With Friends Like These...Robert Reich's "Mistakes" on Employee Free Choice Act
Hard as it may be to believe, a moderate pro-union liberal, Robert Reich, the former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, echoed the right-wing myth that the Employee Free Choice Act takes away the secret ballot while acting as the token liberal guest on CNBC, the network that brought you the economic meltdown. Reich's misinformation fits in well with a broader campaign by Democratic-linked loybbing firms to kill the bill, as reported by Thomas Frank in the Wall Street Journal, even if that wasn't Reich's intention.
But it's also a sad commentary on the need for the progressive movement to broaden its reach on behalf of the legislation -- and to overcome the mainstream media's barriers to telling the truth about the legislation. As reported by author Randy Shaw on the San Francisco alternative news website Beyond Chron:
Reich's comments on Kudlow's April 20 show reveal that he neither understands the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) nor is an effective advocate for its passage.
Kudlow & Company is part of CNBC's attempt to steal Republicans from FOX News, and its pundits are dominated by conservative, anti-union voices. In the show's April 20 debate on EFCA, Reich's opponent emphasized his outrage at EFCA's alleging depriving workers of a secret ballot.Reich should have responded by saying that EFCA did nothing to abolish workers right to a secret ballot election. Reich should also have told viewers that workers have long joined unions through signing authorization cards, and that all EFCA does is prevent employers from vetoing this process.
What did Reich say instead? He agreed that it's wrong to abolish the secret ballot -- which EFCA does not do -- and said he shared his conservative opponent's objections to that provision.
So much for point-counterpoint.
EFCA backers were no doubt thrilled to hear the only liberal on CNBC mimic conservative falsehoods on employee free choice.
Unfortunately, Reich did not stop with misinforming CNBC viewers about secret ballots. Seeking agreement with his right-wing adversaries, he asked whether they could not agree that companies that violate union organizing rights should pay steeper fines.
Reich proposed quintupling the current fines to deter wrongful employer conduct. Where have we heard that idea as a substitute for real reform before?
From his former Clinton Administration colleague Lanny Davis, who represents Starbucks, Whole Food and Costco in opposing EFCA. Davis has been promoting increased fines wherever he goes, and it is not much of a leap to conclude that his viewpoint reached Robert Reich.
So we have a former Clinton Labor Secretary publicly promoting the anti-EFCA agenda of two of the nation's largest anti-union companies.
It looks like the growing grass-roots and progressive campaign on behalf of the legislation still has some work to do penetrate the Washington insider bubble that insulates even those pundits who should be strong, effective advocates for the legislation.
Instead of offering pro-business misinformation and dubious compromises, Reich might have been better off if he'd attended the kick-off on Capitol HIll Wednesday of a progressive campaign organized by Jobs for Justice that sees the bill as way for low-wage workers to enter the middle class. As reported by the AFL-CIO Now blog, author Barbara Ehrenreich and advocates for the working poor urged passage of the legislation as a way to help remedy our economic and workplace misery:
As Ehrenreich says, our nation's economic crisis can be traced back to declining conditions for the millions of workers at the mercy of bosses and whose wages and benefits aren't enough to get ahead.We've been so unequal as a society that it's collapsing out from under us. Easy credit became a substitute for decent wages.
This is related to a sharp decline in bargaining power--workers have no power and no rights in the workplace. The Employee Free Choice Act, Ehrenreich says, is both a human rights measure and an economic stimulus measure.
Ai-Jen Poo, an advocate for domestic workers, says the home health aides, housekeepers and others she works with are enthusiastic about the Employee Free Choice Act. The conditions they face--long hours, low wages, poor treatment and a lack of security and stability on the job--are, unfortunately, spreading to the rest of the workforce and that's why we need the Employee Free Choice Act:
"Everyone in the community has a stake in the Employee Free Choice Act. Unions are the first line of defense against greed. We all have a stake in protecting the basic human right to collectively bargain--this is about long-term sustainability and survival for working people."
That sounds like a lesson that Robert Reich still needs to learn.
UPDATE: One reason that Democrats like Robert Reich may have spead misinformation -- perhaps accidentally -- about the Employee Free Choice Act could be that they and other pundits got their notions about the bill from a messaging blitz by well-connected Democratic lobbyists who have been working against the legislation. As Thomas Frank reported in the Wall Street Journal yesterday and as analyzed by the the Facing South magazine:
But it's important to step back a moment and ask how, after the rush of hope that surrounded the victory of Obama and Congressional Democrats -- backed by millions in labor contributions -- did we get to this point?Many have pointed to the well-financed corporate opposition to the act -- a war chest which, among other things, has been used to fund dubious research warning that the labor bill would cost "thousands of jobs."
But Frank points to an important and under-reported piece of the story -- lobbying firms with strong ties to Democrats who are helping deep-six labor's agenda. After asking why Democrats seem treat labor like an ATM machine for campaign cash, only to turn their backs on them in Congress, Frank offers these devastating set of facts:
"[M]aybe it's just the money. Consider the lineup of lobbyists that retail giant Wal-Mart has assembled to make its case against EFCA. According to lobbying disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate we find that Wal-Mart's lobbyists include Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti (which employs former presidential candidate John Kerry's liaison to Congress during the 2004 campaign), a former legislative director for Rahm Emanuel, and a former assistant to Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
"Wal-Mart has also secured, according lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, the services of Tony Podesta, of the Podesta Group, one of the hottest lobby shops in Democratic D.C. Mr. Podesta is joined in pushing Wal-Mart's views on EFCA by a former assistant to Democrat Mark Pryor, the other senator from Arkansas. [FS note: The firm was co-founded with John Podesta, a lead Obama advisor, although he's no longer listed on the group's manifest.]
"The real standout on Wal-Mart's labor-issues roster, though, is D+P Creative Strategies, which wears its liberalism as proudly as last week's tax protestors did their three-cornered hats. According to its Web site, D+P "highlights partnership, shared benefits, and a commitment to advancing social justice goals." The disclosure form for its Wal-Mart EFCA activities lists a former assistant to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. The bio of its principal, Ingrid Duran, who is also listed as a Wal-Mart lobbyist, declares that the firm's mission is 'to increase the role of corporate, legislative and philanthropic efforts in addressing the concerns of Latinos, women, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) communities...'."
Labor has mobilized people and money in unprecedented amounts to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed. But at the end of the day, the money and connections of the corporate opposition -- including Democratic lobbyists -- may carry the day.
It's not over yet, of course, and labor leaders, backed by a massive grass-roots campaign, are sticking by their principles and taking a tougher tone with Democrats, even as they're open to reasonable compromises to hold moderate support the legislation. As Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports:
Whether out of despair, frustration, or the political calculus that more sheer aggression is needed, labor officials and progressives are taking a far more forceful tone in their advocacy for the Employee Free Choice Act.Over the past few days, national and grassroots efforts have been launched in support of the union-backed legislation aimed not only at the Republican swing vote in the Senate, but at wavering Democrats and even the president. The strategy is in contrast to the campaign waged up to this point, when supporters of the bill -- which would allow for unions to more easily organize -- had largely tried to frame it in a more acceptable light for moderate Senators.
With several of those moderates now expressing reservations over EFCA, labor hands are expanding the scope of their efforts: calling on the wavering and even ostensibly pro-EFCA Democrats to stand with them.
"I wouldn't say [it is] so much getting tougher on 'where they stand' since they've been talking about it," said one union official, "but getting tougher on saying they need to stand with America's workers."
Even the White House is in the spotlight. Acknowledging the need to "hunt for a solution" for labor law reform this year, Service Employees International Union chief Andy Stern nevertheless did something a bit rare during a recent interview with the Washington Post: he subtly digged Barack Obama for not offering more help.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
the Nurses Union in Seattle Washington ROCKS! Good jobs, good differentials, good staffing, good rates for experience up to 10 years... The rest of the country should be so lucky!!!
There is a great need to allow workers to organize and unionize if there is a majority in favor. No doubt there have been numerous incidents where businesses have intimidated workers trying to form a union. That must be addressed in the current proposal. However, it's time to read the tea leaves. The bill will never pass until it guarantees secret elections. It's time for everyone to recognize that fact.
Set a standard of 30%-40% as the level at which an election must be held.
Insure that the election is held within a timely period where only the dual acceptance of petitioners and business can delay that election.
Require that no layoff or firing of workers be allowed during the period up to the election.
Allow all workers on the company role at the time of petition to vote in the election.
Provide that stiff penalties apply if either business or union attempt to intimidate any employee.
Require any discussion of the choice held on company premises must include representatives of the union be in attendance.
Require that business representatives be allowed to attend union sponsored meetings held off premises.
While there is certainly room to negotiate some of the above recommendations, it would take away the perception that the EFCA is undemocratic. It's my impression that unless a serious remake of the bill is presented, the fate of the legislation is dead. Pragmatism is called for if we expect to level the playing field between business and worker.
I support the EFCA but it does eliminate elections. This is what the pending bill says:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the [Federal Labor Relations] Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection"
"[T]he Board shall not direct an election but shall certify" That's it. If a majority of workers sign authorizations in public there is no election. The only way workers opposed to representation can get a secret ballot is for 30% to sign a public decertification ballot.
Nothing prevents workers from seeking certification at the same time an election is being conducted. If a majority sign cards in public, but vote no in private the representative would still be certified.
I should have said "30% to sign a public decertification petition."
Advocates of the EFCA have a lot of work to do. To the layman, it appears to be trying to replace a fairly straight-forward (if corrupted) system with an incredibly complicated arcane system. Secret ballots if necessary, but not necessarily secret ballots?
As someone who is sympathetic to organized labor, I've tried to find good info on the "pro" position, but have found very little in clear plain language. If an interested person searching can't figure it out, what chance does the MSM have of presenting the act in a balanced way? Especially when you've got right-wing special interests constantly declaring that it's the end of democracy. At least I understand what they're saying, even if they're wrong.
I second these sentiments. I am not knowledgeable enough on this subject and would like someone to explain it to me....
Somebody please anser.....
I believe the whole idea of this act is to make it easier to unionize, correct?
If so, HOW does this make it easier? If you vote, or you sign a public declaratio
Secret ballots go away - face it. That's not american. Robert Reich is correct again.
Opponents of EFCA simply don't know what they're talking about.
I have had the experience of being bullied and threatened by the Dean of a private college for belonging to a group that merely wanted to organize adjunct faculty members. We were threatened with the loss of our jobs, called into private meetings with the Dean, scorned, insulted and abused. This wasn't some blue-collar machine shop where a bunch of good old boys were looking for a decent wage and a lunch break. This was an "institution of higher education" where the Dean was earning several hundred thousand dollars a year and students were paying fifty grand a year for tuition.
Workers need protection from employer abuse. EFCA is an attempt to level the playing field. Fat cats are scared shitless that they will lose a shred of their power to abuse and bully workers.
I'm all for unions being able to organize workers. But everything I have read about EFCA points to employees signing IN PUBLIC to ask for an opportunity to unionize. This is NOT A SECRET BALLOT. It is an opportunity to put people on the spot and under the pressure that can be generated by the company OR the union.
Secret ballots are the American way.
True, but the act is NOT limiting in regards to that card signing provision; the employees involved still have the option for a secret ballot, and all assertions otherwise are FALSE. As I understand the bill, the non-secret card signing is a provision that can be used if a majority of concerned parties believe that employer coersion during the waiting period would endanger the unionizing effort.
Or what about union coercion? There are well founded concerns about those who vote against unionizing on a public ballot facing retaliation.
The EFCA would not be necessary if owners would not bust Union efforts by pressuring employees behind the scenes. There must be a better way.
Rolo is correct. The secret ballot isn't going away, it's just being removed as a tool for corporate thugs to kill unions.
why are the supporters of EFCA so afraid of the Secret Ballot to the point that they use the union thuggery against those who don't support it? SEIU and the CWA have and are being sued for actions that prevented their union members from making a free choice.
Change the legislation to make union certification by secret ballot ONLY, and I'll support it. Workers should not be subject to initimidation by employers.
If that's the case, then I don't think there'd be anything to be concerned about, as that issue is already resolved. The big issue seems to be the waiting period between the union pitch and the actual vote, and the frequent employer pressure campaign to thwart the union effort.
With Friends Like These...Ro
We Expect Talk Like This From Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a column in today’s Politico, “Arbitration the real threat in EFCA,” that raises important objections to the binding arbitration provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act. However, the Speaker LIES about the legislation by saying it would force politicized, National Labor Relations Board arbitrators into the employer-union negotiation process.
For More on the Story Visit My Blog http://efc
Under EFCA, the secret ballot does pretty much go away. Reich is not wrong. If those passing around the union organizing cards can't get a majority of employees to sign, they could still use the current process of petitioning to the labor board and asking for an election. However, even today, unions rarely ask for an election unless more than a majority sign cards. For decerts, my experience is that elections are virtually always held. In rare situations an employer can cease recognition if a majority of employees express that intent to the employer. However, the factors the labor board uses to determine if it is a valid employer reaction (to cease recognition of the union) are very difficult to meet (as they should be).
All in all, under EFCA the seret ballot, in effect, goes away. Why else would unions be spending millions on getting it passed?
From the FAIR website:
"...under the proposed law, workers would still have the right to vote in a National Labor Review Board (NLRB) "secret ballot" election if 30 percent of the workforce signs cards, just as they do now. Under current law, employers rather than workers get to decide whether unionization requires a card check or a vote. The false claim that EFCA would eliminate secret ballots has been a major talking point of anti-EFCA campaigner
http://www
First, if the secret ballot is such an important thing, why can the employer get the union decertified with merely a majority sign up (also called card check by the anti-worker crowd)??
Second, fines do not work. Companies often consider fines simply as an additional cost of doing business, and even quintupling the current fines would STILL cost the company less than they think it would cost to have a union in their shop. Not to mention the fact that fines often take YEARS to occur, not even counting the appeals process which takes YEARS longer. Add it all up and the employees who wanted to join a union are now retired before the company pays a paltry 10 cents to each of them!
"[W]hy can the employer get the union decertified with merely a majority sign up...?"
They can't. Here is the only method for decertification provided in existing law which will not be altered by EFCA:
"Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and a labor organization made pursuant to section 158 (a)(3) of this title, of a petition alleging they desire that such authority be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer."
There are no fines in the current law, except for the criminal offense of interfering with the NLRB and its agents. EFCA adds a civil fine of up to $20,000 per violation for willful or repeated commission of unfair labor practices before the first collective contract takes effect. It also provides that an employer who is found to have discriminated against an employee "in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization" before the first collective contract will be required to pay the employee three times the back pay. EFCA moves organization matters to the front of the line within the NLRB..
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
