Will a President Obama Fight for the Employee Free Choice Act?

I've been in communication with the Obama transition team since last week, unsuccessfully seeking an answer to the question, "Will an Obama administration make passage of the Employee Free Choice Act a top priority, and will it use all resources at its disposal to persuade lawmakers to pass it?" Representatives of the Obama transition team have so far declined to clarify or affirm the incoming administration's commitment to the legislation.

Questions about the new administration's commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act arose after Rahm Emanuel, who has been selected to become Barack Obama's Chief of Staff, recently declined to affirm an Obama administration's commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act when speaking to a group of prominent business leaders. Emanuel's unwillingness to make a statement about the Employee Free Choice Act stood out because Barack Obama made strong, unequivocal statements of support for the legislation during the presidential campaign.

According to a Wall Street Journal report on November 19:

(Emanuel) was asked his views on the push by labor unions to allow workplaces to be organized with the signing of cards attesting to union support rather than a secret ballot. Mr. Emanuel declined to say whether the White House would support the legislation, but he said the unions are addressing the concerns of a middle class that has seen U.S. median income slide over the past eight years, while health care, energy and education costs have soared.

The Employee Free Choice Act would make it possible for a majority of workers in an organization to certify a union through a process uncontrolled and uninfluenced by agents of management. Accordingly, the bill has become a major point of anticipated controversy during the new administration, where it would be subject to vehement opposition by big business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and likely subject to a Republican led filibuster in the U. S. Senate. The U. S. Chamber has pledged to spend ten million dollars to fight against the bill's ultimate passage.

Business groups claim it would eliminate a secret ballot to certify a union, though the Act does not prevent unions from becoming certified through traditional ballot processes controlled by management. It is already legal for unions to be certified by one of two processes: a management controlled election or by majority sign up.

However, current law allows employers to exercise sole discretion over which method will be recognized. The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers to choose which already legal method to employ. Advocates for labor say that companies routinely prefer the ballot process because management can manipulate it to intimidate and punish pro-union employees, thereby preventing unions from forming.

The bill faces stiff odds in the U. S. Senate, given the likelihood of a Republican led filibuster, and almost no chance if the Obama administration does not make passage of the Act one of its top level priorities. Already, Arlen Specter (R-PA) is signaling he may not vote favorably on the measure as he once did when it had no chance of becoming law under a Republican administration.

During his appearance before the Wall Street Journal's CEO group, Emanuel reportedly described the Obama administration's priorities as:

(Emanuel) presented the five main priority areas for change in an Obama administration: health-care cost control and expansion of coverage; energy independence and alternative energy; improving tax fairness and simplicity; education reforms; and regulatory overhaul that boosts transparency accountability.

Emanuel's refusal to express the incoming administration's commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act has generated quiet concern among advocates for labor who see the legislation as critical to any sustainable economic recovery for the middle class. However, my requests to the Obama transition team for a clarification of the incoming administration's level of commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act have so far failed.

Pachacutec blogs at Firedoglake.

Comments

[sueinmn]

Do some of you posting below have any idea what you claim to know? If you have never suffered the indimidation pactices of management while waiting for the process of the secret ballot, then I suggest you shut it! And those of you who choose to refuse to sign in hopes of promotions into management, thats your free choice. No one prevents union employees from accepting management positions. This free choice act or law will help prevent the common intimidation games and illegal firings of the union activists. The day of management caring about their employees is long gone and if unions are allowed to fail brecause of conservative greed and ignorance towards workers rights, well we all will work for much less and get use to job hazards again. Bush just signed into law much less stringent OSHA requirements. Your health concerns may soon be a occupational hazards. Your rights to protect yourself from harrassments, discriminations, occupational safety, proper training will all dissappear.
You may take for granted that simple pee break or knowing what time your shift ends, this is all subject to change and not to your benefit! Bush administration has stripped away minimum labor standards for years now, their is very little left to protect you! Get educated or accept change, not the good kind!!!

[Nonamnesiac]

I worked as a "colonizer" at a plant where I was earning my livelihood because wages were low, benefit were horrible and the company was making large profits -- an asphalt company. As soon as I was able to obtain the number of cards necessary to satisfy the Union (2/3rds of the workers at the plant) and have them presented to the NLRB, I was fired. Over the months between the time I petitioned for the election and the time of the election, the company fired 3 other union organizers who were just workers at the plant, conducted outright anti-union meetings and threatened to fire other employees. They also threatened to close down the plant.

After I was fired, another 15% signed union cards and there were over 80% of the bargaining unit who had signed cards petitioning for the Union. Over the time of the firings and threats, many workers chamged their minds, fearing they would lose their jobs. Although the NLRB cited the company for unfair labor practices, the length of time it took to prosecute them went way beyond the election.

We won with 52%. I had gotten another job as had one of the other guys who was fired. The other guy had to move and we don't know what happened to him.

PASS THE EMPLOYEE FREE TRADE ACT. Signing a card is a vote. There need not be 2 votes where companies can threaten the workers the second time round.

[sueinmn]

Im with you! I was fired as an armed guard at a nuke plant. we had our election and won, we were trying to get our first contract and a new company (Burns Security) came in, played games with a predetermination to fire the union pres. ME! I received calls form other nuke plants with a forwarning. The intimidation is not for the weak and you must trust those willing to put up with it for the betterment of all.
the NRC (nuclear regulatory commision) was watching what played out, I was union pres and 2:30 AM one morning I was fired for refusal to sign a BS training document. They refused to allow vacation time off, tried to implement new work schedules, pay, no OT pay, no more training time,
no family time off, forced manadatory protection offsite (another location, gas company) which we werent trained for, you name it they imposed it. They successfully fired me, severely intimidated all others. It took two years to have my case heardin the courts. They did finally get a contract, I went on to become a licensed electrician and Burns ultimately rode the dust trail down the same road as I did! PASS THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT!!!!!

[nodakcommonwealth]

Ultimately this is a fairly simple issue. When workers want to form their own organization (a union) who gets to decide the process? Current labor law and EFCA both allow either secret ballot elections or majority sign-up ("card check"). However, under current law, when employees want to form a union, ironically their employer gets to choose the process: either card check or ballot. Under EFCA, when employees want to form a union, they themselves get to choose whether to do so through card check or the ballot.

So far as I know, the system under current labor law is unique. That is, in every other effort toward self-organization (think PTA, neighborhood crime watch, informal sports leagues, etc, etc) the process of organization is always solely up to those engaged in the self-organization.

Also some of our most direct forms of democracy do not involve a secret ballot: primary caucuses for all manner of elected office; open town meeting in countless New England towns where neighbors vociferously debate and vote publicly on matters of great contention; many informal forums where votes are done by show of hands, "ayes and nays", or roll call.

[rmm4402]

This is a lousy piece of legislation and I hope it goes nowhere. The present system works fine and has since 1933. No one was complaining about this in the 50's & 60's. The only people who think the current system is broken are unions.

The secret ballot was initiated to protect workers from corporate harassment. The author uses the words "manipulate, punish & harass" to decribe "management". Not like any union has ever manipulated anyone, punished anyone or harassed anyone. Now that the secret ballot protects workers from union harassment, time to get rid of it.

When you can't win by playing by the rules, change the rules. Yeah - I read what the article said about not eliminating the secret ballot - but when the union gets to pick which method to select - what do you think they are going to choose???? The secret ballot will go by the wayside.

While I acknowledge that they have done good, (The Jungle was a real eye-opener), today's unions are their own worst enemy - burdened with a bureaucratic, patronage heavy staff, they cling to archaic work rules that make you use 5 people when 3 could do the same. Their internal squabbles between trades and jurisdictions only serve to promote inefficiency.

Maybe when the unions re-tool themselves - more people will willingly join.

[Biffmeister]

Millions want to join now--willingly. People like you won't let them.

[rmm4402]

Sorry Biff - I already work in a unionized company. I know the drill.

Did you even bother to read my whole post - or just the first and last line???

[enochsmoky]

The Employee Free Choice Act sounds like some new abortion law where you have to have the abortion performed in full view of your parents, priest, friends and relatives. I thought all progressive thinkers would rally to the concept of privacy in dealing with one of a person's most important aspects of his life, his ability to make a living. Maybe an employee does not want to join a union because he has seen the devastating effects of unionization in the auto, steel, tire, educational and governmental units. Maybe an employee wants to advance in his work and union rules and peer pressure restrain him from doing any more than the bare minimum that unions stand for. People who aspire to more than a ground down union norm will not want to say so in front of 20 fellow workers who buy into the union mantra of "less work for more pay."

[sueinmn]

you simply have no idea what you think this means. It is not taking away privacy to choose. it is taking away the intimidation process of managements ability to harass and terminate employment while waiting for that vote!

[Biffmeister]

"Maybe an employee does not want to join a union because he has seen the devastating effects of unionization in the auto, steel, tire, educational and governmental units."

Please show us how these industries were devastated by unions.

There is nothing to prevent union members from moving up the ladder. Some unions have foremen unions. Union members are also free to move into management if they wish.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

Be part of History. Again. Join the struggle for the Right to Unionize and to oppose Workplace tyranny

Help pass the Employee Free Choice Act:

http://www.freechoiceact.org

[Grunty1]

Arlen already signaling that he has no spine, as typical.

Before doing anything about this legislation, it is drastic need of a name change. "Employee Free Choice Act" sounds like an Orwellian bill to strip workers of the right to sue their employers.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

It's a continuing irony of the movement to pass the EFCA, that those who are against it because it 'eliminates' the secret ballot, were all diametrically opposed to Unions. So now we are to believe that these same anti-Union forces are actually pro-Worker(!) This Orwellian Doublethink Bull will lose once again, as it lost in opposing Obama. The People are not buying the Lies anymore.

[Cogitoe]

There are better ways to improve middle class incomes than to kill secret ballots. Hopefully, Progressives support of democratic ideals does not get traded away as a payback to unions.

[JD93]

Sorry, but under current law, there is no "management controlled election." There is a secret-ballot election conducted by representatives of the NLRB. It is true that there is a campaign period before the election, when both the company and the union can make their cases to the voters (sound familiar?), but the election itself is private--and the NLRB goes to great lengths to ensure that the voting place is free of surveillance or intimidation by either side. If, prior to the election, management engages in threats or retaliation against union supporters, current law provides some pretty strong remedies--including reinstatement of any terminated employees with backpay and a re-run of the election, or the NLRB may in some cases, if the election environment is irrevocably tainted by management's conduct, even order the employer to recognize the union based on a card majority. Where are there any similar safeguards against union initimidation in gathering employee signatures? Forget about extremes like broken windshields, but who is going to feel comfortable saying no to an organizer and a group of 15 co-workers surrounding the employee and urging him or her to sign the card? I'm a solid Democrat, but I feel more comfortable having the NLRB oversee the process.

[Biffmeister]

Sounds good, too bad none of it is reality based.
There are real world horror stories at the top of this post. They are the norm.
Fifteen co-workers surrounding a co-worker--give me a break.
BTW the current NLRB is owned by the republicans via appointees. It is not a neutral body thanks to Bush.

[JD93]

Actually, speaking of "reality based," the current NLRB has only two members--one Republican (Schaumber) and one Democrat (Liebman). And when fully staffed, the NLRB traditionally has 3 members of the President's party and 2 of the opposition, but then it hears most cases in panels of three. As a result, many cases are heard by a panel the majority of whom are in the opposition party (Liebman and Walsh, over last 8 years).

We both are concerned about worker's rights. But what makes you think the "real world horror stories" you mention are the norm, such that we should abandon the government-run, secret ballot elections that have worked for 70 years to protect the workers' right to unionize AND their equally important right NOT to unionize? Both rights are protected by the Labor Management Relations Act.

Certainly, some employers do engage in threatening and retaliatory behavior toward union organizers--but they do so at their own legal risk. My point about peer pressure is that union supporters under EFCA would face no similar "risk" to temper their behavior. It does not take much to imagine that having well-trained union organizers (whose JOB it is to get employees to sign cards) and co-workers, be it 15, 5, or even 1, passionately urging you to sign an authorization card could be deeply intimidating and difficult to refuse. The secret ballot is still the best way to ensure that the employees' rights are protected.

[TeddySanFran]

Obama must continue his strong support of EFCA.

He must whip the vote in the House to get overwhelming support.
He must whip the Senate to get past 60.

This is what working people care about, and it is why LOTS of us voted for Obama.

He should not begin his administration by breaking this promise to working Americans.

CARD CHECK NOW!

[sueinmn]

My guess is his hushhush atitude is until he knows where he stands on a filibuster. Why give them time to prepare ammo in advance
We have two senate seats yet to possibly win with out worry of the repub filibuster. I do believe he is stronger union than what he let on! Have patience.

[Aldyth]

If we have any respect for our own democracy, we owe people the right to a guaranteed secret ballot. I oppose this bill, have written my Congressperson and Senators and hope others will, too.

[kgb999]

The DLC cares about the same people the GOP does: rich corporate executives. Obama essentially put the DLC in charge of his administration, so don't look for much pro-labor action from Obama's camp. They are going to protect the profits of the big bankers and corporate donors; which means paying workers as little as possible.

[anelder]

I have yet to hear how a secret ballot can be manipulated by management. I do see how signing or not signing a card does make you a target. Someone explain because this seems to only be a method by which the union is able to identify those who are against them.

[Biffmeister]

Fair question. What occurs, once there is to be an election, is an intense management propaganda scare/threat campaign. People thought to be pro union are singled out and harassed or fired. Yes these things are illegal, but the penalty is small. Thus, it is the actions during the days/weeks PRIOR to the election that manipulate the secret ballot, and very effectively. With a card check the election has already taken place which is why the companies favor a delayed election. I have belonged to two powerful unions and the threat of physical action against those not wanting a union is a myth. There are millions in this country who will join unions if allowed to do so, and no it won't break the bank of the companies in question. That would benefit no one.

[Nofuzzydreams]

Do you have any evidence of your statements? Management has evry right to pursuade workers just as the unions do. If the fines are small make them meaningful so no one harasses anyone. But keep the secret ballot. Besides, unions are counter-productive - just see the domestic versus foreign auto plants. I don't think the foreign plant auto workers would touch an union with a 10 foot pole because they are not stupid ...

[Bad actor]

People, keep your secret ballot or be prepared for intimidation in large measures to force you to comply. I have never been anti-union but I have fought tooth- and- nail against behavior which purports to be "for the union" but is actually unlawful and intended to stifle free expression and impose oppression. For example, you don' t want to sign the card and refuse only to find your windshield shattered at the end of your shift. What protection do you have ? Believe me, your only protection is in the secret ballot and that is the reason it exists. We should have learned something from the last eight years of smarmy titles to disguise the rot of the proposal and "trust me" promises. The secret ballot is your power so do not give it up without a fight.

[PATina]

Someone either didn't read the article in it's entirety or purposely ignored these paragraphs...

Business groups claim it would eliminate a secret ballot to certify a union, though the Act does not prevent unions from becoming certified through traditional ballot processes controlled by management. It is already legal for unions to be certified by one of two processes: a management controlled election or by majority sign up.

However, current law allows employers to exercise sole discretion over which method will be recognized. The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers to choose which already legal method to employ. Advocates for labor say that companies routinely prefer the ballot process because management can manipulate it to intimidate and punish pro-union employees, thereby preventing unions from forming.

[Biffmeister]

There is indeed intimidation involved, but it is from management prior to an election and after the card signing. Broken windshields, etc. are a myth perpetrated by management types. The real violence is the economic violence of low wages perpetrated against workers and their families.
The "last eight years" have vigorously opposed unions as they would give workers a voice at work.
We are not averse to secret ballots entirely if workers could be protected from the harassment which virtually always comes from management

[Nofuzzydreams]

Wages should be determined by the market otherwise America will lose out in a global economy. This unless of course you are a Republican nativist.