Employee Free Choice Act Could Be Biggest Reform Since New Deal

While it hasn't gotten much attention, one of the most important issues that our elections this November could decide is the future of organized labor in the United States. This is important not just for the 15.7 million workers who happen to be in unions, but for the vast majority of the entire 154 million-member U.S. labor force. The wages, benefits, and working conditions of most employees are affected by collective bargaining even if they don't have a union. For example, employers who want to keep unions out will sometimes have to offer their workers such amenities as health insurance.

One of the most important problems that our economy has faced for the last 30 years has been stagnating real wages. With inflation now running at 10.6 percent over the last quarter, the problem appears to most people to be rising prices, including food and energy. But for more than two decades prior to the past year, inflation has been tame. Yet the real - inflation-adjusted -- wage of the typical employee barely increased at all over the whole 34 years from 1973-2007.

This is amazing, when we consider that productivity - the amount that workers produce per hour - increased quite substantially over the period. Measured very conservatively, if we take "usable productivity" - the increased production that we can expect to be reflected in rising wages - it rose by 48 percent from 1973-2007. So our economy grows but, unlike in the past, most employees do not share in the gains.

One important reason for this great leap backwards is that the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively have been sharply curtailed over the last three decades.

For example, employees still have the legal right to petition for a federally-run election at their workplace, in which workers can vote on whether or not to join a union. To get such an election, they need the signatures of at least 30 percent of the employees. But after the employees get enough signatures for the election, employers very often intimidate workers through threats and firings before the vote is held. The Center for Economic and Policy Research has estimated that one in five workers who are actively involved in a union organizing drive can expect to be fired. Many others are "persuaded" to vote against the union through a long, captive audience campaign of employer threats and harassment.

As a result of these tactics, only about 12 percent of employees are organized in unions today, as compared with 35 percent in the 1950s. Reform legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act would give employees a fighting chance to regain some of their lost rights. This bill would mandate that an employer recognize the union if it obtains the signatures of a majority of employees. There would be no need for the long and costly - especially to the workers who are fired - election campaign.

A poll by Global Strategies Group this month found that 68 percent of middle-class Americans support the Employee Free Choice Act. Polls also indicate that tens of millions would join a union if they had the choice.

The bill passed the House 241-185 but was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. It's a party-line split in the Senate (except for support from Republican Senator Arlen Specter). So the bill would need a Democratic president and something close to 59 Democrats in the Senate in order to pass.

This law would probably change Americans' lives more than any legislation since the New Deal brought us Social Security. The political influence of millions of new union members would also bring us closer to such basic reforms as universal health care. It's all long overdue.

This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on August 28, 2008.

Comments

[crease]

The EFCA is a good piece of legislation that needs to be passed.Unions helped build this country to what it use to be.Unions got children out of the workplace and into school,they broughtus the forty hour work week,vacations,sick pay and sfety rules for the work place.Unions are needed more and more these days due to rampant abuse to gain excess salaries for the top dogs while us at the bottom are left to scramble for food and a home.unions are needed to protect workers.Secret ballots or not I don`t care about ,it is union protection needed these days because to many people are working two jobs because of corporate greed.I have seen this personally through my own experience.

[Ben Dixon]

Maybe part of the problem is that unionized workplaces are considered an either or deal, either all the workers are union or thier not. Perhaps a third way is needed. Let those who want to form a union form one, even if its just two percent of the workers at a company, and let the rest of the work force join or leave as they see fit.

[All57States]

Let me get this straight.

When I go into the voting booth this November, I vote in secret. Next January members of Congress pick their new leadership via secret ballot. However, when voting for participation in a union, you have to vote with Tony Soprano looking over your shoulder?

[fishsandwichesr2good]

I'm not sure where the poster got his numbers. Census Bureau data(http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf) shows the following for median household income (inflation adjusted):

1973: $43,848
2007: $50,233

That's a 14.6 percent INCREASE.

I would also challenge the poll that is cited, i.e., "A poll by Global Strategies Group this month found that 68 percent of middle-class Americans support the Employee Free Choice Act." I'd be shocked if 68 percent of "middle-class Americans" ever even heard of this Act.

And forming a union through signature collection strikes me (pun intended) as a recipe for abuse and intimidation.

[Rule Of Law]

14.6% in 35 years? Oh, let me break out in a rousing chorus of "If I were a Rich Man!"

[fishsandwichesr2good]

It's a lot more than the ZERO percent that the poster was claiming. Just remember that these are inflation adjusted so it's quite a meaningful increase. Are you saying that a 14.6 increase wouldn't have a dramatically positive affect on your standard of living? Heck, it would help your Mom out -- she could start charging you rent.

[DuganS1]

The size of the average household has also decreased substantially from 3.01 in 1973 to 2.58 now. The median household income numbers are also very flawed because they don't take into account fringe benefits which have gone up substantially in that time and use the cpi which penalizes household for seeing the value of their house go up. The numbers also don't take into account the massive increase in the quantity of goods and services available from then to now and the increase in quality of life overall -- people live in bigger houses, have more houses, have more boats per capita, have bigger TVs, infinately more TV stations, cell phones, computer, internet, any appliance you could want, more clothes, fly more often, stay in hotels and resorts more often, golf more often, etc.

[sd4david]

We don't need 59/60 Dems. 54 or 55 will do. The "Moderate" Republicans in Blue States will have huge campaigns that will force them to vote the correct way, under threat of losing their next election.

[KenFL]

I'm an ardent Obama supporter, and I'm afraid this single issue could cost him the election.

This Orwellian-named act would allow aggressive union organizers to bully employees one at a time into signing union cards, until they get a majority, and would take away the right to a secret ballot.

Most employees see this as an attempt to take away free choice. These are the working-class voters Obama needs!

Whether or not you think unions are wonderful, and more people should join them, this is the wrong way to go about it.

It smacks of desperation. If we can't convince employees to join, or we think management has an unfair advantage, we'll change the rules in our favor and win.

That's not what Democrats are supposed to stand for. How can Democrats, with a straight face, criticize the Republicans for underhanded tactics and dirty tricks, and then do this?

[Gidster]

This legislature is meant to help, not force employees to Unionize. I have never been pro union, I have always felt that the greed of unions, especially the UAW, caused auto makers to move their plants.
However, now we are faced with massive job losses and few new jobs created, employers are reducing benefits and wages to increase profits. No one is protecting employees anymore.

BTW, the Census report states on page 1 of the report that :
The estimates on this report are based on a sampling and may differ from actual values because of sampling values or other factors.
Does not make fish wrong, does not make him right either