:00 PM on 01/26/2009

Coalition for a Democratic Workplace =
astroturf ( fake grass-roots organization )

"The CDW is an astroturf organization of the National Association of Manufacturers, who aren't exactly pro-worker."

http: //www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/7/9627/04663/669/494628

[enochsmoky]

03:54 PM on 01/26/2009

The Employee Free Choice Act is not going to pass because even enough woolly headed Democrats can see that this is a huge negative for the economy. Obama knows passage of this act will cripple Democratic inroads into the business community. Why are our most inefficient industries the most unionized? Why are the most highly unionized industries the ones that have gone bankrupt or are contemplating bankruptcy. The old "more pay for less work" mantra is so 1930's. Come up with some real innovative ideas that do not injure or kill the private enterprise system that supports the all the welfare state constituencies which give allegiance to the "compassionate" Democratic party. Where is the compassion for the millions of small business owners who risk it all and are rewarded by more taxes, regulations and blood sucking unions.

[RoloTomassi]

05:21 PM on 01/26/2009

The BS you're promoting here [which you may actually believe through misguided ideology, or because you're a self-serving business owner] is nothing more than the typical GOP dishonesty we've seen for decades. Corporate America has stacked the deck in their favor, and they will fight for every last vestige of control; this has nothing to do with practical issues of shoring up the failing economy, and everything to do with being CHEAP & UNFAIR.

It does suck for the GOP and their corporate masters, but I have no sympathy for them; they've done everything in their power to screw the average US worker at every issue of wage and benefit, and someday they will have to pay the price for that shortsighted greed.

You know as well as I do that for the vast majority of small businesses this is a non-issue; the GOP is out to protect the major corporate players who IMO deserve every hit they take when it comes to ponying up all that they have withheld for so long.

[Mike949]

02:54 PM on 01/26/2009

I believe that Presidents should be able to have the people they want for their cabinet or to head various departments Short of discovering criminal behavior the nominations should be approved. I also believe it is fair to expect nominees to state their position on particular issues. Solis should simply indicate if she supports or doesn't support the EFCA.

As for the EFCA itself I fail to see how management intimidation tactics will be prevented by open voting. In fact, secret balloting allows the employee to tell management they don’t want a union while actually voting for the representation. In the same way, the employee can tell the union organizer they support representation while voting against it.

The only way an individual can truly be intimidated is by management or union organizers knowing how they voted.

Technically the opportunity for secret voting is a part of the EFCA however under the card check process people would know if you wanted a secret election.

I have difficulty understanding how secret voting is ever a bad idea.

[legalclubs]

05:17 PM on 01/26/2009

Ah...but Obama disagrees with you. Obama while a member of the Senate voted against several Bush appointees to varying positions and did so absent "discovering criminal behavior" on the pat of the nominees.

Unfortunately that pesky U.S. Constitution gets in the way of what liberals want. Too bad.

[lj9283]

08:52 PM on 01/26/2009

Ms. Solis explains the advantages of EFCA quite well in her post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-hilda-l-solis/victory-for-workers-righ_b_42466.html

[Chavez08]

01:51 PM on 01/26/2009

I think Americans are a little more informed about the "Trickle Down" (actuall, "Trickle Up") lies and the union-bashing rhetoric of those exploiting slave labor in Asia.

Americans support organized labor. Limbaugh and his merry-band of skin-head trollers can't spin this topic anymore. It's funny to listen to, in fact.

EFCA will pass, Americans will eventually see prosperity again and the entire "Conservative" movement will be historically documented as a chapter called "Americas' Dance with Fascism"

[VikingQuest]

01:26 PM on 01/26/2009

I have to say that this is a good thing for a couple reasons:

1. When this lady was asked about it in the hearings, she refused to answer on it and said she could state her opinion without checking with others first . . . basically looking for a canned statement before she could answer.

2. If you think a bunch of UAW heads are going to do anything but hurt our recovery than you haven't been paying attention. I think the American people had a good insight with the auto bailout to see how these guys run and they decided to say no to the auto bailout.

[Chavez08]

01:45 PM on 01/26/2009

Hmmmm, your recollection of the bailout drama is interesting.

The newspapers, blogs, politicians, witnesses all say it was the "Toyota Republicans" blocking the bill and Americans were not as opposed as they were to the banker bailout.

Also, ask people in the working-class today if they are treated better now that labor has no power and corporations used their new power to move all the jobs overseas.

Unions are coming back, Straussian lies and trolling is alot of time wasted when you could be cheering for America.

[VikingQuest]

05:49 PM on 01/26/2009

"The newspapers, blogs, politicians, witnesses all say it was the "Toyota Republicans" blocking the bill and Americans were not as opposed as they were to the banker bailout."

You may want to review that, Reid couldn't even get Dems on board and 61% of Americans opposed the auto bailout . . . A full 70% of respondents indicated that a bailout is unfair to taxpayers.:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/03/news/economy/automakers_poll/

[Chavez08]

02:01 PM on 01/26/2009

What else did Rush say? (sorry, I had to work through lunch...)

[SeaKitten]

01:13 PM on 01/26/2009

Let's see, so it's "playing chicken" with the economy by opposing a policy that will allow "Rocco" to shove a piece of paper in your hands while you "choose" whether or not to unionize? Give me a break.

[VikingQuest]

01:48 PM on 01/26/2009

This lady isn't going to save the economy, this lady can only hamper the recovery by giving businesses even more of a reason to outsource because of UAW like tactics.

[Nikola Tesla]

03:15 PM on 01/26/2009

Or we could tax out-sourcers into oblivion.

[nicholasjh1]

12:44 PM on 01/26/2009

The problem is the Union represents the workers as a group... forcing bad job classification. Some employers are forced to require degrees just to get around union seniority botching things up. Instead of the most qualified getting job positions, the highest seniority does. Many people in the Detroit Fire Dept will tell you that half the Chiefs capts etc simply suck at their job, but it doesn't matter it's completely seniority based. It makes no sense at all. And to make it worse someone with great experience often can't move to a highly unionized area, their experience doesn't count in the seniority system, keeping people qualified for jobs in the region from moving in. The union protects the status quo - sounds like a CONSERVATIVE position too me.

Yes there should be some job protections, but it should be in the law - not in a self serving group trying to strong arm employers to do things their way.

[Jimmyboyo]

12:40 PM on 01/26/2009

Solis is very anti-gay (publicly politicing for prop 8 in Ca) marriage and extremly anti-abortion and even anti-condoms.

She is economicaly liberal but socialy extreme right wing catholic.

[Nikola Tesla]

01:12 PM on 01/26/2009

Good thing she's not nominated for the Supreme Court.

[lj9283]

08:11 PM on 01/26/2009

Pure misinformation:

Ms. Solis was an organizer in the campaign AGAINST Prop 8

Women Against Prop 8
by: Brian Leubitz
Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM PDT

Across the state, female leaders are coming together to oppose Proposition 8. In Oakland, Senator Boxer will be joining Representative Barbara Lee and Asm, soon to be Senator, Loni Hancock. In Los Angeles, Rep. Hilda Solis will be joined by LA City Councilmember Jan Perry and legendary labor leader Dolores Huerta. And in Sacramento, Mayor Heather Fargo and future Asm. Mariko Yamada will rally against prop 8 at the CTA headquarters. These press events express the seriousness of which our Democratic leaders take Proposition 8. Leaders like Reps. Solis and Lee understand the importance of this fight right here in California.

http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7338

[lj9283]

08:38 PM on 01/26/2009

Ms. Solis is also the co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 - Which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity

[glinka]

10:36 AM on 01/26/2009

Hi

The conflict between the wealthy and employees is built into the system.

The corporate elite want "their" employees to work more hours, for less wages and benefirs and increased stress while the employees want to work less hours, for more in wages and benefits and less stress.

Additionally, the corporate elite want to the maximum job insecurity for their employees while their employees want to maximize job security.

The only method employees have to address the unequal economic power relationship they face in the workplace and within their society is unionization.

Employees and their unions still won't control access to important resources but they will introduce some input into the wealthy elite's monopoly over this control.

The only alternative to unionization is economic democracy whereby workers and their communities take control of the multinational banks, corporations and financial institutions.

The CEOs and other important corporate officials must be elected by all the workers and members of their communities.

And they, the blue and white collar workers, then send reps to state, regional, federal and international economic parliaments/congresses.

Political democracy has to expand into economic democracy or, eventually, political democracy becomes a plaything of the economic oligarchs.

[ShephDJ]

11:33 PM on 01/25/2009

If I don't see Solis confirmed this week, the Senate is going to hear from me.

[markusmarkus]

08:08 AM on 01/26/2009

Why not now?

[rizvisa1]

08:15 AM on 01/26/2009

As if they care but still good for you to let them hear rather than giving them a free pass.

[glinka]

11:28 PM on 01/25/2009

Unless you democratize corporations and decouple them from the control of the rich, you have to form a union to fight for your economic rights.

The wealthy always want their employees to work more hours, under more stress for less wages. In contrast, workers want to work less hours under less stress for more wages. The contradiction is basic to capitalism. And, of course, workers want job security. That is something capitalists are unwilling to give to all workers.

If you have progressive unions, they will construct political parties to work on expanding political democracy into the sphere of economic democracy. The ultimate democratization of the economy is taking investment decisions from the authoritarian corporate economic elite and placing that power into the hands of the workers and their communities.

For those who espouse corporate paternalism as the alternative to unions, please get your heads out of your collective asses.

[legalclubs]

05:24 PM on 01/26/2009

"Unless you democratize corporations..."

Ah...just in case you didn't know corporations do operate like a democracy. Each holder of a share of stock gets an equal vote per stock held.

[nannyree]

04:01 PM on 01/25/2009

Having gone through a union election I can assure you that management spent thousands of dollars trying to scare and intimidate workers,they pull you into the office and threaten you, some workers were fired, many years later though I am glad that I was a union member as we had educational benefits in our contract which enabled me as a single parent to go back to school. Now I am disabled and enjoying a pension in addition to social security which I never would have gotten if we hadn't endured 3 long months to have our secret ballot election. Most workers who sign cards want a union and it's their right ,so I hope this law gets passed.