BusinessWeek Logo

Card Check Bill Moves Forward As Lobbying Battle Heats Up

Posted by: Jane Sasseen on March 09

And the battle over card check is fully joined.

Things are heating up for the combatants on both sides of the vehement debate over the Employee Free Choice Act,the labor-backed bill also known as “card check”, designed to make it easier for employees to vote in a union at their workplace. Following several weeks of speculation over just how deep support for the bill is in Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. George Miller (D-CA), announced that they will introduce EFCA in both the Senate and the House on Tuesday, March 10.

The move took some Democrats by surprise. Many moderate, business friendly members of the majority have hoped to avoid a vote; they don’t want to antagonize labor, which helped get them elected, but they worry the measure could raise business costs and harm competitiveness as well. And despite President Obama’s generally strong backing of labor, Washington has also been full of speculation over whether the White House really wants to take on a contentious battle with business at a time when the economy continues to reel.

“We’re getting an earful from friends on both sides,” says the beleagured aide to one moderate Democratic Senator. “This puts so many folks in an awkward position.”

The bill's reintroduction coincides with an intensifying lobbying blitz over card check organized by the business and labor organizations that are battling over the bill. With the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee holding its first hearings on the issue on the morning of the 10th, both sides have flown in small armadas of local supporters to meet with their Congressional representatives in the coming days. Each side hopes to win over the few votes needed to claim victory.

The new bill is identical to one passed by the House in 2007, which died in the Senate when the Democratic majority, then limited to 51 seats, couldn't muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a fillibuster or a presidential veto. With passage in the House still assured -- and President Obama having reaffirmed his support for the bill to labor leaders at the AFL-CIO annual conference last week, all eyes are now on the Senate. Should one or two Senators from either side of the aisle defy their party, that will determine the outcome.

Here's how the math works out: The Democrats now hold 58 seats and it looks increasingly like Al Franken of Minnesota will win that contested seat. So they are fighting to keep on board Democrats wavering under intense pressure from business -- particularly moderate Southerners from right-to-work states. The pressure may be most intense on Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas; the state's biggest company, Wal-Mart, is among the leaders of the anti-card check campaign.

But even if the Democrats maintain all 59 votes, they still need to peel away one Republican. That's why the biggest fight centers around Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, says Tom Gallagher, the Washington policy analyst for institutional brokerage ISI Group. With the state's large labor population, he was the only Republican who backed the earlier bill in 2007. No other Republican appears likely to break away this time, Gallagher says.

For the business community, the opposite strategy applies: keep the pressure up on Specter -- who is already threatened with a tough primary fight from Pat Toomey, a more conservative opponent -- and try to win over one or more of those Dems unhappy with the bill.

To that end, a host of trade associations led by the U.S.Chamber of Commerce flew in roughly 150 executives from local businesses and Chambers of Commerce to talk up the problems they see if EFCA is passed; they'll spend Tuesday meeting with a handful of key Senators and House members before doing interviews with local papers designed to keep up the pressure on their representatives.

Not to be outdone, the Service Employees International Union has organized a competing "fly-in" with the AFL-CIO and other unions; they will also flood Capitol Hill with roughly 300 workers who will tell members about how they've been stymied in efforts to win the union representation they believe they need to improve wages and health care benefits.

As now written, the bill would eliminate an employer's ability to require a secret ballot if employees attempt to gain union representation. Instead, a union could be certified if 50% of those working at a particular site sign cards asking for a union. Andy Stern, the head of the SEIU, says the simpler procedure is needed to keep companies from intimidating workers who try to unionize, while Glenn Spencer, who heads the Workforce Freedom Initiative, a multi-million dollar effort by the Chamber of Commerce to stop card check, argues that the loss of a secret ballot will simply allow labor organizers to coerce their co-workers into joining a union whether they want one or not.

Perhaps even more worrisome for business, the measure would require companies to submit to binding arbitration if they can't come to terms on a contract 120 days after the union submits cards demonstrating that workers want to be represented. Stern argues that the strict limit is needed to keep companies from endlessly delaying implementation when the workforce opts for a union. But Spencer says that executives and small business owners fear the mandatory provision and short time frame will give negotiators who know little about their businesses huge sway over pay, workforce rules and other issues that could significantly undercut competitiveness.

AFL-CIO officials have said they believe they have the 60 votes needed to win, but many continue to question that claim.

SEIU's Stern is more cautious. He believes the unions have the votes needed to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate for a full debate this time, though that doesn't necessarily guarantee success. "Sixty people will let the debate go on," Stern told BusinessWeek shortly after speaking to a group of roughly 200 workers protesting outside the Chamber of Commerce's Washington headquarters Monday afternoon. "We will get our day in court." With the outcome still so up in the air, only one thing is certain: the already intense lobbying wars are only going to get worse.

Reader Comments

Bob Smith

March 10, 2009 03:56 AM

Nice! The unions want to destroy the very jobs they say they only want to improve. You're not going to improve something that you're focused on destroying.

Terry Thomas / Atlanta

March 10, 2009 07:03 AM

Enough! These strong-arm union tactics are cutting up America's freedoms one by one.

Back in the 1930s the unions were said to be fostered by communists. Now I believe that more than ever.

Americans Wake Up!

Terry Thomas
Atlanta, Georgia

Hugo van Randwyck

March 10, 2009 07:32 AM

How will this bill make companies increase hiring in manufacturing in America? Chinese manfacturers cannot believe their luck, more jobs moved from America to China. The secret ballot works - how can management intimidate people when there is a secret ballot?! With card signing there is massive opportunity for intimidation. Maybe business can be pro-active and come up with a voluntary system for businesses, say a quarterly survey, using secret ballot: a) Do you feel management is ensuring good health and safety? b) Do you feel management gives feedback in a balanced way? c) Do you feel management is over-paid and not enough for other employees? d) Would your plant be better run if it was demerged from the parent company? e) Does the company need new auditors? f) Does management listen to ideas that could improve performance, and help with pay rises? Then make the survey public.

Scott P

March 10, 2009 08:59 AM

I would look for more Democratic Senators to break with Obama on this one. Despite 60% of Silicon Valley supporting Obama, the tech companies do not want to see their industry unionized and some have threatened to move operations overseas. Certain states with certain industries will be putting pressure on their Senators to oppose this bill. I would be amazed in this economic climate if Senators Pryor, Lincoln and Landrieu are the only Democratic Senators to oppose this bill. Do you think Microsoft, Google and Apple want their work force unionized? This bill is Obama's payback to organized labor and something he made clear during the campaign that he wanted passed. If the entire Democratic Senators vote lock and step for this bill, they are either scared of Obama, mesmerized by Obama or lost their minds.

Brad

March 10, 2009 09:12 AM

Wow... this would be terrible. Unions were created to fight corrupt private companies with terrible working conditions. This bill would allow a group of highly paid corporate employees to drive up the cost of US labor, only leading to the loss of more domestic jobs. ALF-CIO only cares about increasing its power and not actually helping the labor market.

LR

March 10, 2009 09:22 AM

Yeah, work less get paid more. maybe if all this non productive effort went towards a business - they would make the wages desired. Stock was a pretty effective way for a person to enjoy the productivity gains of a business.

Small Business needs to unionize against the unions. I have to work 7 days a week to make ends meet. What is the use. The American Dream is being killed.

Clyde

March 10, 2009 09:43 AM

Why are our government leaders mislabeling their actions. "Employee
Free Choice Act" is a bill that should be called "Union Strong Arm Empowerment" or "If you don't vote for the Union Program, We will break your arm". The American People need to get real with our leaders by imposing "Term Limits" on our folks in Washington. They are on the Take, Big Time!

ADD

March 10, 2009 09:57 AM

This is such a stupid idea. From talking to the small business owners that I know, they all say that if their employees make this decision, then they will just close up shop and increase the rolls of the unemployed.

This law would essentially legalize mob style rule over companies. I could definitely see people getting threats if they don't vote for the union.

This legislation is an absolute disgrace and will exacerbate America's descent to a 3rd world country.

Greg

March 10, 2009 09:57 AM

AFL-CIO officials have said they believe they have the 60 votes needed to win.
Now we know who has bought and paid for Congress.

JK

March 10, 2009 12:30 PM

Just look what AFL-CIO did to the US auto companies.

Jacob

March 10, 2009 12:39 PM

Why don't unions see what they are really doing? Why do politicians support bills like this and then complain about private companies taking their work to factories in China and Mexico? Who is John Galt?

NostraChronus

March 10, 2009 12:56 PM

what's with the anti-labor sentiment? Did American workers just steal billions from the nation's financial coffers? And JK is blaming the AFL-CIO for US Auto Industry woes? Really, truly, sincerely? Are any of these original comments or regurgitations of O'Reilly excerpts?

steve

March 10, 2009 01:00 PM

Wow. I can't believe this is even close to being passed. How can anyone defend this bill. Secret ballot is the best way to insure the true feelings of the people are expressed. Why does the union insist that secret ballot is used when de-certification of the union is done? Why do 75% of union workers say secret ballot is the best way to vote?

Mark-Anthony

March 10, 2009 01:24 PM

Ummm Yeah, has anyone stop to think what a business owner is going to do "if" you passed this? At the bottem of a recession they are going to restrict hiring when the economy recovers ... which means less job growth. I really dont see how people think union are functional, new hires at GM make half of what current employees make ... in a recession ok, but when things pick up how are you going to retain decent employees. Especially when anyone somewhat near retirement is trying to get that lump sum and haul ass.

Lmoore

March 10, 2009 01:32 PM

I heard Sen Harkin say this morning that unions built the middle class.

Yeah, look what they did for Detroit!

Jay

March 10, 2009 01:45 PM

Like GSH said:

"but Taft and Hartley ain't done one day in the mine"

Indiana

March 10, 2009 01:45 PM

This law is dangerous, if not stopped, is an attack not only on the rights of employees,Commerce and struggling private sector business owners,large and small. It would set a precedent that theatens our freedom to cast political votes in private. The short term damge would weaken our stalled economy and long term would erode our freedom to vote free of political pressure.

Indiana

March 10, 2009 01:59 PM

This law is dangerous, if not stopped, is an attack not only on the rights of employees,Commerce and struggling private sector business owners,large and small. It would set a precedent that theatens our freedom to cast political votes in private. The short term damge would weaken our stalled economy and long term would erode our freedom to vote free of political pressure.

jhimmi

March 10, 2009 02:04 PM

Who is John Galt?

Rosa

March 10, 2009 02:26 PM

Look at our three biggest unions, the UAW, teachers union and airline union. Think about it, how good are these big three doing. Well the auto industry and airlines are bankrupt and the teachers are getting laid off, they can't seem to educate our kids and our education system is broke. Just what we need is to pay 80.00 dollars a month to some union who only wants our money so that they could go to Vegas and Hawaii for their meetings.

rjk

March 10, 2009 02:59 PM

It gives me encouragmnet to read that 100% of those repsponding can read between the lines on this unbelievable legislation. As advertised the American Free Choice act will guarantee employees higher wages, better benefits and more, oh yea not mentioned, most importantly it will fatten the pockets of union leadeship. All one has to do is look at history, whether its the steel industry in Pittsburgh collpased in the late 70's under unrealistic wages & entitlements, and now the auto mfgs, this gov't has no clue. Agreed we seem determined to send every last job off shore at a time when we should be finally realizing the damage that off shoring has been done to our own economy. Don't worry my freinds Obama and the democrat congress have your best interest in mind, sleep soundly America!

Bill

March 10, 2009 03:19 PM

Unbelievable. Right, the worker is doing soooo well in today's climate. And yes, of course, Detroit is in trouble because of unions! Not because of overpaid and arrogant management that consistently missed nearly every trend in the auto industry the past thirty-five years. I'm always amazed that politicians think it's a winning message to stand for lower pay for Americans. And I'm even more amazed that so many Americans also apparently buy into this. If you're working seven days a week to make ends meet, is that your fault or the fault of American management doing everything possible to keep pay down for workers? What is it with you guys who think that the fact that per capita compensation that peaked in 1973 and which has spiraled downward ever since is such a great thing? I really don't get it. Plus in passing this law the secret ballot is still available to workers. Remember the name of the bill has the word "choice" in it? And of course, one final word of thanks to our courageous and humble bankers who risked nearly every dollar this country has in fly by night securities. Want to blame that on the unions too? Politicians against this bill must laugh themselves to sleep every night when they realize that they can routinely convince American workers that the race to the bottom of the pay scale is actually in the workers' interest. They must laugh themselves silly.

rjk

March 10, 2009 03:30 PM

twice this week I have taken time to interact in the forum only to not be posted? please advise

UnionFan

March 10, 2009 03:47 PM

Unions are important to this country and its economic well being. And people have the wrong idea about the union and it rank and file. While I agree there is some corruption withing unions, I believe that it is up to the union members and the citizens of the USA to stop any illegal behavior. I also think that union members can not sit home and complain about their representatives while not attending union meetings or participating in the union. Nor do I approve of union members striking when there is a down turn in the economy.

But I also do not feel that the companies will ever freely compensate employees to the best of their ability without a negotiation process. What most of you are advocating for is, that people work for companies whose objective is to make the most profit they can garner for the CEO who is compensated in America on average 344 more than the the average American worker and to pay off the stockholders. Rather than work for a company where there are limits on executive compensation and where the employees have a system for bargaining??

There is always going to be a reserve army of labor that will drive workers wages down. John Edwards said that the only way that we will have middle class service workers is to have unions. WE are watching the erosion of the middle class not because unions destroyed this country but because we allowed businesses to move overseas, we allow them not to pay any taxes and we do not regulate what they can pay their Executives.

In the mortgage industry which is nearly all of the banking industry these companies and their executives lied and defrauded the nation and you still want to say it is the unions fault!!!! Wake up!!!

Tim

March 10, 2009 04:07 PM

Take a look at what is happening to GM, Ford, and Chrysler...unions used to be a good thing. Now they are just corporate entities themselves. After all, how many of you believe that Ron Gettlefinger is getting paid the same wage as a production worker, or even salary engineer?

Tim

March 10, 2009 04:07 PM

Take a look at what is happening to GM, Ford, and Chrysler...unions used to be a good thing. Now they are just corporate entities themselves. After all, how many of you believe that Ron Gettlefinger is getting paid the same wage as a production worker, or even salary engineer?

Tim

March 10, 2009 04:07 PM

Take a look at what is happening to GM, Ford, and Chrysler...unions used to be a good thing. Now they are just corporate entities themselves. After all, how many of you believe that Ron Gettlefinger is getting paid the same wage as a production worker, or even salary engineer?

Dan

March 10, 2009 04:18 PM

With the tremendously difficult business environment that we're in, it's hard to believe this bill is even being considered. This is the last thing struggling businesses need.

However there is one business that will benefit - temporary labor companies. Because of unionization threats, many companies that currently have a staff will be forced to say goodbye to them and hello to temp labor. This bill will hurt employee and employer alike.

RP

March 10, 2009 04:22 PM

I don't know why we really need labor rights anymore. The boss takes care of us, and loses sleep when we can't afford to take care of our children. Our corporate managers are already under too much stress. They work way to hard to build the best products anywhere in the world, so why would we want to burden them with unions. We just need to trust our bosses -- they know what they are doing.

God bless the ruling classes of America and every American block head that undermines working people. Satan is waiting for you!

more of the same

March 10, 2009 04:45 PM

More big, interventionist government.

Exactly what "change" is our foreign-born fraud of a president referring to?

John G.

March 10, 2009 04:46 PM

I own a union mfg. company. Trust me this a bad idea for both owners and union members.
Why can't a member vote privately?
Only answer is strong arm tactics/intimidation. Self preservation makes unions viable and I understand, but this makes no sense.
We don't vote this way in elementary school elections because of the antagonizing and peer pressure mentality. It's worse with grown ups who have families to support and feel strongly about an issue. They can't let this happen. Either people will get into altercations or business in the US will falter.
lose lose.

Sally

March 11, 2009 01:05 AM

I am a card carrying union member and I DO NOT want secret ballots removed. I have been coerced and intimidated by my union.

People wake up-my dues have been used in the past to try to unionize other companies while my work conditions have deteriorated. Meanwhile my union leadership takes the vacations I can't afford, junkets and other such "business trips."

Say good-bye to more jobs if this bill passes.

Flavian Smith

March 11, 2009 10:15 AM

You gotta love the misinformation put out by the Chamber and the Limbaugh dido-heads posting on this site. The EFCA does NOT eliminate the secrete ballot, it simply provides a new option for workers trying to organize since big business and the arch-conservative appointees on the National Labor Relations Board have gotten so adept at railroading the process currently in place.

From Wikipedia:
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor, described the limitations of the system of NLRB elections:

"The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to form a union. Although it is illegal, one-quarter of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are active union supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it does little to deter law breakers.

Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they control the information workers can receive, can force workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can require workers to meet with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted.

The Employee Free Choice Act [with its provisions for majority sign-up] would add some fairness to the system…"

President Barack Obama supports majority sign-up. An original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, then-Sen. Obama urged his colleagues to pass the bill during a 2007 motion to proceed:

"I support this bill because in order to restore a sense of shared prosperity and security, we need to help working Americans exercise their right to organize under a fair and free process and bargain for their fair share of the wealth our country creates. The current process for organizing a workplace denies too many workers the ability to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act offers to make binding an alternative process under which a majority of employees can sign up to join a union. Currently, employers can choose to accept—but are not bound by law to accept—the signed decision of a majority of workers. That choice should be left up to workers and workers alone."

On the other hand, investor Warren Buffet, a supporter of and informal economic advisor to Barack Obama, announced his opposition to the measure.

The AFL-CIO notes that, in practice, company-controlled secret ballots actually make the process less democratic:

"People call the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election system a secret ballot election—but in fact it's not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. It's really a management-controlled election process because corporations have all the power. They control the information workers can receive and routinely poison the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who try to organize unions. No employee has free choice after being browbeaten by a supervisor to oppose the union or being told they may lose their job and livelihood if workers vote for the union."

Majority sign-up also has won the support of leading economists, academics and newspapers.

robin

March 11, 2009 01:11 PM

I am sorry, but unions as a whole do more damage than good. You just have to look at history, California, Illinois and the car industry.
Workers would have to stockpile money for strikes that can seem to last an eternity if you are not prepared.
The workers are encouraged to disagree with management, creating a stressful work environment.
Workers are encouraged to slow down production. Those who go the extra mile are targeted negatively.
Our growth and productivity will slow while unions create rules to cofuse and slow down jobs.
Jobs will begin to disappear.
If this thing passes many companies will move overseas and I don't blame them. I would. The economy will suffer. Obama's change is having nothing but big gov't. and they do such a wonderful job. He promised to have the ethical administration, which is totally laughable when you look at some of his picks. He promised change in the WH and I see a lot of Clinton's people. I see big spending. What gets me the most is people don't understand that he gave an extra $13 in our paychecks for 1 yr. and that goes down to under $8 next yr., but he is going to tax us to hell and back with gas, heat, and electricity. These taxes will create inflation because it will cost so much to transport merchandise and food. Wait until you see your heating bill, you thought it was bad now, even Whoopi is sounding off about it. Is that extra $13 going to cover it? And now union dues. Come on! America is getting angry and a lot of politicians are about to lose their jobs. I doubt Obama will get a 2nd term. Just hope Republicans will control 2010 to curtail his spending. Right now it is time for Congress and the WH to listen to us and do what is right and stop looking after themselves and their special interests.

Matt R.

March 11, 2009 02:51 PM

Unions are a form of socialism. I truly believe the Obama administration is trying to create a socialist country. Unions were needed in the 50s, or so but now they just kill a companys' growth. Just look at the Big Three and tell me I'm wrong. Yes, I know unions aren't the only cause for what's happening with the Auto Industry. But they have made it increasingly worse. The Big Three can't even make a decision without the UAW giving the go ahead. How bull**** is that. Unions have been a major contributor to this economy. I don't think Obama understands what is going on. He has more than doubled the deficit he inherited and has only been in office for what, 52 days, that's scary. Bush was in office for 8 years and wasn't even close to that number. It's just scary to think that we still have over 3 years of Obama left. How much more damage can he do? I don't know if there is a limit.

Marcel Legare

March 13, 2009 11:30 AM

It is no coincidence that Unions gave millions to the democratic campain. My experience with the unions nis that they enjoy great wages and benefites at the expense of general polpulation. My personal experience is that the unions are crooked!

Tony

March 15, 2009 11:56 AM

I'm for this bill! No more scare tactics from companies! It's about time people can join a union without the company they work for twisting your arm, threatining to take away benifits and basically beggin for no votes. I've been through this process before and the company pushes off the vote as long as possible all the while putting out negative propaganda about unions. They buy food for everyone and lower the workload and say it's going to stay that way, but as soon as the vote is over, work conditions return to what they were with no improvements. It's very simple, if you don't want a union don't sign the card. Let's face it no union rep is going to threaten bodily harm if you say no, they are just going to move on to the next person.

Rik

March 24, 2009 04:55 PM

"Did American workers just steal billions from the nation's financial coffers?"

Yes they did. Can you say UAW? The union retirement benefits for auto workers have bankrupted the US auto industry. $2500 of the price of each new car goes to pay healthcare premiums for retirees. GM, Ford and Chrysler are not auto companies. They are government sponsored retirement programs that also make a few cars.

Debi

July 13, 2009 08:34 PM

Ok America, it's time to start reading the information and making our own informed decisions. I have been involved with good unions and not so good unions, but when I get phone calls blaming the union leaders our president and all democrats for the problems we are having...well, for me that's a red flag. Are politicians really the one's to simply trust when some can't be trusted to run their own states well or their homes. Check into it yourself and make an informed decision. In this country we don't have to be the puppets of a few who may be in it for personal gain. Look at our banks, GM, Ford, or Chrysler leaders. Who benefitted in these places....not me or any other American who lost their jobs. Ask yourself, Did the union cause those failures, or their own self serving practices?

Post a comment

 

About

Washington Bureau Chief Jane Sasseen and other BusinessWeek writers peel back the curtain on the economy, business and money matters at the White House, Congress, and federal agencies.

Recent Comments

BW Mall - Sponsored Links