| A trio of union-related articles popped up in the Billings Gazette in recent days. They're centered around the Employee Free Choice Act.
You know how we feel about the EFCA around these parts: we like it. Anything that helps workers curtail employer intimidation in organizing unions is okay by us.
Sadly, the usual gang of "pro-business" activists have jumped at the chance to oppose the bill, though, oddly, by claiming to be advocating on behalf of workers, even though their opposition means suppressed wages and union-friendly workers being fired at workplaces.
You can see the latest opposition rhetoric from the Chamber of Commerce in Chuck Johnson's piece summing up the opposing arguments on the issue:
"Their problem is they (unions) see the numbers going down," said Webb Brown, Montana Chamber of Commerce president. "They see from a political standpoint they have an edge. They can't sell it to workers so they want to sneak it in through the back door."
Brown said the bill is intended to help unions collect more dues and donate more to union-friendly politicians.
The chamber official said he sees no problems with the present law but is open to compromise.
"The last report I saw from the National Labor Relations Board, they (unions) are winning two out of three elections," Brown said. "What do they want?"
Er...there's no doubt that unions want to expand. More union members means more leverage politically and economically. But...er...that's not a bad thing. It's not like unions don't provide a service. To wit, Johnson's piece on the unionization of pharmacy technicians and clerks in a Helena drugstore:
"Once we said the word 'union,' everything changed," Luckey said. "They started coming out with work policies we couldn't comply with. They took us into closed-door (one-on-one) sessions. We wanted to do it in a group. A corporate officer flew in. He was concerned about the money the union would take from me. I said I would be fine."
Employees voted to form a union in February 2006. Obtaining a contract took nearly nine months, Luckey said. Afterward, some employees saw their pay jump by $4 an hour.
"Before, we were just used and abused," she said. "Afterward, you could actually see them slowly start to respect us. That was probably bigger than the struggle to survive on the wages. It became a healthy environment."
I love Brown's second argument, that unions win 2 out of 3 elections to unionize workplaces, and somehow implies the system is rigged towards workers. In reality, it's the employer that has the advantages. And doesn't the fact that unions win the majority of elections, despite widespread employer intimidation, imply that workers actually want to unionize? That what unions offer is popular? Even needed? That, in our current work and legal environments, the conditions are tipped to favor owners over labor?
Yeah, Rehberg is against the bill. That's not surprising. I think there's something inherent in the character of every multi-million-dollar real estate developer that makes him want to keep the commoners in line. But, yeah, I'm a little disappointed that Tester and Baucus are backing off their support for the EFCA. Seems like maybe they're a little nervous about opposing Montana's CoC? Which doesn't make any sense, frankly. The Good Guv's had a contentious relationship with the Chamber for as long as I can remember, and his popularity is as high as ever. Listen up, Senators. If you back legislation like this - that benefits everyday Montanans over big corporations - we'll get your backs. |
