Contrast on the Hill: Country Club CEOs vs. Working People

Here's what you saw today if you're a Member of Congress. 

This afternoon, more than 2,000 working people rallied outside the Senate in support of an important part of our economic recovery: the Employee Free Choice Act.  At that rally more than 1 million cards signed by people who support the Employee Free Choice Act were delivered to Members of Congress.  It was a true show of the broad public support for this bill. 

<

Meanwhile, in the halls of Congress, CEOs are having their "Executive Lobby Day" so they can spread lies and misinformation in order to keep wages down and perpetuate inequality.  How do we know what they'll say?  Because we went into one of their presentations at a California country club in which top anti-worker lawyers met with business leaders, and captured video of how they talk about defeating the Employee Free Choice Act.

What do CEOs say about working people behind closed doors at the country clubs?  Well, they're first interested in protecting their own interests.  In the presentation, one lawyer from the top anti-employee firm Jackson Lewis told the business leaders that "your choice goes away," because under the Employee Free Choice Act, when workers say they want a union, the workers get a union.  

That's a feature, not a bug.

The purpose of the Employee Free Choice Act is to give the choice of forming unions to workers.  Right now, it's up to CEOs if workers can form a union.  The choice should be that of employees, not their bosses.  And giving that workers that choice will be key to our economic recovery. 

Paul Krugman says passing the Employee Free Choice Act will be "a huge step forward toward recapturing the middle-class society."  Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich says the economic impact of the Employee Free Choice Act is "necessary if we want our economy to succeed."

And yet, big businesses are spending millions of dollars to organize against this bill.  CEOs are in Congress this week to argue that they should be able to maintain complete control over their workers joining organizations to bargain for better pay and benefits.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) - which is hosting the CEO lobbyist day on the Hill - have adapted the Chicken Little strategy for fighting Employee Free Choice. When confronted with legislation to improve American workers' lives, the Chamber and NAM invariably threaten economic ruin and rampant government control.

The problem is, their predictions have never come true. Consider their records:

• On fair pay for women: NAM opposes the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to strengthen women's ability to challenge pay discrimination.
• On rights for people with disabilities: When the Americans with Disabilities Act was being debated back in 1989, the Chamber opposed it, saying, "Small businesses simply do not have the money in the bank"
• On minimum wage increases: NAM opposed a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15/hour in 2000. In 2007, the Chamber also opposed increasing the minimum wage, claiming that "Even this modest increase will hurt free enterprise."
• On guaranteed family medical leave: The Chamber opposed the FMLA back in 1991, claiming, "We think most Americans don't want the federal government to be their personnel administrators."

It's clear that big business interests don't want to see working Americans get ahead in this rough economy, no matter what the policy issue.  That's what Members of Congress need to remember when their hear from both workers and CEOs lobbying them today about the Employee Free Choice Act.

Comments

[ssfahrer]

Why weren't unions declared "illegal combinations in restraint of trade" under the Sherman Antitrust Act? Doesn't this describe a union: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal". (See the Wikipedia article on the Sherman Antitrust Act. and US Code 15:1, which goes on to say "Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.") Since unions ARE corporations, any attempt they make to increase wages (thus reducing funds available to the firm that their workers are representing and "restraining trade" in the process) OR force a "union shop" where nonunion workers CAN NOT be employed (thus restraining trade for nonunion workers) would appear to be in violation of the law. Why aren't unions prosecuted and put out of business for doing these apparently ILLEGAL activities??????

[Rule Of Law]

Wait until we are well and truly in the grips of a Depression; when the Corporate whip begins to fall across the backs of American workers who did not fight for the right to organize.

THEN we will hear their voices raised in a howl of anger and betrayal against those comfortable companies that promised them so much and then delivered so little. When the "clean industry" workers of Silicon Valley and the blue collar laborers of steel, coal, auto, and their brothers find that they are all the same regardless of whether they work in a cube, an assembly line or a foundry.

When they become expendable and are forced to walk to work each day through lines of a thousand people waiting to take their jobs at lower pay, then they will understand that perhaps a public vote--that shows without a doubt the will of the workers, and prevents behind the scenes tampering--might not have been such a bad deal after all.

[GetTheFreakOuttaHere]

Hear, hear!!!!

[Aldyth]

I'm a Democrat and I don't support this bill. It doesn't offer the protection of a secret ballot, which is fundamental to our democracy. Change that and I'll support it.

[PECarman]

I have been on both sides of the union issue. I believe that the unions serve as a check on runaway corperations and their CEO's. Every few years, when a union contract need re-negotiated, the corporate business gets reviewed and publicized. Its hard for a negotiation team to defend not allowing the union workers a $.50 raise when the CEO and management team takes big raises and bonuses. I believe that part of the problems with the economy is the lack of control that was executed by the unions.

[Gdebs]

I have helped organize a union friend and I can tell you that a secret ballot is a crock. The bosses know who is doing the agitating and who they can intimidate. "Workers need "Card Check."