Right to Work Blog

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is threatening to move the Card Check Forced Unionism bill to the Senate floor as introduced unless a some other forced unionism scheme is worked out.  Frankly, an up-or-down vote on the Harkin bill would be a great opportunity for workers to see what Senators truly believe in forced unionism.  Senators would not have any fig leaf to hide behind.

Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Mark Pryor (D-AK) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) are participating in preliminary talks to find a “compromise.”  Seems like a great list of Senators to contact to voice your objections to any and all versions of the Card Check Forced Unionism bill.  Add Senators Warner (VA), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln-Lambert (AK), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME)  Nelson (NE), Conrad (ND), Johnson (SD), Dorgan (ND) and Reid (NV) to that list as well.  Senators can be reached by calling the Senate Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Roll Call (subscription required) is reporting that Big Labor lover Sen. Tom Harkin is seeking the votes of “moderate” Republican Senators for a “compromise” version of the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill. Remember, there is nothing “moderate” about forcing workers into unions, and there is no room for compromise on this point:

With Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) refusing to back a controversial union organizing bill, Senate Democrats have tapped Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to begin preliminary discussions with a handful of moderate Republicans to try to come up with a new plan for reforming the nation’s labor laws.

Democratic aides said Harkin’s outreach to the GOP is in the early stages and, because of that, declined to identify which Republicans he is courting.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking Friday at a breakfast meeting sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, hinted that Democrats weren’t giving up entirely on the “card check” legislation.

“With Specter backing out on this … I know there are conversations going on with other Republicans” to find a compromise, Reid said.

The Majority Leader also used the forum to harshly criticized opponents of the bill, noting that labor unions represent only 6 percent of the work force, down from a high of 25 percent several decades ago. “I think the business community is flogging a horse that doesn’t deserve it,” he said.

Democratic aides said that should a compromise be reached, it will likely end up somewhere between the card check bill as it’s currently written and an alternative union organizing proposal floated by Starbucks Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp. and Whole Foods Market Inc. That plan would retain the use of secret ballots when workers decide to unionize and would not include binding arbitration provisions. It would, however, include a number of other provisions, including allowing unions access to employees during off-work hours and requiring a fixed date for elections.

The alternative has been publicly criticized by Harkin and other pro-labor Democrats as being unacceptable. But privately Democrats acknowledged it was the first sign of movement from the business community that a compromise may be possible.

Democrats predicted they would likely use the existing card check legislation as the underlying bill, with any major changes being made through amendments on the floor.

Harkin, the lead sponsor of the card check bill, also known as the Employee Free Choice Act, said that he had expected amendments would be made and that Specter’s decision to drop his support for the bill would not kill it out right.

“We always expected the bill would be amended, but that does not change the fact that labor reform is needed, as even Senator Specter pointed out. There is no question that the bill will be debated and voted on because workers deserve a share of this recovery. Right now, we are looking for options that all stakeholders can agree to as a way forward to get this bill passed in both the Senate and the House,” Harkin said in a statement Friday.

Harkin is expected to begin reaching out to business interests in the coming weeks, and aides predicted work will likely ramp up during the upcoming recess.

The Las Vegas Review Journal sees through the obfuscation of the coercive Card Check Forced Unionism Bill:

Anxious to accomplish the bulk of his radical agenda as quickly as possible, regardless of what it appears to be doing to investor confidence, President Barack Obama offered his most supportive comments to date Tuesday for the hopes of organized labor to unionize the American workplace through “card check.”

Officially known by the considerably cynical moniker “Employee Free Choice Act,” the idea is to effectively get rid of secret-ballot elections to determine whether a majority of workers in any given workplace want to be represented by a union.

Instead, the idea is that a couple of union members would be able to corner a third worker in the break room, out in parking lot, even in an evening visit at home, “requesting” that he sign a unionization card. The secrecy of the polling place would be gone.

Once cards equal to half the joint’s employees plus one were turned in to management — presto! — theirs would be a union shop.

Interestingly, employers would not be allowed to collect signed cards from workers expressing a wish not to join a union, delivering those cards to federal referees to prove their majority support in the same manner. Nor could a union be dissolved simply through card check.

Nope. One-way street. And the union could work for years, collecting signatures off the job site, without even advising management. The firm’s owners would thus be deprived of any meaningful opportunity to explain the potential disadvantages to unionization.

Furthermore, unions would have no incentive to bargain in good faith, because the bill stipulates that after 120 days of foot-dragging, a federally appointed arbitrator would determine terms of a two-year contract with no right of appeal.

“As we confront this crisis and work to provide health care to every American, rebuild our nation’s infrastructure, move toward a clean energy economy and pass the Employee Free Choice Act, I want you to know that you will always have a seat at the table,” Mr. Obama told AFL-CIO members at their winter meeting in Miami Beach in a videotaped message Tuesday.

Interesting. Not “solve” the crisis. And indeed, if you think investor confidence and the markets have tanked so far, try telling stockholders the unions will soon be in charge, everywhere.

Organized labor now represents a much reduced 12 percent of the American work force — its only growth area for decades has been among government employees. Significantly, governments cannot go out of business if their labor contracts drive up costs so far that customers take their business to competitors — because governments have no competitors.

The card-check bill sailed through the House two years ago, but couldn’t muster 60 votes in the Senate to override a GOP filibuster. Since then, Democrats have padded their Senate majority. Top AFL-CIO lobbyist Bill Samuel said the bill would win 60 votes this time if every lawmaker who voted for it last time stays on board and every new Democrat votes in favor — assuming Minnesota Democrat Al Franken wins a contested Senate race and is seated. . . .

In a letter to Congress, 10 governors voiced objections to imposition of the Card Check Scam (i.e. the so-called Employee Free Choice Act) on their states.

The letter states:

January 8, 2009

Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Boehner,

The “Employee Free Choice Act” is a highly controversial federal bill which seeks to fundamentally alter federal labor laws that run counter to long held traditions that have protected the privacy and security of American workers. We believe that America must maintain and encourage a competitive workforce. To keep America competitive, the federal government must protect the confidential nature of a worker’s vote. Some of the Act’s primary flaws include:

— Violating the elections process that allows employees to choose whether they want union representation through a secret ballot. Currently, neither the union nor the employer knows how an employee votes. The proposed legislation would eliminate this important protection for employees — one supported by a recent poll that showed 75% of Americans believe that a free and impartial secret ballot election is the fairest way for workers to decide on union membership.

— Imposing Contract Terms on Employers which are not actually requested by their workers. The National Labor Relations Board will be de facto authorized to force an employer to implement a collective bargaining agreement imposed by an arbitrator rather than through the long held tradition of unions working independently on an agreement between the employer and employees in order to secure their top priorities. Instead this bill will allow far removed union executives to insert their own priorities without prior consultation with the affected workers. This represents an unprecedented government intrusion on the right to bargain freely over working terms and conditions.

We respectfully request that you join us in opposing this legislation and cast your vote against it.

Sincerely,

Gov. Sonny Perdue,
Georgia

Gov. Bobby Jindal,
Louisiana

Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota

Gov. Haley Barbour,
Mississippi

Gov. Jim Gibbons,
Nevada

Gov. John Hoeven,
North Dakota

Gov. Mark Sanford,
South Carolina

Gov. Mike Rounds,
South Dakota

Gov. Rick Perry,
Texas

Gov. Jim Douglas,
Vermont

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research has announced the winners of its two annual essay contests on the Right to Work issue, the William B. Ruggles Journalism Scholarship and the Applegate/Jackson/Parks Future Teachers Scholarship.

Valerie Bischoff, currently a first-year graduate student at Columbia University School of the Arts, was awarded $2,000 as the 2008 recipient of the William B. Ruggles Journalism Scholarship. Majoring in Film Writing and Directing, Mrs. Bischoff is a 2006-2007 Fulbright Scholar, who has won several other awards including Honors in her undergraduate major, Film and Digital Media, at the University of Santa Cruz. Valerie’s essay reflected how the positive experience of living in a Right to Work state, Nevada, allows her to pursue her educational and career goals. As she concluded:

. . . [T]he right to unionize should be one of our fundamental freedoms. However, the validity of this right can only be realized if the members of the union are involved because of choice. Thankfully, in twenty-two states, a Right to Work law protects this freedom.

Lisa Bishara, beginning her first year as a graduate student at Ohio State University, took top honors in the Applegate/Jackson/Parks Future Teachers Scholarship. Mrs. Bishara was awarded $1,000 for her prize-winning essay on the vital importance of teachers’ academic freedom and the Right to Work. As an Elementary/Secondary Curriculum and Administration major, Mrs. Bishara plans to become a curriculum specialist with a defined emphasis on the creative arts. As she explained:

. . . We teach that everyone has choices in all that they do. Children are required to serve consequences for their poor choices, and are rewarded for their superior choices. We teach nonconformity, “If your friends jumped off the highest bridge, does that make it the right choice for you?” No, this is not an acceptable answer. We teach that it is important for the child to opt for traveling their own course regardless of that his or her peers take. How, then, are we to allow ourselves to be forced into compulsory unionization? It is important to support voluntary unionism, which emphasizes the importance of choice.

The Las Vegas Sun has an interesting overview of the stakes and implications of enacting the Card Check Scam Bill.

As the Sun reported, passage of the bill “. . . would for the first time in 60 years, allow workers to organize without putting the issue to a secret-ballot vote.”

The legislation also has a provision that would:

. . . stiffen penalties for employers who commit unfair labor practices during an organizing drive and impose binding arbitration in bargaining cases in which the sides cannot agree.

Taken together, the changes would shake the foundations of modern labor law and likely usher in the largest unionization drive since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Chicago-based Seyfarth Shaw LLP, a leading labor relations law firm, held a Web seminar last month outlining the implications of the bill . . . .

As Amanda Sonneborn, a lawyer with the firm, put it: “. . . you read it and weep.”

This isn’t speculation by Sonneborn. She points to Illinois as an example of the bill’s “cascading effect.”

The state passed mandatory card check in 2003. As a result, union density soared, she said. The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, for instance, doubled its number of bargaining units in four years, Sonneborn said.

In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union has tripled its membership over the past 20 years primarily through negotiating voluntary card check agreements with casino companies. The union added 10,000 members from 2002 to 2005 alone — and will add another 6,000 when MGM Mirage’s CityCenter opens in 2009.

In Canada, the effect also has been striking. Thirty-two percent of the country’s workers belong to a union, a density not seen in the United States since the American labor movement’s pinnacle in 1955. Only 12 percent of American workers today belong to a union. Labor benefits from mandatory card check laws in some Canadian provinces. Alberta sports the lowest union density of those places — a whopping 24 percent.

. . . Under the card check bill, employers would face fines for unfair labor practices of up to $20,000 per violation.

In early January, Governor Jim Gibbons signed an executive order repealing former Governor Bob Miller’s 1994 executive order mandating project labor agreements on Nevada public works construction projects. As reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal, Governor Gibbons’ new executive order:

. . . could save taxpayers millions of dollars . . . .

Under a PLA, the project owner is required to use only contractors that adhere to the rules set forth in the agreement, which includes wages, hours, benefits and other labor terms. In exchange, union workers pledge not to strike or pursue any other job actions.

Nonunion contractors have long contended that PLAs drive up the cost of construction on public projects such as schools and roads.

According to representatives of Nevada’s Associated Builders and Contractors:

In the executive order, Gibbons stressed that the state has “an obligation to all Nevadans to ensure that tax dollars are used economically, efficiently and in a non-discriminatory manner,” noting that this goal is met “through a process that ensures open and fair competition for state construction projects.”

The executive order noted that “promoting open and fair competition on the bidding and awarding of state construction projects will: allow the state to utilize the best contractor for the job at hand; expand job opportunities, particularly for small and disadvantaged businesses; advance free competition as a way of doing business in Nevada; and reduce construction costs and therefore save taxpayer dollars.”

Gov. Gibbon’s new executive order is a step in the right direction.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, construction contractors and employees have the right to choose to unionize or not to unionize. The vast majority of contractors and their employees – more than 80 percent – have voluntarily opted against unionization.

Because most contractors and employees choose to refrain from unionization when they have the free choice, Big Labor turned to politicians to remove that choice and impose union representation on employees from the top down. The method by which this is done is a project labor agreement, which is also frequently referred to as a “PLA.”

A project labor agreement requires all contractors, whether they are unionized or not, to subject themselves and their employees to unionization in order to work on a government-funded construction project. This is done by including a union collective bargaining agreement in a public construction project’s bid specifications. In order to receive a contract, a contractor must sign the agreement and subject its employees to union control.

Project labor agreements usually require contractors to grant union officials monopoly bargaining privileges over all workers; use exclusive union hiring halls; force workers to pay dues to keep their jobs; and pay above-market prices resulting from wasteful work rules and featherbedding.

The use of a project labor agreement usually results in cost overruns and higher construction costs for taxpayers. Qualified non-union contractors who wish to make lower-cost bids, and employees who wish to work non-union, are locked out of the project. However, politicians and government officials continue to impose project labor agreements to reward the union officials that fund their political campaigns and keep them in power.

Union bosses don’t have much reverence for elections. Their efforts to gut worker elections by enacting the Card Check Scam Bill are prima facie evidence. So we are watching with amusement as members of the Nevada Service Employees International Union accuse their boss, Jane McAlevey, of hijacking the union. They claim she “rigged internal elections, . . . spent union dues inappropriately and quashed dissent,” the Las Vegas Sun reports.

Sounds like another day in the union office to us.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council’s “Small Business Survival Index 2007” has ranked South Dakota, Nevada and Wyoming as the best three states in the nation for job creation and small business entrepreneurship. Not surprisingly, all three states have enacted Right to Work laws. In fact, of the top ten states for business, eight are Right to Work states.

Nevada, in particular, has been a beneficiary of its status as a Right to Work state. Ranked second on the study, the Silver State borders California where Big Labor dominates the political and business environment. Businesses seeking to create jobs and escape the regulatory burdens and high taxes of California have found a much better entrepreneurial environment in Nevada.

As reported in the Reno Gazette, the Index cited “Nevada for its lack of personal and corporate income taxes and other costs as well as for being a right-to-work state,” as the main reasons businesses are thriving.