EFCA Raises Ire of US Chamber of Commerce

The undying antipathy of owners toward unions has never made much sense. Financially, unionized workers make more money but so do unionized companies. There's less absenteeism and fewer lawsuits. And it's a lot more peaceful. Non-unionized shops are breeding grounds for discontent, bitchin' and moanin', & the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Threats of reprisal for this or that employer insult are part of the air you breathe. Wouldn't you think they'd be happy if all that negative stuff went away?

The only basis for the level of hatred we see against unions is that some money goes into workers' pockets that would otherwise be going to investors, owners, and executives. But the relatively small amount (owners do well no matter what) is out of all proportion to the depth of loathing we see from, say, the Chamber of Commerce. The USCofC is prepared to spend $10Mil to defeat EFCA because Obama's new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, is in favor of it.

It is labor's biggest priority for the new administration: changing federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize -- and win contracts with their employers.

***

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has vowed to spend $10 million to defeat the bill.

Obama's selection of union-friendly Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-El Monte) as Labor secretary is seen as good news for the bill's advocates. She has called it "vital legislation."

***

Labor leaders say elections hurt unionization efforts because employers use the time leading up to the vote to harass, fire and threaten workers.

That's the problem, of course. EFCA allows workers to sign a card in secret before the employer can marshall his forces to scare the bejesus out of employees and intimidate them into voting against unionizing even when they want a union. And to the employer, make no mistake about it, keeping a union out is tantamount to fighting a war. They have convinced themselves that the company will disintegrate if the employees are union, that they are therefore fighting for their very lives. The fact that that has almost never been true and that to the contrary unionized shops tend to make more money than "right-to-work" shops isn't part of their worldview. They neither recognize it no acknowledge it.

This week I'm going to start highlighting the arguments corporate executives and managers will be using against EFCA straight from the horse's mouth: a company that specializes in helping companies keep unions out put me on their mailing list and I've been getting helpful anti-union hints for several weeks. It's been an...education.

Comments

[pmoser]

Fact-esque indeed! I've enjoyed your posts in the past, but WOW are you off base about EFCA and what it means for a company and its workforce to be unionized. A peaceful more contented workforce?! I suspect you've never actually worked in a unionized environment. And you've certainly never been involved in a contract campaign, strike, or other job action. And fewer lawsuits?! Try adding in the cost of ULP's, arbitrations, and collective bargaining -- the total costs of unionization are often enormous. And to say that it's "almost never been true" that unionization might harm a company financially? What about the auto industry, steel industry, airline industry, and manufactuaring industry (we'll leave out public education and government, but there's a good analogy there too). I could go on, but let me just say that as a labor lawyer for the past 15 years that I'd be happy to discuss the "real" story with you. I know of a lot of good companies and well-educated workers that want nothing to do with unions, at least as presently constituted in this country. Which is a shame, really, but that's a topic for another day. If you're interested, let me know. In the meantime, don't put too much stock in what the cottage anti-union industry has to say about unions (i.e., the "anti-union hints" you referenced). Picking apart those inflated arguments will be like shooting fish in a barrell. Focus on the REAL reasons why only 7% of the private sector is currently unionized, and why American workers routinely resent and reject organized labor as currently constituted in this country (hint: you're getting a good flavor of it in the recent widespread antipathy towards the auto industry bail-out and in the disgust over the SEIU connection to the Illinois Sentate seat sale). Focus on the real reasons why organized labor feels compelled to actually take away a workers right to vote in order to boost membership. Don't just take the knee-jerk anti-corporate viewpoint. Unions have done a lot of good for the American worker historically, but labor's current woes are largely of its own making and it doesn't help to gloss things over with anti-corporate rhetoric. There's a lot more to this story.

[mick arran]

Uh-huh. Gee, why do I doubt you're a "labor lawyer"? It couldn't be all the usual anti-union RWTP's, could it? Yes, I'm sure you'd be happy to "discuss the 'real' story" with me about all the "good companies and well-educated workers" who are against the unions for nothing but the best of all possible reasons.

And so on.

Do I look like the new kid on the block to you?

[pmoser]

"New kid on the block?" I don't even know who you are (or what RWTP means, for that matter). Just thought you might appreciate hearing another persepctive. And I'd like to think that mine is an unbiased persepctive because, frankly, the passage of EFCA would likely mean a huge uptick in business for me, personally (yet I still say it's a lousy bill). No matter. Go do your one-sided agenda-driven thing. Just don't expect to have much credibility on this issue if you keep making statements like unionized workplaces being "a lot more peaceful" and if you keep claiming that companies with unions do financially better because there are fewer lawsuits with employees exhibiting better attendance.

[mick arran]

I don't even know who you are...

That makes us even.

...(or what RWTP means, for that matter).

"Right-Wing Talking Points", which is what you just went through, item by item, AIYDK (as if you didn't know).

...don't expect to have much credibility on this issue if you keep making statements like unionized workplaces being "a lot more peaceful"...

I've worked in several shops of each over 40 yrs and the difference is startling but don't let me interrupt your ignorance parade.

...and if you keep claiming that companies with unions do financially better because there are fewer lawsuits with employees exhibiting better attendance.

*sigh* Yup, you're a conservative alright. Very poor reading skills, too, but what else is new? And you call yourself a lawyer, do you? Don't lawyers have to know how to read? I always thought they did, anyway. Or at least that it helped.

You can't be much of one if you missed the rather glaring fact that I never conflated those things or said they were the reason for financial success. I simply listed them as differences from union to non-union shops, but of course I've actually worked in both over 4 decades and as an organizer for a while so naturally I have no credibility. Why? Because I'm not prepared to play the conservative "fairness game" wherein I'm supposed to agree with the most outrageous right-wing claptrap imaginable in order to prove that I'm "willing to listen to reason".

Horsefeathers.

If you have a problem with the Free Choice Act, why don't you lay it out instead of playing the Attack the Messenger card? I suspect that, as usual with conservatives, you have no real arguments of any merit to offer. Just assertions that I'm wrong.

C'mon moser, if you're a lawyer act like one. Present evidence or some kind of fact-based argument or, at an absolute minimum, some facts to refute what you claim is an incredible position. That ought to be easy.

But you don't have any, do you? Because you're a conservative and we're in the world of "I believe and I don't have to prove anything and if you ask me to prove it I'll act insulted and then I'll go in a corner and sulk and call you names waaaaahh!"

C'mon, Mr Lawyer-who-can't-read. Refute something I said with a verifiable fact. Anything.

I'm waiting....

[mick arran]

(Will that challenge be the last we ever see of him?

(Yeah, I think so too.)

[pmoser]

Wow. I am certainly no conservative, and I wouldn't even know where to begin to respond to all your B.S. Which union did you organize for, by the way? Guess I had you pegged wrong. You're just a rabid "true-believer" type. As for opposition to EFCA, it's not just conservatives (and managemet-side labor lawyers) who are opposed to it. I have written and presented quite a bit about EFCA, and you can check out some of the quotes from people in this piece I wrote a few months back, and you can follow the links to others. http://www.hrwlawyers.com/SI-Sites/HRWlawyers/ClientFiles/Downloads/EFCAAlert(A071944).PDF There's even one from a real-live former union organizer. But hey, don't let the facts distract you from your ranting. You just go on believing that it's all about anti-union evil conservative types trying to crush American workers. My only point to you from the beginning was this: neither the EFCA story, nor labor's decades long deline, is as a simple story. But if need simple, with good guys and bad guys, then go for it. I really don't care. Note: If you want to read some MEANINGFUL and COHERENT support of EFCA from a legitimate former union guy -- and yes, it can be done, your attempts notwithstanding -- try Steve Early. http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/efca-the-economy-obama-and-labor/ Lastly, let me assure you that, yes, you can have the last word. I won't be responding any further. So feel free to let me have it with your best rant!