Pro-Business Group Sinks Over A Million Dollars Into Ad Linking Blago To Senate Dems And "Union Bosses"
Kicking off what promises to be a huge fight over labor's top legislative priority, a pro-business group is sinking over a million dollars into a TV ad campaign tying Rod Blagojevich to "union bosses" and calling on Democratic Senators in four states to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act.
The ad -- which was sent over by a source and hasn't been released to the press -- seeks to tar the Employee Free Choice Act as vaguely corrupt-sounding by tying it rather tangentially to the Blago mess. It's being aired by Americans for Job Security, a business-funded group that is expected to spend big money to sink the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize and is labor's top goal for 2009:
An official with Americans for Free Choice confirms the size of the buy, and says the ad will run for more than a week in Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Colorado. The spot, which is now on the air, targets Dem Senators Pryor, Nelson, Dorgan, and Salazar
The ad makes a bunch of guilt-by-association connections that take you from Blago all the way to the Employee Free Choice Act and are a bit difficult to track. First it hits Blago, the "corrupt Illinois Governor." Then it brings up SEIU, "the union" which discussed the "Senate seat payoff." And then it describes the Employee Free Choice Act as "payback" for "union bosses" who helped elect Dems to the Senate:
The idea, obviously, is to use the alleged Blago dealmaking to tar the Employee Free Choice Act, which is a pretty big leap. This will be one of the biggest fights of the upcoming legislative season, so expect much more like this.
Late Update: Jon Youngdahl, National Political Director for the SEIU, sends over a quote faulting the ad:
"This attack against working people from a business-funded front group is a desperate attempt to distract from what really matters. America's families need change that works to rebuild the middle class with the free choice to join unions for better wages, benefits, and retirement security. That's why we need the Employee Free Choice Act."
Well, where the hell are the proponents of EFCA?
They've done a miserable job on the public relations front, because if people think about it at all, they're going to think "Why won't unions allow a secret ballot?"
I'm deeply disappointed in the effort to promote this.
December 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. Labor needs to fight for this with everything they've got. They've got to refute the "secret ballot" lies by pointing out that EFCA does NOT do away with them. But more importantly, they've got to reframe the issue so it's about economic recovery. The more workers who join unions, the more wages -- which were stagnant even before the recession -- will go up, the more the middle class will start expanding again, and the more the collective purchasing power of American workers will revive the economy.
December 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The message should be: if you join a union, your job and healthcare will be protected. Otherwise, you're on your own.
I'm very dissatisfied with how the labor movement has handled the EFCA. Are they waiting until the debate/vote to start publicizing why it's a good thing? By then, it will be too late.
December 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still haven't heard a good reason why it's a good thing. I hate to be on the same side as these nitwits, but having been on the wrong end of a fraudulent UAW unionization attempt via check cards, I'm not a fan of that system. Plus it seems to give a way for management to identify who supports the union, so I don't see it being good for workers either.
December 16, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
From American Prospect (it's a little lengthy):
Link to original: Why we need EFCA
Right now, employers have a distinct edge when it comes to preventing the formation of a union. EFCA would help to level the playing field.
December 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my replies below. I'm all for increasing penalties for intimidation, simplifying the process and the contract thing, but the main argument that's being made is on card check. I've seen how easily that's corrupted on the union side, and furthermore it seems to me that it's easily corrupted by management as well.
December 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The main argument" is card check, which shouldn't be the argument, since it already exists.
anti-union forces have very cleverly packaged this as an issue about card check, betting, no doubt, on the public not understanding that it's an existing practice.
December 16, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, it's interesting that you cite someone from Cornell. I was also a student there when the UAW tried to unionize the graduate student teaching assistants. That time it was fully open, with numerous public meetings and debates, and no interference by the administration - and the union was voted down 3-1. I guess after that the UAW learned its lesson before it tried UC.
December 16, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that people are re-examining the Blago indictment with a critical eye, will we see a post here about that?
December 16, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean?
December 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we thought "silly season" was over.
It's just gettin' started!
December 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't business use that same big money to pay their employees what they are fighting paying them? That's all this fight is ever about - the fight between unions and management. All the money management spends fighting this could just as easily go toward ending the fight!
December 16, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG thats so great, Obama cuts off the guy with the stupid gov question. The camera shows Rahm laughing in the background. The guy didnt even have a real question on hand to ask. man that was great.
December 16, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, he ended up asking whose jump shot was better, Obama's or Duncan's.
December 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using Blago as a symbol...this ad will have limited shelf life.
December 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another anti-union group ("American's for job security" I think it was called) ran an almost full-page ad in the Washington Post over the weekend devoted to fighting the Employee Free Choice Act.
My understanding is that McDonald's is pouring money into fighting the EFCA. I am going to inform my 8-year-old this evening that we'll be boycotting McDonalds.
December 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so damned insane!
If McDonald's has the money to pour into an anti-union ad campaign, then McDonald's has the money to pay their workers the kind of wages that unions demand.
This is America. We have a constitutional right to free assembly and I think that means that there is a constitutional right to organize. This just drives me crazy.
December 16, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was one in the NY Times as well.
December 16, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. Right after lunch.
December 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh they're out in force. I find YahooBuzz! a good source of qualitative data on the slitherings of the far right - Obama citizenship, death to Muslims, and other issues near and dear to their withered little hearts - like the unions
They've definitely been mustering around the auto bailout, the now infamous "opening shot" in the Employee Free Choice battle. In a couple of days it should be clear that the Senate fillibuster was just a scam, but I don't think this will matter any more than Obama's birth certificate matters
The hobgoblin du jour has been the UAW. But that's about to become yesterday's news.
December 16, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, the UAW deserve it. They've collaborated wholeheartedly with the management in destroying the American car companies, not by getting decent benefits like the Repubs claim but by pressuring Democrats like Dingell to shut down efficiency standards etc. And now that they're running out of auto workers, they're trying to scam others into unionizing where it isn't needed or even beneficial.
December 16, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The UAW is one of the most progressive unions around. How are they "trying to scam others into unionizing where it isn't needed or even beneficial"?
If that's your starting point, it's not surprising that you don't see the need for EFCA, because you apparently don't see the need for unions, period.
December 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having been through all the lies that went into that, and the absolute refusal of any unionization supporters (who I was never able to find among the postdocs who were the target; the head organizers weren't postdocs themselves) to hold public or even private meetings, I can't trust anything that the UAW says. And given the attitude of SEIU in shutting down the local, I don't look very favorably on them either. Once the unions become too big and multidisciplinary it seems they start acting like the management, looking out for themselves more than the workers.
The other things you mentioned as being in the EFCA I support, but in my view card check is simply another loophole to screw over the workers, just from the other side.
December 16, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with this. I'm not arguing that unions are without blame. But at a time when worker's rights are diminishing, something needs to be done to prevent further diminishment of union power.
December 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your account of the attempt to unionize postdocs is dispiriting, to say the least. The refusal to hold open meetings (and the ludicrous reason offered up) is extremely counter-productive.
I wonder why AAUP wasn't involved?
December 16, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
MOre information on EFCA:
December 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, the main provision of the bill would remove an employer's right to ask the NLRB to run a private ballot election among its employees before the union is certified as the workers' legal representative in collective bargaining. I believe that is fundamentally a bad idea: it would do nothing to improve the transparency and legitimacy of the workplace organizing process, but it might easily lead to increased coercion of employees by co-workers sympathetic to unions. This is because the EFCA bill, at least in its current form (i.e.: as it has been introduced in the current Congress), would force employers to accept signed cards by the majority of employees as a valid method for the certification of a union. Currently, an employer has the right to either accept the card-check process as valid for certification or to challenge it by demanding that a secret-ballot election, overseen by the NLRB, be held among the employees. In practice, this most often results in the election being held, which admittedly delays the organizing process but ensures a fairly democratic outcome, since it is done using secret ballots and in accordance with government regulations (or else the Labor Review Board would not certify the election and the workplace would remain unorganized). While it is true that this process might not be perfect (management might still use subtle means of coercion, and some employees might be afraid to campaign for the union in fear of retaliation by the employer in the future, for example), it is clear to me that this will always be way better than a system by which your co-workers and your employer can know whether you supported or opposed a drive to organize the workplace. In other words: I can see how somebody can feel somewhat intimidated before voting in a secret election, but I cannot see how that person would feel any less coerced in what is essentially a public hand vote (the card-check process is not much more private than that).
In sum, I find it hard to see in this bill anything other than a simple attempt by labor unions to increase their power and become stronger --which is understandable: every interest group and every lobby always tries to do the same. Unlike other bills pushed by a very specific sector or interest group, however, I don't think there is enough in this bill that is good enough to see the whole package as an acceptable compromise. It's just a bad idea, in my honest opinion.
December 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Card check already exists. This isn't a new provision, suddenly unveiled. What's different is that management would no longer be able to ignore the results from a card check election, as it currently can.
Second, the card check is only a portion of the act. Workers can be fired for union activity. They can be fired for expressing an opinion, and trying to persuade others. EFCA would prevent such firings.
This bill is, indeed, an attempt by unions to increase their power, if, by "power" you mean the ability to organize and not be harassed or fired for that activity.
December 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Workers can be fired for union activity. They can be fired for expressing an opinion, and trying to persuade others. EFCA would prevent such firings."
Those actions by employers are already illegal. That doesn't mean they don't happen, but an employee has to sue to be reinstated. Those activities can't be prevented by any legislation, the legislation can just increase penalties if employers are found guilty of these already illegal actions.
If the fundamental issue of EFCA is something besides the card check issue, then the unions have failed miserably to make those arguments, IMO. If the issue is card check, then I'm on the side that thinks a secret ballot is the only thing that protects workers who want the right to work just as much as it protects works who want to unionize.
December 16, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fundamental issue isn't card check. Card check already exists. This legislation would force management to respect the results of a card check election, something it doesn't have to do right now.
December 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're illegal, but there aren't penalties for it.
And why on earth should an employee have to sue to be reinstated after expressing an opinion?
December 16, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
They shouldn't have to. And they shouldn't be fired for expressing an opinion as long as that opinion doesn't interfere with their job or the employers business.
But if something illegal happens, i.e., an employee gets fired for expressing an opinion, then their only legal recourse is to sue.
And lots of times, in fact likely almost every time, an employee's version of why they were fired is different than an employer's. That's why there are courts to settle disputes of opinion and fact.
December 16, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which they may not be able to do, because of financial circumstances. This "remedy" places an undue burden on the victim of an illegal act. The EFCA would lessen this burden. This particular provision of it should apply to all workers, not just union workers, but management would never allow that.
December 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two are not parallel for one reason: unions, e.g. labor, are not in a position of strength and power going in. They are seeking power against the strong and powerful. Therefore they don't equate.
Our government was set up in a particular way in order to give as much power to those who are not in positions of authority, as possible; which turned all governing models in use at that time completely upside down. But I digress - what I'm getting at is that you cannot make the same claims of possible coercion by unions, which are by definition less powerful than management, as you can make about management since it starts from the position of all the power.
Just as when the question is between state and individual liberties, the founders came down on giving individuals the rights, and the ability to maintain them in the face of the authority of the very government they were putting together.
December 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like you're starting from the false premise that 1) the company will always oppose the union, and 2) the pro-union side will always tell the truth. I can certainly tell you that the latter is false. Obviously there is more coercion on the management side, but the solution to that should be to block it, not to allow the unions to do more coercion as well.
As for the last paragraph, wasn't part of the point to give individuals the right to secret ballots? If there are problems with that then we should focus on fixing them, not going to another, more easily corruptible system.
December 16, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not any more than the founders started from the false premise, if it was, that the powerful hold all the cards.
Management holds all the cards. The jobs, the salaries, the benefits, the power over the workers.
December 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hypocritical for free marketeers to be so set on "busting" unions. After all, a union is a corporation of a bunch of producers of labors.
The real problem is that the Americans for Free Choice and the GOP are in bed with corrupt CEOs.
December 16, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I am misunderstanding these issues but as a union worker over the last 3 decades or so but probably even before there has been an attempt by our American businesses to get rid of unions. I have read that in the past maybe in the mid 70's that something like 1/5 jobs was union and that today it represents less than a tenth of all jobs. (perhaps someone has some historical data to point me towards).
What we hear is a bunch from the media and the business community about unions as a hindrance or burden on American competitiveness. Is this really the case? From a historical perspective I simply see unions as a check against stagnant wages, worker's safety and the basic standards that have defined our business communities since the 50's. Maybe I am too young to see all the hub-bub boogey-man nonsense associated with unions screwing or skimming off of workers but I just really don't see how unions are a big part of the problem. For example right now we have a group of conservative GOP senators who are rallying against the EFCA and the Auto - bailout, while at the same time these same senators have advocated on the behalf of foreign auto-makers making cars in their state. Now on the surface this does not sound so bad, but those foreign auto-makers in almost all of these cases have received tax abatements and/or state subsidies in order to procure these jobs in their respective states. Also as I understand it many of these same companies receive subsidies from their countries where they are headquartered. How much do these subsidies affect the price at the marketplace? Does the fact that national healthcare is provided by the state rather than the companies affect the price at the marketplace?
Look I don't like middle-men any more than the next person but I simply don't see unions as the problem, I see management and failed long-term strategies as the biggest hindrance to equitable working conditions and wages.
December 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter -- the argument that card check already exists is an insult to the intelligence of this group; why is there such a fight do you think? The fact is that a majority of cards can be presented to the employer, who may then accept that as sufficient and recognize the union, or may demand a secret ballot election. As a result, we have elections in almost every case and, despite the supposedly stacked odds, unions do just fine under this system (they win about 50% of the time). But they want to win more, so we have the proposal that employers be required to accept a card-established majority (and then be subjected to interest arbitration -- where a government arbitrator decides what's in the contract -- if the parties haven't agreed after 120 days, but that's another issue).
The real debate is whether legislating recognition of unions based only on card check is a good idea. As a managment-side labor lawyer I'm sure I won't convince many of you, but here goes: 1. Under the current system, management does "campaign" for the employees to vote "no" -- meetings are held, movies are shown, and people are told that collective bargaining is more complicated than the wish list of higher wages/benefits that the union promised to get people to sign cards. In the end people vote and, as I said, unions win half the time. In rare cases, companies fire organizers or otherwise intimidate workers and I am the first to admit that the NLRB does not effectively remedy this situation -- but this is where you hear truly unsupportable factual claims from unions; the claim that this happens in many or most campaigns is simply false. So the question is, do you throw out the entire secret ballot election process, or do you make it more costly (and felt more quickly) to break the law that already exists. I submit, you fix the Board process. 2. Under EFCA, I don't think there will be blatent coercion to sign cards -- most unions get employees on the ground to push for the organization of the plant and I don't think we'll see many incidents of intimidation, etc. by fellow employees. But I do think it will be very common for people to simply get worn down by the organizers and sign a card to get them to leave the employee alone. One of the nice things about a secret ballot for many employees -- who don't want to mess with either the organizers or the company -- is that the election happens (usually within 45 days of the initial petition) and then the votes are counted immediately and it's over. After EFCA, every day you go to work will be a new union election. If you're not one of the big pro-union or anti-union people, how long are you going to hold out and not sign a card when everyone comes up to you in the break room to push you for it? This is exactly why we have secret ballots, and frenkly it's why even the card-check by consent that exists now should be eliminated.
December 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink