The EFCA is about expanding unions

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 08:56:20 AM MST

But opponents of the bill counter that its main purpose is to boost membership in unions whose size, influence and reach are dwindling.

"Workers are not seeing the benefits of joining a union," Brown said. "I really feel they've lost their way; I think that's why their numbers are declining."

Brown charges that the bill could run the risk of interfering with businesses by mandating a government arbitrator settle disputes, and it could force higher wages out of small companies in an economy where profit margins are already thin. Furthermore, he added, the illusion of higher wages could be mitigated by having to pay union dues.

"It's a sneaky way, I think, of selling something that they can't sell straightforwardly, so they're doing it kind of backdoor," Brown said.

Of course the EFCA is about increasing membership in unions! That's the whole friggin' point! Remove the current worker-unfriendly barriers to unionization (that Testa elaborates on in this report), and more people join. Brown himself admitted that in an earlier Chuck Johnson report when he said, "the last report I saw from the National Labor Relations Board, they (unions) are winning two out of three elections. What do they want?" Er, they want employers to stop harassing workers who want to join a union. And imagine if penalties for harassing workers were actually punitive, and that disputes were quickly adjudicated, and the process couldn't be strung along for weeks or months. Unions would win a lot more than two out of every three elections!

Brown is somehow arguing that businesses should have the right to harass their workers and delay elections because unions are so dang popular...which is an odd argument to make, isn't it?

As for the benefits of unionization, well, ask a union worker. You'll spot them easily enough. They're the ones with decent health care benefits, vacation time, and pay...

EFCA heats up again

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:51:22 AM MST

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.

Very Cool: Sierra Club Goes to Bat on Employee Free Choice Act

by: Matt Singer

Thu May 28, 2009 at 16:40:32 PM MST

This reminds me a bit of being at the state AFL-CIO convention and watching Pat Williams close his speech with a pitch for wilderness.

There are, at times, nearly inevitable disagreements between labor unions and the environmental movement, but as one friend and I discussed it, the alternative we face is clear cuts to forests and paychecks.

So when I see conservationists and unions working together, I feel a bit better about where our country is headed.

More Evidence that Union Intimidation of Employees is a Myth

by: Matt Singer

Tue May 05, 2009 at 14:33:01 PM MST

So, union intimidation of employees continues to be as unproven as unicorns, but continues to form the basis of the Chamber of Commerce's message against the Employee Free Choice Act. Paging Jon Bennion: where's the evidence of union intimidation? And why doesn't the Chamber support stricter penalties for employee intimidation if that's the underlying concern of the Chamber?

Employee Free Choice Act Work Ramps Up

by: Matt Singer

Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:59:39 AM MST

The Montana AFL-CIO is coordinating work in Butte, Great Falls, and Missoula this week -- where Montana workers will be contacting their members of Congress.

The back-and-forth on this campaign is likely to heat up soon. I won't be surprised to see millions of dollars dropped on misleading TV ads from folks interested in maintaining their ability to bust up unions.

Luckily, Montana workers are speaking up.

Why Montana Should Support the Employee Free Choice Act: It's Good for the Herd

by: Robert Struckman

Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 14:49:26 PM MST

In a discussion with a Missoula-area businessman the other day, I stumbled onto this reason why Montana's small business owners should embrace the Employee Free Choice Act: Do it for the herd.

I got the idea from a news story on National Public Radio some time ago.

Here's the basics: Immunization shots carry a miniscule-but-imminent risk of the disease they protect against, so some people think it prudent to shun the shots. But avoidance carries a far-greater-though-distant risk, that of the disease sweeping through the entire populace.

Likewise, business owners might feel that a bill that gives employees room to make the decision about whether and how they join together would be risky.  But a bankrupt economy where working families earn less each year is worse.

If the shortsighted CEOs and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have their way -- those guys threaten "Armageddon" (not kidding) if the bill passes -- corporate America will continue to bleed the American people until the entire country succumbs.

It's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen. Support the Employee Free Choice Act, especially if you're a small business owner. Email Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester and ask them to support the legislation. Ask Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, too.

The bill will improve the lot of every wage-earner in Montana and America.

It's good for the herd.  

In Montana, A Movement Grows To Support Economic Recovery and Health Care Reform

by: Robert Struckman

Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 15:32:23 PM MST

This is a scene that's becoming more common around Montana: Locals gathering -- post-election -- to continue to push for positive change.

About two dozen Democratic Party faithful and new volunteers gathered at the Billings Senior Citizens Center this Tuesday evening in an event that was reminiscent of the "Obama watch parties" of the presidential campaign.

This time, instead of an Obama-McCain debate, the group watched President Barack Obama deliver his first speech to the joint Congress.

In his speech -- and in a major budget proposal since -- the president indicated health care reform will be the next big piece of legislation he will push.

The event  was organized by the Montana Change That Works campaign and the Yellowstone Democratic Club.

The Montana Change That uh... What?

Change That Works.

It's part of a 30-plus state campaign funded by the Service Employees International Union with the goal of fixing the nation's healthcare system and get the American economy back on track.

The meeting opened with the monthly Yellowstone Democratic Club dinner (featuring ham, green beans and carrot cake). During dinner, a local activist spoke about Sen. Max Baucus' white paper on health care reform.

The activist was Joe Splinter of Montanans for Health Care, a
grassroots organization building a coalition to support Baucus' effort to reform the nation's health care system. Baucus has a leading role in the formation of what may become the most significant piece of health care reform in U.S. history. Montana's senior senator has said he wants the reform to be his legacy.

Everybody sat in front of a big screen television at the front of the room to watch Obama. Then everybody talked about health care reform.

"We can do better, and we must do better," said Billings local Vern Klingman.

Also discussed was a new report released by a group called Montanans For Health Care. The report, called the "Cost of Doing Nothing," details how health insurance premiums cripple the finances of small businesses, families and local and state governments.

Dennis Rehberg Votes to Protect Intimidation of Workers

by: Matt Singer

Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 14:47:48 PM MST

What does the EFCA do? In a nutshell, it allows workers to organize either through the current employer-dominated election process -- a process that has resulted in widespread employer intimidation of workers -- or through "card check" where a majority of workers sign cards stating their preference for a union -- a process that results in far lower levels of worker intimidation.

Currently, card check campaigns are only recognized voluntarily by employers. Election processes are so rife with intimidation and corruption that the first step in most real union organizing these days is fighting simply to get the employer to agree to not intimidate workers. Without that first step, it becomes impossible to organize.

This isn't surprising -- the man who served as George W.'s Deputy Secretary of Labor until very recently actually publicly attacked card check for preventing 'retaliation' against pro-union workers. Retaliation is already illegal in theory, but widespread in practice.

So what does Dennis Rehberg do? He votes to maintain intimidation and retaliation against workers exercising what is supposed to be your federally protected right to form a union.

Almost a year ago, Max Baucus became the 43rd cosponsor of the EFCA in the Senate. I have no idea where Jon Tester stands on it. Labor already knows it faces a tougher battle in the 51-49 Senate and the prospects of a Presidential veto. But the House today took a strong stand for workers. And that deserves a little round of applause.

Former Bush Labor Official: It's About the Right to Retaliate Against Union Organizers

by: Matt Singer

Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:06:33 AM MST

In better news, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been introduced. This legislation will finally make the promise of the right of workers to organize a reality in America. Even better, it's got 230 co-sponsors in the House.

Notably absent from that list of co-sponsors? Dennis Rehberg. Of course, you shouldn't expect much from a man who voted against the minimum wage.

Speaking of Rehberg, why is he lying to Montanans? Talk about an easy story for a reporter to work up. It's almost a haiku.

Dennis says he'll show
His schedule to Montanans.
Big Surprise. He lied.