Censored Whig Letters

Battling Over Employee Free Choice
The fate of labor’s top legislative priority is in the Senate’s hands.
By David Moberg

http://inthesetimes.com/article/4450/battling_over_employee_free_choice/

On March 9, supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act carry money bags at a rally in Layfaette Square in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who has proposed making it illegal for union organizers to visit workers’ homes without prior consent, will likely face a progressive primary challenge in the Fall.

When Congress votes on the Employee Free Choice Act, it will decide not only whether workers will be able to organize unions more easily and whether America will build a stronger economy based on shared prosperity. It will also decide how democratic America will be.

The fate of the proposed legislation hinges on a few senators under intense pressure from corporations. But labor leaders remain optimistic that the legislation will pass—most likely with some tweaks.

“We’re definitely in a tough fight,” says Stewart Acuff, assistant to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney. “This is the largest grassroots campaign in labor history. We’re going to play it out as hard and strong as we can.”

The legislation, a top union priority supported by President Obama, would provide legal recognition of a union at a workplace if a majority of workers signed statements of support. Now, even if a huge majority of workers sign union cards, employers can demand that the National Labor Relations Board hold an election, giving the company and anti-union consultants time to bully employees into voting against unionization.

The bill would also stiffen penalties for all-too-common employer violations of labor law—such as firing union supporters—and provide the option of mediation and arbitration of first contracts when employers balk at serious bargaining.

Business groups and their right-wing allies focus on claims the law would deny workers’ right to a secret ballot, which they portray as the hallmark of democracy. But businesses clearly oppose the bill not for any alleged democratic shortcomings but because they oppose unions. In doing so, they oppose freedom of association, a bedrock democratic principle.

Minority rule
Workers can join political or community groups at will, without secret ballots, but can only form unions without a ballot if the boss agrees. Most employers make union elections as much a free and democratic expression of workers’ views as North Korea’s secret ballots.

The congressional process of deciding on the legislation is a little more democratic, but still deeply flawed. A solid majority in the House voted for EFCA in 2007, but while a majority in the Senate would now, supporters need 60 votes for cloture, or ending debate. With the recent defection of Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party (and assuming Al Franken becomes Minnesota’s new senator), Democrats and independent supporters will number 60. That means Dems will in theory have the votes needed to end an inevitable EFCA filibuster.

But in March, Specter, who co-sponsored EFCA in 2007, said he would no longer support cloture on the bill, reiterating this point when he announced his party switch in April. And Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), from the home state of notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods, said she would not support EFCA in its current form because it is too “divisive.”

Both senators face re-election next year. Running on the Democratic ticket, even with Obama’s promised support, Specter could face a significant progressive primary challenge. Specter’s switch is more likely to increase the likelihood of a compromise than win EFCA 60 votes. That could leave labor a tough choice between a stale half loaf today or a possible whole loaf in the next Congress.

Since the 40-plus senators now supporting a filibuster disproportionately come from less populated states, a tiny minority is undemocratically blocking expanded democracy for the majority.

In fact, a clear majority of Americans favor EFCA’s provisions, according to surveys by Hart Research. After pollsters described EFCA reforms, 73 percent of Americans surveyed supported it (including 69 percent in right-to-work states). Even when respondents heard the most potent arguments on both sides, strong—albeit smaller—majorities supported EFCA by margins of about 19 percent.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a shadowy network of front groups have kept most businesses—even those who accepted majority sign-up to recognize a union—toeing a hard line against the bill.

But some small business owners around the country have spoken out for EFCA as good for business and the economy. “We need a strong working middle class or my business will suffer,” says Darren Horndash, owner of the 33-store Wisconsin Vision optical chain. He says his unionized employees’ loyal performance helps retain customers.

Corporate opponents claim widespread unionizing will shut down businesses and cost jobs, but a new study by the Economic Policy Institute concludes that “the biggest fear voiced by employer groups regarding unionization—that it will inevitably drive them out of business—has no evidentiary basis.”

And a new Center for Economic and Policy Research study, led by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Thomas Kochan, argues that unions are associated with high-performance workplaces yielding 15 to 30 percent “performance premiums” in efficiency, quality, employee engagement and profitability.

Cracks in the monolith?
One group of big companies—partly unionized Costco and staunchly anti-union Whole Foods and Starbucks—has broken with the hard-line Chamber of Commerce. The companies have proposed quicker elections, before which unions and business would both have access to workers. But it opposes majority sign-up and arbitration, and also proposes a new right of employers to initiate union decertification. While unacceptable to unions, the group’s proposal shows cracks in the corporate monolith.

Unions are keeping up the fight for EFCA as proposed, but they acknowledge changes may be needed to win over 60 senators. If Lincoln and Specter can be persuaded to help end a filibuster, they’re confident all other Democrats will as well.

“Taking steps to rebalance the playing field was always going to be tough,” says Change to Win Executive Director Chris Chafe. “But we’re still in a strong position to achieve major labor law reform … It will look a great deal like [EFCA].”

Some changes—such as designing sign-up cards that explicitly give workers the choice of an election or immediate approval of the union or lengthening the time before arbitration can be requested—would not seriously compromise the legislation. But many proposals, including one from Specter that would bar union organizers from visiting workers’ homes without prior consent, would tilt the playing field even more against unions.

Likely proposals to mandate elections within a short time—say, five to 10 days after a union petition—are problematic, even if unions got equal access to workers. “It takes a short time for employers to poison the well,” one organizer explained. Indeed, the fundamental problem is that employer speech in a workplace is inherently coercive, since the boss has power over a worker’s job.

“We are weighing a bunch of options, but the last thing we want to do is make the mistake of the other side and bully or threaten people,” AFL-CIO’s Acuff says. “It doesn’t work well, but it also points out what we’re trying to stop—the bullying and intimidation every day in the workplace.”

A Tough Fight
Unions have maintained a steady push for EFCA, including more than 400 actions during Congress’ spring break. They’ve mobilized non-union supporters and given prominent roles to workers with personal stories to tell, like Colorado electrician Dan Luevano.

In 2005 Luevano and most of his fellow workers at Ries Electric near Denver asked their boss to recognize the Electrical Workers as their union to help resolve problems. The boss called everyone in and threatened to fire them if they voted for a union. Luevano said he would, and the next workday he was fired. Though the National Labor Relations Board reinstated him, his boss isolated him and cut his hours while continuing to violate labor laws by fighting the union.

Luevano eventually left Ries Electric for a union firm. But he has told his story in community forums and interviews, and in congressional hearings and meetings with Colorado senators.

“I wouldn’t want anyone to go through what I went through,” he says. “I’m not a professional lobbyist, just a working person, trying to make life better for my co-workers and our families.” By doing so, Luevano is also trying to make America better—and more democratic. It’s a tough fight.

GET INVOLVED:
Employee Free Choice Act-oriented websites:
One Million Strong petition http://www.freechoiceact.org/page/s/araw
AFL-CIO petition http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/passefca_II
American Rights at Work http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/
SEIU: The Battle for EFCA Heats Up http://www.seiu.org/employeefreechoice/

Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today! https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=2959
Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price! https://www.inthesetimes.com/subscribe/

David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. Recently he has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy.

Governor Howard Dean Presents: The Public Health Insurance Option – A Prescription for Guaranteed, Affordable, Health Care for All

Join Democracy for America, Health Care for America Now, and the SEIU Change that Works Campaign for a special guest, Governor Howard Dean, who is offering up a prescription for change in health care reform this year. What is a “public option?” Why is it so important? What can we all do collectively to help win REAL changes in health care reform in 2009 that bring quality, affordable, health care for everyone in America?

Where: Delaware Building Trades Council Sheet Metal Workers Hall

911 New Way Wilmington DE 19805

When: Friday May 29th, 3-5pm

What: Dr. Howard Dean speaks on Health Care Reform, a “public health insurance option” - and what we can all do to achieve it in 2009.

This event is FREE and open to the public

–
Jennifer A. Hill
Change That Works Delaware
State Director
SEIU
302-293-8682

Delaware State Worker Coalition and Allies Fight Massive Pay Cuts: Part 1

Most states are facing tough economic times and having great difficulty balancing state government budgets. This is certainly true in Delaware and surrounding states. Pay cut proposals for state workers were floated in Maryland and Pennsylvania but quickly rejected. Other solutions managed to at least temporarily stem the tide of red ink were found without unduly punishing state employees.

In Delaware, the Democratic Governor Jack Markell has put his political weight behind a massive 8% pay cut for state workers. The proposal is almost universally opposed by every labor union in the state and the vast majority of the progressive community. The reception for the massive pay cut proposal in Democratic Party circles has been fairly cool to outright hostile. Opposition to the pay cuts has been growing and getting increasingly organized.

All those opposition groups contend that the Governor did not give enough consideration to alternatives like tapping the Rainy Day Fund, the detailed set of proposals by State Representative John A. Kowalko, Jr. commonly referred to as the “Kowalko Plan” or specific ideas coming from actual state employees. Alternatives have been either under-reported or utterly disregarded by most of the media in the state. Representative Kowalko has offered to present his plan to any group of citizens in the state desiring to learn about the “Kowalko Plan.”

The State Workers United for a Better Delaware is a coalition of labor organizations in opposition to the proposed 8% across the board pay cuts for state workers. Included in the coalition are the Delaware State Troopers Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 81, the Delaware State Education Association (DSEA), DSEA-Retired, Teamsters Local 326, the Correctional Officers Association (COAD), Communications Workers of America Local 13101, the State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), FOP Lodge 3, FOP Lodge 10, FOP Lodge 11, the Delaware Attorney General Investigators Association and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27. The proposed pay cuts will impact 33,000 state workers in Delaware.

According to police sources, an estimated 2,500 state workers and supporters rallied in front of Legislative Hall in Dover the evening of May 6, 2008 to officially launch the coalition. This was one of the largest labor union crowds gathered in Delaware in recent memory.

While there were numerous prominent speakers sharing comments from the stage, workers and allies in the crowd were eager to share their views on the proposed wage cuts and the current economic situation in Delaware.

Jeff Pittman, a spokesperson for AFSCME, stated that “the proposed 8% pay cuts will hurt all Delaware taxpayers. It means 8% less in the pockets of all state workers. There will be 8% less spent with small businesses in Delaware. There will be 8% less from state workers in collection plates at churches and 8% less in donations to charitable causes. Altogether, $91 million will go missing out of the Delaware economy.”

UFCW Local 27 Assistant Organizing Director Brian Nesbit said, “An 8% pay cut would have a devastating impact of the spending power of Delaware residents. We already have an income crisis in America. The last thing we should be doing is cutting the wages of working Americans.”

Vice President of the Delaware State Troopers Association Thomas Brackin was very positive in his comments about the labor support, “this issue has galvanized the entire labor movement. We have received calls from every labor union in the state. To have everyone together and united on this issue is unprecedented and wonderful.”

He went on to say, “Across the board pay cuts are a quick fix solution however this is a long term problem and the only way to get out of a deficit of this magnitude is to grow your way out not cut your way out. When you negatively impact the buying power of the State’s 30,000 employees you simply deepen the problem. Frankly I am disappointed that rather then make the difficult and unpopular decisions to enhance revenue the governor and his staff took the easy way out with across the board cuts for State Employees knowing they will be back to the drawing board next year without a better long term solution.”

As if to prove Brackin’s point on labor solidarity, the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 1183 Financial Secretary Alena Bandy was spotted in the crowd. There are no state workers represented by UAW Local 1183.

Although they are not subject to the proposed pay cuts, the entire leadership of ATU Local 842 attended the rally. This union local stands solidly with the state workers fighting the proposed pay cuts.

Wali Rushdan, President of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 842, remarked, “The thing about unions is that we stick together. This rally and effort shows that unions are coming together in support of state workers. If they fail, we all fail. Pay cuts for state workers puts pressure on all workers in Delaware. It sets a really bad precedent! We have to make politicians understand that we have a backbone and are willing to prove it.”

Teamsters Local 326 President John J. Ryan, Sr. was accompanied by at least 15 fellow members of his local. Ryan stated, “Although we only represent 12 state workers (Harbor Patrol Officers) out of our approximately 2,000 members, we are here to support all our brothers and sisters working throughout the state. It is important to note that there are alternatives to the proposed pay cuts. For example, we could save a great deal of money if we changed the way group homes are organized and financed. Doing this would help create more jobs for Delawareans instead of out-of-state contractors.”

Delaware Working Families Party Organizer Daniel Charlton expressed his opinion by stating “Delaware’s state workers are the ones providing essential services to the rest of our residents. We cannot ask them to sacrifice 8% of their income without looking at fairer options. There are better ways of closing the budget gap than asking only state workers to sacrifice. This is a time when we all need to come together to work for the best solutions and singling out state workers does not meet that standard.”

The National Treasurer of the FOP Thomas F. Penoza is a Delaware resident. Recently, he helped found and serves as President of the Delaware Attorney General Investigators Association. Penoza stated “Markell wants us to keep providing services to the citizens of Delaware but is asking us to make an unreasonable contribution to the total sacrifices needed to balance the state budget. The proposed pay cuts are putting too much of the burden on too few.”

Doug Watts, President of FOP Lodge 10 said his union represents about 260 members in Delaware. In regards to the pay cut proposal, Watts said, “I do not think this is fair. The Governor said the budget solution should be fair, shared and compassionate. I do not see these features in his state worker pay cut proposal. It is not fair to balance the entire state budget on the backs of 33,000 state workers.”

Brian P. Douty, Secretary of the FOP State Lodge, clearly stated his organization’s position. “The Delaware FOP represents over 2,200 law enforcement officers in this state encompassing 14 local lodges that include Probation and Parole, the Capitol Police Department, Alcohol and Tobacco, Fire Marshals and DNREC, in addition to municipal law enforcement agencies. All of us protect and serve the citizens of Delaware. We are providing valuable services and facing danger daily. We should not be facing these proposed severe pay cuts in return for doing our duty as law enforcement professionals.”

DSEA Executive Board member Tom Chapman shared his views, “We are in full support of the citizens of Delaware during these tough times in the state. We understand that there is a budget crisis. However, we cannot balance the state budget on the backs of lower and middle income workers which make up the vast majority of state workers.”

Shula Reaves, Vice President of COAD brought the issue home by explaining how the proposed pay cuts would impact his family. “I think this proposed pay cut is terrible. We really cannot afford it. My wife also works for the state. We are going to take a double hit on both pay and health insurance. This is unfair to my children. We have not had a pay raise in 5 years.”

The State Workers United for a Better Delaware in coming weeks will be staging numerous additional events in Dover to fight the pay cut proposal. There will be more Coalition Lobby Days on May 27, June 3, June 10, June 17 and June 24.

Written by Stephen Crockett (host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com and Editor of Mid-Atlantic Labor.com http://www.midatlanticlabor.com). Mail: 698 Old Baltimore Pike, Newark, DE 19702. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: demlabor@aol.com .

Feel free to publish or post without prior approval.

America’s Poor Are Its Most Generous Givers
by Frank Greve

WASHINGTON — When Jody Richards saw a homeless man begging outside a downtown McDonald’s recently, he bought the man a cheeseburger. There’s nothing unusual about that, except that Richards is homeless, too, and the 99-cent cheeseburger was an outsized chunk of the $9.50 he’d earned that day from panhandling.

The generosity of poor people isn’t so much rare as rarely noticed, however. In fact, America’s poor donate more, in percentage terms, than higher-income groups do, surveys of charitable giving show. What’s more, their generosity declines less in hard times than the generosity of richer givers does.

“The lowest-income fifth (of the population) always give at more than their capacity,” said Virginia Hodgkinson, former vice president for research at Independent Sector, a Washington-based association of major nonprofit agencies. “The next two-fifths give at capacity, and those above that are capable of giving two or three times more than they give.”

Indeed, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of America’s households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent.

The figures probably undercount remittances by legal and illegal immigrants to family and friends back home, a multibillion-dollar outlay to which the poor contribute disproportionally.

None of the middle fifths of America’s households, in contrast, gave away as much as 3 percent of their incomes……..

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/21-2

Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Truth Behind the Social Security and Medicare Alarm Bells

by Robert Reich

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/05/truth-behind-social-security-and.html

What are we to make of yesterday’s report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds that Social Security will run out of assets in 2037, four years sooner than previously forecast, and Medicare’s hospital fund will be exhausted by 2017, two years earlier than predicted a year ago?

Reports of these two funds’ demise are not new. Fifteen years ago, when I was a trustee of the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds (which meant, essentially, that I and a few others met periodically with the official actuary of the funds, received his report, asked a few questions, and signed some papers) both funds were supposedly in trouble. But as I learned, the timing and magnitude of the trouble depended a great deal on what assumptions the actuary used in his models. As I recall, he then assumed that the economy would grow by about 2.6 percent a year over the next seventy-five years. But go back into American history all the way to the Civil War — including the Great Depression and the severe depressions of the late 19th century — and the economy’s average annual growth is closer to 3 percent. Use a 3 percent assumption and Social Security is flush for the next seventy-five years.

Yes, I know, the post-war Baby Boom is moving through the population like a pig through a python. The number of retirees eligible for benefits will almost double to 79.5 million in 2045 from 40.5 million this year. But we knew that the Boomers were coming then, too. What we didn’t know then was the surge in immigration. Yet immigrants are mostly young. Rather than being a drain on Social Security when the Boomers need it, most immigrants will be contributing to the system during these years, which should take more of the pressure off.

Even if you assume Social Security is a problem, it’s not a big problem. Raise the ceiling slightly on yearly wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes (now a bit over $100,000), and the problem vanishes under harsher assumptions than I’d use about the future. President Obama suggested this in the campaign and stirred up a hornet’s nest because this solution apparently dips too deeply into the middle class, which made him backtrack and begin talking about raising additional Social Security payroll taxes on people earning over $250,000. Social Security would also be in safe shape if it were slightly more means tested, or if the retirement age were raised just a bit. The main point is that Social Security is a tiny problem, as these things go.

Medicare is entirely different. It’s a monster. But fixing it has everything to do with slowing the rate of growth of medical costs — including, let’s not forget, having a public option when it comes to choosing insurance plans under the emerging universal health insurance bill. With a public option, the government can use its bargaining power with drug companies and suppliers of medical services to reduce prices. And, as I’ve noted, keep pressure on private insurers to trim costs yet provide effective medical outcomes.

Don’t be confused by these alarms from the Social Security and Medicare trustees. Social Security is a tiny problem. Medicare is a terrible one, but the problem is not really Medicare; it’s quickly rising health-care costs. Look more closely and the real problem isn’t even health-care costs; it’s a system that pushes up costs by rewarding inefficiency, causing unbelievable waste, pushing over-medication, providing inadequate prevention, over-using emergency rooms because many uninsured people can’t afford regular doctor checkups, and spending billions on advertising and marketing seeking to enroll healthy people and avoid sick ones.

by Jason Rosenbaum

Ben Nelson came out today against a public health insurance option: (via CQ, no link)

http://www.theseminal.com/2009/05/01/ben-nelson-bows-to-the-insurance-industry/

Sen. Ben Nelson said Thursday that he will oppose the creation of a government-run health insurance plan as part of a health care overhaul, contrary to the position held by many of his fellow Democrats.

Nelson, D-Neb., said he may try to assemble a coalition of like-minded centrists opposed to the creation of a public plan, as a counterweight to Democrats pushing for it. He said he does not believe a majority of the Senate supports the idea.

…

But Nelson sides with opponents, who say a government-run plan would undermine the nation’s existing system of employer-sponsored health insurance.

Republicans, insurers and business groups say private insurers could not compete with a government-run plan, which presumably wouldn’t have to spend money on activities such as marketing or developing networks of participating physicians and hospitals. Eventually, opponents say, most consumers would join the public plan, either because its prices are lower or because their employers stop offering insurance.

“At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game,” Nelson said. He called the inclusion of a public plan in legislation a “deal-breaker” for him.

The company Nelson finds himself in is laid out clearly: business, the insurance industry, and Republicans. Of course, this isn’t surprising, considering his campaign donation history. Open Secrets says Nelson received $608,709 from the insurance industry in 2007-2008, making the insurance industry his biggest donor group, more than lawyers and even lobbyists.

And so, Nelson has decided to bow to the wishes of his campaign contributors, instead of standing up for what 73% of the American public want: A choice of a public health insurance option.

In his opposition, Nelson can’t even muster the courage to be honest about his motives. Instead, he parrots the latest right-wing talking point, that a public health insurance option will somehow undermine the employer-based health care system.

This point, of course, is ludicrous. How exactly would this undermining happen? Every person in America will be offered a choice. If they choose the public health insurance option, how exactly is anything being forced upon them? And if businesses choose the public health insurance option, again, how is that not a choice?

It’s unfortunate that Nelson is expressing opposition to something so reasonable and so popular. The bright spot here is that Nelson’s planned coalition of like-minded Senators is likely to be about as successful as Evan Bayh’s short-lived coalition to undermine Obama’s budget. That bill passed, and so will this, whether Nelson wants it to or not.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)