The Employee Free Choice Act, aka "card check" is the most contentious issue now before Congress. The proposal would change labor law so that a union could be created if union organizers obtain over half of the employees' signatures. No private ballot would be required unless 30 percent of workers demand one in writing. Moreover, 120 days after unionization, federal arbitrators would set the conditions of work should the union and management disagree.
Why has this proposal generated such attention from both business and labor to the point that swing vote, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, said it has been the "most lobbied" issue in his entire career in Congress?
With a nation reeling in a harsh recession, the challenges faced by Detroit auto companies and the pro card-check forces in control of Congress and the White House, it seems like the best or the worst time to raise this proposal.
As the House passed this proposal two years ago, it comes down to the 60 votes needed in the Senate to stop debate (invoke "cloture"). Senators Specter and Blanche Lincoln's recent announcement that they would vote against cloture -- and a few other Democrat Senators stating this is "not the time" -- would seem to have squelched the debate for now.
Yet, both business and labor have not given up, and few on either side are talking compromise.
Labor unions argue that union membership and the middle class are in decline, and furthermore, that this legislation is necessary to expand the middle class and create meaningful jobs. They say that management intimidates employees prior to any private vote, so a stealth petition drive creating a union is necessary.
Businesses say that preserving a worker's private vote is sanctimonious. Some businesses argue that unions restrict competitiveness, deny flexibility and reduce jobs.
I am the son of a union organizer, but I represent more than 2,000 companies. I have never felt stronger that a proposal would be so bad for our country. I spend time on the AFL-CIO website and comments section on its blogs simply to understand how and why the unions can see things so differently than me.
I know (and lots of research shows) this proposal, if enacted, will cost millions of American jobs. The CEOs of my member companies also tell me this. From the biggest hi-tech CEOs to the guy in a garage with one employee, manufacturer, software company or service provider, they all agree that if this proposal becomes law, they will be incentivized to outsource. Most technology jobs are location neutral and can be performed anywhere in the world.
Talking to big and small company CEOs, I believe they also view themselves as caring about their employees and agonize over any non-cause firing. They don't sleep well because they are always thinking about the people responsibilities of their job. Those that are familiar with unions have had varied experiences. Those that are not familiar do not want unions.
The data does not support the union arguments. In 2007, almost 6,000 charges were filed against unions with some 85 percent alleging illegal restraint and coercion of employees. Of those, more than four out of five were filed by individuals with other unions filing many of the rest.
The present law does not seem to disfavor unions. Union membership actually rose in 2008. What card check would do is guarantee big union membership rolls and provide a jump in mandatory union dues.
In any case, even members of Congress are saying they have had enough.
Democrat and Republican members agree that this has been among the most heavily lobbied issues in their career. Both parties report the issue is causing them a lot of time and angst. All agree that the sides of the debate are so far divided that a compromise seems inappropriate, if not impossible.
Republicans and Democrats say they have never seen business so united. Legislators are concerned about the next election and how what they do on this issue will play out (no matter what their position) given the intensity of both sides.
Increasingly, Democrats are saying this is the wrong time to have a "card check" debate given the challenges of Detroit and the economy. Some Republicans appreciate that this issue is one that clearly differentiates them from Democrats, but they are horrified that if the bill becomes law it will hurt our national competitiveness.
The only compromise I see now is that both sides agree to drop the issue until the economy improves. In the meantime, a respected bipartisan study group should research the issue of union and management intimidation and report back on whether the present law should change.
I am very hopeful that card check is dead for this Congress. The issue is divisive, harmful, and not a good use of time by anyone.
Given the national economic crisis, unions need to do a reality check on card check and check out on this issue.
Gary Shapiro is the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association.
A recession caused by corporate greed of staggering proportions.
I don't see all this good will from the American business community that you speak of. If there was such a grand out powering of respect we wouldn't have such a heated argument about a bill designed to simply keep businesses from firing people who try to organize unions.
We want to have our fair share of our labors. Its not an unreasonable request. Countries like France have far greater share of unionized workers, a similar standard of living, and a poverty rate nearly 1/3 of ours. I laughed at the argument of you and your associates when you tried to tell me that the Europeans were worse of then us. Now with the financial crises that American financial sector has perpetrated, your argument is even weaker. The American economy may be stronger than that of the EU, but that doesn't mean squat to most of us.
The economic crisis hasn't hit France? Go read a paper and check their unemployment rates.
If we did not spend 500B a year on military defending Europe, japan, Iraq, and south Korea- we would all be much better off than the Europeans.
Given the strong ties that the electronics industry has with the communist government of China, one has to wonder who Shapiro is representing when he opposes making it easier for American workers to form a union. Is that the position of the Chinese government? Are the communists, and their "american" business allies, afraid that if it becomes easier for american workers to join unions that a louder, more organized voice of working men and women might demand that Washington adopt trade policies that promotes the well being of those of people that work and live in the U.S. rather than the financial well being of the few?
Making it easier for American workers to join a union,and thus have a stronger voice not only in their workplaces, but also in Washington, might cause America to begin manufacturing goods at home. This may upset those businesses such as the electronics industry who favor the environment created by the Chinese communists. After all, where would "we" be if Americans started making things again and business began paying union negotiated wages and benefits?
What an ironic comment from someone advocating union principles that workers be paid the same regardless of performance or merit. I am as free market as they come and believe my life is complete now that I have had this charge against me....
But I have been to China and the only thing they have that I wish we had was their holding of US debt and their appreciation for how good Americans have it.
Unlike China, we do not pretend to be a society that is from each according to his means and to each according to his needs. We do not have to join the Communist Party, a membership organization with an extremist point of view, to get the best jobs ( hmmmm a membership organization you must join to get the best jobs - well what if you work in a unionized environment? Do you have to join a union if you work for a unionized company in a non right to work state?
Would China let us have this dialogue? Do I live in a country restricting speech and protests? What about how many children?
My experience is that the Chinese are gracious, savvy and tough. But we have different values, cultures and a different legal framework. Give me our country any day.
Sadly, your actions are weakening America. Innovations in technologies for consumer and military goods will occur in those countries that are engaged in the manufacturing process. By helping to gut America's manufacturing base, and relocating virtually all production overseas, you are helping to build the strength and power of a government that denies the most basic of human freedoms. But hey, you get to make buck.
Meaning there would be no Iphone because nobody could afford it.
There would not be any apple jobs created
There would not be any ATT jobs created
Shareholders that own these companies (unions pension funds, etc) would not go up.
Music lables, appstore developers, and all other iphone accessory jobs would be gone as well.
The government would not get 35% corp tax from Apple or ATT.
So yeah, looking at it above, its totally worth it to keep jobs in the USA.
On average, there are over 25,000 charges of coercion and illegal/retaliatory discharge filed against employers every year. If we use your figure above, that makes the ratio of employer abuses vs. union ULP's nearly 5 to 1.
But of course your claim that 5100 ULP charges involving illegal constraint and coercion is misleading. Only 40% of 8(b)(1) and 8(b)(2) charges against the union are related to organizing. The bulk of them revolve around representation disputes. When we look at non-DFR charges, we see that, on average, there are less than 2700 charges of coercion filed against the union each year, and complaints are issued in only 302 of them. For ULP allegations alleging coercion closed out between 10/1999 and 4/2007, employers were charge 9.44 times for every instance a union was charged, and the NLRB found merit for complaint issuance against the employer 15.33 times for every complaint issued against the union.
When we look at the data, it is clear that employers, not unions, are the ones doing all the arm twisting in these campaigns. Workers have a right to organize if they choose, and the Employee Free Choice Act protects that choice from employer abuses and threats.
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Annual%20Reports/Entire2007Annual.pdf
Alleged violations of the Act by employers were filed in 16,291 cases...The majority of all charges against employers alleged illegal refusal to bargain. There were 8178 such charges...Alleged illegal discharge or other discrimination against employees was the second largest category of allegations against employers, comprising 6853 charges....
The amount of $124,365,988 in reimbursement to employees illegally discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of their organizational rights was obtained by the NLRB from employers and unions. This total was for lost earnings, fees, dues, and fines. The NLRB obtained 1771 offers of job reinstatements, with 1273 acceptances.
For the year, the NLRB awarded backpay of $117.3 million. (Chart 9) Reimbursement for unlawfully exacted fees, dues, and fines added about another $7,023,249. Backpay is lost wages caused by unlawful discharge and other discriminatory action detrimental to employees, offset by earnings elsewhere after the discrimination.
Technically, you are correct. Present law actually disfavors EMPLOYEES attempting to form a union, a situation I currently find myself in. Despite having voted in favor of unionizing by a 72% SUPER-majority in a "sacred" secret-ballot election nearly 2 years ago, my employer has REFUSED to recognize our Union by IGNORING orders to begin bargaining by the NLRB at the Regional and National levels. The "case" now resides in the Appelate Court system, where YEARS of litigation often follow.
"Businesses say that preserving a worker's private vote is sanctimonious"
The premise that "businesses" are spending HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS opposing the EFCA in an effort to “protect” workers rights is LUDICROUS. The real issue here is KEEPING the advantages built into a system that seems to SUGGEST and DEFINE these strategies.
THIS is the process the anti-EFCA lobby would like the public to believe is the "Cornerstone of Democracy"?
Not from where I stand. My co-workers and I played by all the rules, survived a VICIOUS 6 week "union avoidance" campaign and voted by a HUGE majority to unionize. To further illustrate how PERVERSE this system is, the employer is allowed to run it's business as if the Union had LOST THE ELECTION.
"Sacred" secret ballot?
Tthe NLRB's version, NOT SO MUCH.
You didn't provide any detailed data from the NLRB. You needed to provide just that data on union "unfair labor practices" on "New Organizing" to support your argument that union organizers are coercing workers. And anyways, its not just the organizers; but its also their coworkers who are getting the workers to sign cards.
The original Wagner Act was passed in the depths of the Great Depression that guaranteed workers with the right to choose a union, and unemployment was up to 25 percent.
EFCA puts the decision back in the workers hands if they want majority sign-up or a secret-ballot election.
You can't compare a public secret-ballot election to a secret-ballot election that takes place on the boss's property. When a citizen is planning to vote for their candidate of choice, they are not forced to attend meetings and listen to the candidate of the opposition party; telling them that unless they vote for her/him, they could lose their job.
According to the CIA's World Factbook, from 1950-1975 (a period of high union membership and, I might add, strong economic growth), the top .01 % of income earners in the US earned $36 to every $1 earned by those in the bottom 90%. From 1980-2005, that number jumped to $141,000 per every $1! In 2005, average income for the bottom 90% of individuals was $29,500 in real dollars, the same as in 1980! See, when folks like Mr. Shapiro toss a halfpence to the urchins at Christmas time, they are being generous. Get it?
I guess Mr. Shapiro doesn't want to be confused by your data.
Have you ever considered how companies make decisions on where to build facilities?
It sure is easier and less stressful to locate them close to home but -
- The US has the second highest corporate tax rate of all developed countries - thus one incentive to shift overseas.
-Since September 11 we have actively discouraged the best and the brightest form going to school or work in the United States. Another reason to have facilities overseas.
-Our federal government is increasingly hostile to business (read the recent letter to Dingell from the CPSC about how thousands of businesses have been devastated without cause) http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/dingell032009.pdf
- And yes unionization would make it impossible to compete in fast moving industries. Unions do not allow tech savvy fast moving companies to exist. You can't differentially pay and you must keep poor performers. That is why communism failed in Easter Europe!
It does not take an accounting degree or rocket science to see how corporations pay taxes. Since you claim to value the rule of law - or at least that is your name - every incentive is for corporations to pay taxes under the rule of law. More it is quite transparent.
It is very easy to see how any public company pays taxes. Go to Yahoo Finance. Type in the corporate name or symbol. Once you get the company there is a listing on the right that includes financial information - go to income statement. Usually in the first set of numbers it says "income taxes". In less than 60 seconds you can see for example that Wal-Mart paid $6.9 billion in income tax. This does not include of course the myriad of other taxes such as the social security 7.51% match on employee salary, excise taxes, the sales taxes they collect, the tariffs they pay, etc. I think corporations do a very good job paying taxes and they are amazingly transparent for public companies.
Let them. Then treat them as foreign companies and tariff and tax the he// out of them.
THEN encourage the establishment of new companies in the same fields, supply their domestic competition with Federal subsidies to expand their market share, provide even more jobs and keep the taxes here at home.
Let's see who blinks first...
Recession: "Not now, it will cost too many people their jobs. Come back during the recovery."
Recovery: "Not now, profits are up but investors are still too sore. Come back a bit later, when the recovery is more solid."
Better times: "Not now, Republicans are controlling Congress and/or the White House"