 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Forced labor: Call it the Employee Twist-Your-Arm Act Sunday, April 12, 2009 LAST YEAR I boarded a flight with a copy of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" in my hand. My job had plunged me into the world of food safety, and what better way to prepare for the issue than to read an early-20th-century account of the slaughterhouse business? Yet in reading the book I was more horrified at the labor conditions of the day than I was in food safety, and for those of you who have read the book, you know that is saying a lot. With labor standards virtually nonexistent, employees had no protections, no rights, and no hope. The birth of the American labor movement and the creation of unions to recognize and protect workers' rights were essential to the development of this country. The workers were heard, their rights finally protected. How things have changed! Let's fast-forward to today, and be honest with ourselves--this is not Big Labor's finest hour. It is recognized by many as being largely responsible for the slow and painful collapse of the auto industry. Union membership in the U.S. has plummeted. In the 1950s, roughly a third of the work force belonged to a union. The mere threat of unionization forced employers to take note and improve conditions and opportunities for employees. Now, 12 percent of the work force is unionized. Yet even with those declining numbers, Big Labor still has money, politicians, and muscle in its corner, and it is using them. Last month, Democratic leadership in Congress introduced the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as "card check." 'HUGS AND KISSES' This bill should be wrapped with a pretty bow and given to labor with a card saying, "Thanks for your help. Hugs and kisses, B. Obama." A major payback to labor for its massive campaign spending and get-out-the-vote muscle, this bill would deny the right of workers to a secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize. The Employee Free Choice Act is anything but--it is a complete violation of workers' rights, and a betrayal of the principles labor unions have fought for over the decades. Focused on self-preservation, labor sees this infringement as a way to stop the erosion of its membership and its reach. This legislation would replace the secret-ballot election, monitored by a government official, with a process that subjects workers to intimidation and denies the worker privacy in his or her decision. Currently, union elections proceed as follows. Union organizers solicit signatures on cards from those who are interested in unionizing. Under current law, once 30 percent have signed, the union can petition the National Labor Relations Board for a secret-ballot election. Organizers, aware that there is a significant dropoff of support once an employee is off to himself and free of pressure, do not submit these cards unless they have a super majority of signatures. The union organizers and the employers are given the opportunity to present their case; then the worker--and the worker alone--makes his decision, in private. If passed by Congress and signed into law, "card check" would allow union organizers to solicit signatures on cards; once 50 percent of employees have signed, they win. Organizers can solicit signatures anytime and anywhere--even at the workers' homes. The opportunity for intimidation is rampant and, more important, the right to privacy is gone. WHAT WORKERS WANT Employees sign these cards to avoid harassment: Since they can vote their consciences in secret elections, they sign to appease the organizers. Organizers know this. An AFL-CIO survey stated that unions do not have odds of winning an election until 75 percent of employees have signed the cards. Without a super majority, unions will not call for elections because they know intimidation stops once the curtain is drawn and the worker votes. With card check, that vote will not be allowed--the union card would take its place. The secret-ballot system works and is favored by an overwhelming percentage of working Americans. A poll taken by Zogby indicated that 71 percent of union members believe the current private-ballot system is fair; a McLaughlin & Associates poll indicated that 74 percent of union members favor keeping the current system. Yet who can blame Big Labor for not listening to its own members when it might push a bill through that makes unionizing the default position in American business? Has labor's regard for the employee been usurped by the need to maintain power and relevance? It would appear so. The president vowed to sign this legislation when he was on the campaign trail, but since taking office he has been somewhat silent on the issue. Perhaps he has seen the light and realizes it is bad policy: More likely, his political acumen has kicked in, and he is playing the distance game. It is a highly unpopular bill, which is why it is being pushed almost two years before the next series of elections. Voters tend to have short memories. The most disturbing part of labor's efforts on behalf of card check isn't the bad policy so much as it is the disregard for the rights of the American worker. By striking an employee's right to a private ballot, labor is working to deny individuals one of the most fundamental rights in our country. What is more American than a free and fair election? One of the little annoyances of Congress is its tendency to propose controversial legislation with titles that have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the bill. Add the Employee Free Choice Act to the list. This bill is a contradiction in every sense of the word. Chris Connelly is former chief of staff and communications director for Rep. Jo Ann Davis. He lives in Stafford County. |
|
|
 |