Spinning irony
“This legislation is monumental,” Ben Carter, the president of the Greater Augusta Regional Chamber of Commerce, wrote in a partisan-tinged letter to the editor published in The News Virginian last week, in which he recited the GOP talking points on the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation making its way through Congress that would put into effect safeguards for people who eschew fancy suits for blue collars and might want to organize to try to improve their pay and benefits.
“It would change the way union elections are conducted at worksites by eliminating an employee’s ability to decide whether to join a union through a private ballot election,” Carter wrote. “Instead, the EFCA would allow a simple ‘card check’ to represent the true intent of the employees. The problem with that is, it opens the process to intimidation, threats and badgering. Just imagine the problems if this concept were adopted in our democratic elections.”
“‘Card check’ elections are simply a bad idea. The right to a private ballot is a cornerstone of our democracy. It is a right we all exercise in our daily lives,” Carter concluded his letter.
I have to give credit where credit is due – not to Carter, who is simply regurgitating what the suits are being fed by their ideological allies in the business wing of the Republican Party, but to those on the far right for their savvy in painting the Employee Free Choice Act as a threat to our democratic way of life.
Kudos, seriously. I mean, it ain’t at all what the legislation is about, but A for effort.
Here is what the Employee Free Choice Act would actually do. Ready? Ahem. It would mandate the recognition of a union under federal law when a majority of employees have signed authorizations designating the union as their bargaining representative. And in line with the recognition, a process would be triggered automatically in which the National Labor Relations Board would be empowered to develop model authorization language and procedures for establishing the validity of signed authorizations.
And this is controversial – why, again?
Let’s go back to what Carter had to say in his letter. “The problem with it is, it opens the process to intimidation, threats and badgering.” No, the problem is that the process is already rife with intimidation, threats and badgering – from corporate types who use existing federal law to intimidate, threaten and badger workers into not organizing.
I think it’s probably obvious why this is meeting with such stiff resistance from the suits. The system works for their benefit now. Oh, sure, they’re going to yammer ’til the cows come home about what’s good for their bottom lines is what’s good for business, but think about how a macroeconomy actually works. It’s not the rich getting richer and the middle class getting squeezed that primes the pump. It’s the middle class doing well that raises the boat for all of us, including the rich.
That said, I’m all for a free exchange of ideas on this one. I rather wish my chamber of commerce would take the same approach. Did I forget to mention that earlier – that Augusta Free Press Publishing, our parent company, is involved in our local chamber of commerce? Then I likely also failed to mention that I don’t recall anyone from the chamber ever asking me or other members our thoughts on taking a public stand on the Employee Free Choice Act.
I thought at first that it was ironic maybe that our chamber president would write a letter complaining about legislation that he views as putting the democratic process that we all hold so near and dear at risk without having put the matter to my knowledge to any kind of democratic vote amongst the membership.
But on reflection, no, it’s not irony. It’s the way some people like to do business.
- Column by Chris Graham
Related posts:
- Staunton names government employee of year Item by Chris Graham A Staunton sheriff’s deputy has been named the city government’s employee of the year for 2007. Darrell W. Carter Jr., a...
- Deputy saved by the belt Matthew Carter is here today because he buckled up. The Augusta County sheriff’s deputy was responding to an emergency call on Eastside Highway on the...
- Ready to rumble: Residents prepare for Isabel Story by Chris Graham Greater Augusta Regional Chamber of Commerce executive director Ben Carter was thinking of Hurricane Camille on Tuesday. Many locals do look...
- Military vet wages write-in challenge to Augusta County sheriff Story by Chris Graham freepress2@ntelos.net Four years ago, Augusta County sheriff Randy Fisher had a nominal challenge for re-election in the form of independent candidate...
- See the Valley Story by Chris Graham sportsdom@ntelos.net Listen to today’s “SportsDominion Show,” featuring an interview with Around the Valley in 60 Days originator Jerry Carter. Show Length:...
Comments
28 Responses to “Spinning irony”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...-
Stickley furniture….
Ashley furniture. Stickley furniture….
You can always join a Chamber of Commerce that supports Card Check.
Unions had their day in the 1930s. They are lead weights on the auto industry and government nowadays. Government-union contracts are a big reason that California will be issuing IOUs instead of refunds for taxpayers.
Good suggestion. I can join a chamber of commerce that supports economic balance between corporations and workers. And one that doesn’t misuse its members’ dollars toward partisan purposes.
Big corporations have had their day, too, incidentally. Bigger isn’t better, as it turns out. The efficiencies and economies of scale that should exist are lost in the mindless redunancies that boards and CEOs insist on having in place. The suits prefer to hire more suits to manage than people with blue collars to do actual work. Prune that down, and then you can natter on about unions being lead weights.
Are the levels of middle management there to help deal with government rules and union rules?
It is controversal because it eliminates the vote, as I understand. Now, the petitions are signed to have a vote. Then, a campaign is conducted and supervised by the NLRB. Then a secret ballot is taken.
Under the new, the petition is signed as the voting mechanism. Not a secret ballot. Not all on one day. Not after a supervised campaign. But as union representatives convince the workers in the streets, homes, and cafes, wherever they are encountered. Please check ot see if I am correct in this distinction.
So the threat to democracy is the elimination of the secret ballot.
The US Chamber has the same viewpoint.
The Augusta Chamber had an educational event sometime in late October or early November. Support for the Chamber was evident at that meeting.
If this is what the chamber provided in its educational event, then the problem is much deeper than I surmised.
They are advancing the propaganda of the business elites that want to see this legislation blocked for reasons having nothing to do with the supposed subversion of the democratic ideal. That is a red herring. That said, if that is what the chamber was selling at its educational event, I would expect nothing less than support from chamber members for the position advanced.
It bothers me greatly that the chamber would misrepresent the intent and impact of this bill. I have to seriously question our continued involvement with the organization as a result.
The way the NLRB law is written now, an employer can demand a secret ballot election even if a majority of employees has signed cards authorizing a representative to bargain on their behalf, also known as a card check election. The Employee Free Choice Act allows an employer to dispute the legitimacy of an employee representative if less than a majority of employees have signed authorization cards, or if illegal coercion is alleged. So even if what you guys are saying would happen indeed does happen, and there is coercion alleged, there is a process in the EFCA that gives employers the right to challenge.
On the flip side, the way it stands now, employees are subject to intimidation from employers, who can challenge the legitimacy of their organizing efforts at the drop of a hat.
What this comes down to is whose side are you on? Do you back big business protecting its rights, or do you back employees protecting their rights?
Just to clear something up – the Employee Free Choice Act wouldn’t eliminate secret-ballot elections. What it does is modifies the National Labor Relations Act to give workers the choice of whether to hold a card-check election or a regular secret-ballot election. Currently under the NLRA that choice is effectively in the hands of employers.
Bella Kos’ comments made me do some more digging on that aspect of the proposed legislation. Thanks.
I can understand the ferocity of the business sector in fighting this. Giving workers this power introduces something of an uncomfortable unknown for management. Right now the burden of the unknown is borne by employees. Who aren’t going to be losing a lot of sleep over the big guys having to deal with unknowns.
Look to California for the problems caused by unions, specifically government employee unions. Instead of having state employees take two unpaid days off, the comptroller wants to issue IOUs for tax refunds and withhold $188 million in assistance to the aged, blind and disabled. Can’t dare hurt the unions.
www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/23/lz1ed23bottom21148-chiangs-coup-d233tat/?uniontrib
btw, should government employees be allowed to unionize? In the context of the overall economy, they are more management than employee.
Even the right-wing newspaper’s editorial that you cite says that the one issue that you raise has nothing to do with the other. You do understand that, right? You seem to want to divert our attention from the discussion at hand to talk about California’s issues with its state comptroller and unions and the like. The issue being discussed in this thread is the Employee Free Choice Act and its pros and cons. Funny how the Republicans in D.C. don’t want to argue its actual merits, either. Must be because the legislation as written is pretty solid, so the only way to attack it is by skewing the focus of the debate to the extreme periphery.
There’s no diverting of attention, just bringing up facts. Why is the Employee Free Choice Act is being pushed now? To give union leaders more power? Then you look at examples of what unionized areas do with that power.
If the unionized auto companies are doing worse than the non-unionized auto companies, then look for the reasons why. Maybe going union won’t bring the benefits the EFCA talks about.
The Employee Free Choice Act, as you know, is not at all new. It passed the House in ’07 and was blocked in the Senate by a GOP filibster. Of course if it hadn’t been blocked there, the president would have vetoed it, and it would not have been overridden by a two-thirds majority in either house of Congress. That said, it’s far from something that is “being pushed now” to “give union leaders more power.” This is a longstanding battle being fought to give employees the ability to do more to protect their rights to fair wages and benefits.
Cut down on what they pay CEOs, and maybe the big three isn’t so bad off. But no, stick it to the workers. It’s all their fault. Typical ………
Then maybe the EFCA is too late. How do you get higher wages and bigger benefits from companies that are barely surviving? Especially with the mandatory arbitration part of the bill, locking in terms for two years if there’s no agreement between labor and management.
One, I didn’t say “higher wages and bigger benefits.” The benefit of EFCA is that it gives workers an easier path toward deciding to organize and protect their common interests. Two, I don’t buy into the mythology that because we’re in a recession every single individual company in America is “barely surviving.” That’s an extreme way of viewing the current reality. I don’t fault those who think that way, just to be clear. The media is definitely selling that perspective. (For reasons that are probably obvious. Bad news sells.)
Well, you don’t join unions expecting for things to stay the same. Higher wages and bigger benefits are assumed.
Union membership has declined since the 1950s. People have voted against unions in their lives and in their economic decisions (buying non-union cars despite the buy American talk). Wages and benefits have risen with the economy.
Each side wants to make the rules more favorable for themselves. That’s smart business and smart organizing. If business sees momentum running against them, it’s smart to put up roadblocks that highlight the not-so-sweet parts of EFCA.
I would challenge the assertion that “(p)eople have voted against unions in their lives” as being more a political statement than a practical and factual one. The rules of the game give management the tools to suppress true employee intent. If your job is threatened if you sign a petition, for example, you aren’t as likely to sign a petition, hamstringing the process at the outset.
I recognize the move toward putting up “roadblocks,” as you call them, and agree that it is “smart.” I do have an issue with a nonprofit, explicitly nonpartisan organization using my money without my consent to utilize partisan talking points that misrepresent the true intent of the legislation in an effort to influence the opinions of its members. This is at the least unethical, and at worst should bring the chamber’s continued ability to claim nonprofit status into question.
At the local chamber’s “educational” event, a balance of the issues viewpoints was lacking. The legislation had received considerable support and almost passed previous sessions albeit for the GOP filibuster, as Chris notes in an earlier post. One panel representative, Catherine Welsh, a labor lawyer expert with Lenhart / Obenshain, expressed surprise at the “let’s fight the legislation” viewpoint at the meeting. And instead, she suggested the legislation’s passage was eminent. She thought her presence at the meeting would best be used to educate business owners on the changes and how they best could educate their employees on how the employeee might respond when approached by union organizers. Her desires did not carry the day and the business owners present were surprised by how far this legislation had gotten and were more interested in how they could express their opposition to the legistion.
No one spoke in favor. No one could provide me with the opposing view and how it had received such support from many of our nations elected representatives. It appeared to be very biased to those viewpoints without any counter viewpoints regarding any beneficial impacts of the legislation.
Chris Saxman was on the panel and offered many positive thoughts but obviously supportive of let’s fight and oppose the legislation. I asked about the impacts on Virginia’s right to work statues. He and Cathy Welsh responded with comments regarding unknown impacts of how this new legislation might affect the right to work laws. I believe that question may have been the genesis of Chris’s recent legislative introduction. But he may have been considering such legislation prior.
This legislation has received substantial support from many legislators in the past and it almost became law except for a filibuster in past legislative sessions. Given the change in leadership, it appears that it chances have improved. I would appreciate more unbiased reporting and knowledge of the issues, pros and cons, instead of the posturing, and fear tactics. Something else seems to be driving this issue other than the facts.
Thanks for this perspective, Johnnie. I wish I’d been aware of the meeting and had a chance to participate. Not that I could have necessarily swayed anybody’s thoughts, but perhaps we could have helped the speaker referenced above who did try to achieve some sort of balance. This insight that you’ve shared today is invaluable. Thanks again.
I’d also like to thank Johnnie for the report. If the labor lawyer is surprised by the “let’s fight the legislation” consensus, I’d say it shows how under-the-radar this bill is. It’s not an imminent concern to our local business owners.
If EFCA passes, I expect labor leaders to go after the big fish first – Honda, Toyota, Wal-Mart – and businesses were previous union votes lost by 60-40 margins. It will take a while to trickle down to our local area and businesses with 15-100 employees.
Yes, it was so far under the radar that the Palin-McCain campaign made a big issue of it because Barack Obama had signaled early on that he supported the legislation, and the Gilmore campaign did the same in Virginia because Mark Warner had signaled the same intent. This is hardly a new development in the legislative sphere.
There’s a difference between under the radar for political junkies and under the radar for normal folks.
Didn’t Gilmore run TV ads on Warner and his support of EFCA? This from a campaign that didn’t have a lot of money to put on TV ads. Don’t make this out to be something that only us interested types cared about. It obviously was on the radar enough to justify a chamber of commerce “educational event” just before the election. Let’s not pretend that the timing of this was coincidental.
If you’re running a business, you likely aren’t watching a lot of TV. Or probably skipping the commercials to do other things.
If those same people running a business don’t have time to keep up with issues that are driving an election to the point that they are the subjects of TV spots, when do they suddenly get the time to attend a chamber of commerce education seminar? They don’t have 30 seconds to watch a TV commercial at home, but they have a couple of hours to go to a seminar. This reasoning makes no sense.
In sum … there are those in management and ownership positions who want to see the status quo labor-relations system continue, and there are those who want to see employees given more power to decide for themselves whether they want to organize. Both sides have their reasons for making their respective pushes.
The arguments about the issue being under the radar and inimical to our concept of democracy are red herrings. Those advancing those arguments are well aware of that.
I admire the attempt at playing politics with the issue, because that’s really the only option that the foes of EFCA have at their disposal now. The issue was discussed during the campaign, the American people overwhelmingly voted for the candidates who said they support EFCA, and now the legislation is going to pass and become law.
End of story.
It’s never the end of the story, because there’s always another election coming.
And Red Herring is a kid in the “Pup named Scooby Doo” cartoon.
And yet they always figure out that it wasn’t a real ghost, just Mr. Withers wearing a mask.