Chicago Tribune (Illinois), February 22, 2007, Thursday
Copyright 2007 Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune (Illinois)
February 22, 2007 Thursday
SECTION: WASHINGTON DATELINE
HEADLINE: Unions back in the fight
BYLINE: By Stephen Franklin, Chicago Tribune
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
WASHINGTON _ This is not your typical skirmish between organized labor and big business.
It's "the big one," said Danielle Ringwood, a Washington lobbyist for the building industry.
In what would be the first major pro-union revision of the nation's labor laws, Democrats in Congress have proposed allowing unions to more easily organize workers by sidestepping a secret ballot if more than 50 percent of the employees sign cards backing a union.
A showdown over the bill is playing out across the country, as both labor and business try to turn up pressure on politicians over an idea that could give a significant boost to the nation's sagging unions.
From hotel maids to janitors to disgruntled big-box retail workers, a less cumbersome election process would provide a scent of salvation for organized labor as its numbers slide precipitously downward.
Whether the drive will survive Republican resistance isn't clear, but already the fact that the proposal is being taken seriously by labor and business shows how dramatically the political climate has changed since the Democrats took control of Congress after November's election.
Observers on both sides say there are enough votes to pass the bill in the House. And while Senate support is unclear, President Bush would likely veto it. But unions and their Democratic allies say they are looking to the 2008 election, when they expect to gain more ground.
"Even if we don't pass this, we need to have a debate about this," said Bill Samuels, chief lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, one of the nation's two labor federations.
"Corporations have felt that they can act with impunity when they violate workers' rights, and a strong vote in Congress will convince corporate America that such behavior is no longer acceptable," he said.
Business groups are concerned by organized labor's ability to get such a bill so quickly onto Congress' agenda. Placed on the floor of the House earlier this month by U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the bill has already accumulated 236 sponsors, among them several Republicans.
Despite labor's long-time dream to make such changes, it has not been able in recent years to get its congressional allies to introduce such legislation, let alone hold hearings, which took place recently.
"What you are seeing is an unprecedented effort by organized labor to overturn years of labor law," said Ringwood, a lobbyist for Associated Builders and Contractors. Like most business officials, she argued that removing the secret ballot would diminish workers' rights.
"This is moving very quickly and people are concerned that the rights of employees would be taken away."
Under the bill, called the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor Relations Board would certify a union if it wins a majority of cards signed by workers.
Currently, the NLRB will call for a secret-ballot election if more than 30 percent of the workers say they support a union. In order to win the election, the union must garner the majority of the workers' votes.
Unions argue that change is needed because employers intimidate workers before voting and by legally battling elections so long the victories become meaningless. The reform proposal goes beyond the balloting by toughening sanctions for interfering in the organizing process and introducing fines for the first time to NLRB rules.
The bill also would introduce federal mediators in talks where the union and company cannot reach a deal on a first-time contact. If both sides cannot resolve their differences, then an arbitrator's finding would be imposed.
"That is horrendous, outrageous and inconceivable," said John Raudabaugh, a former NLRB board member and Chicago attorney. "All the law requires is that the parties are ushered into a room, the door closes and they are left to their own devices."
William Gould, a former head of the NLRB in the 1990s, supports some of the reforms, saying the "secret-ballot election is badly broke."
"It is the old problem of justice delayed is justice denied," said Gould, a labor law professor at Stanford University. He cited figures that show that it took an average of 802 days for the NLRB to resolve a disputed election in 2005, and 1,232 days in cases dealing with labor law violations.
Still, Gould said he has some doubts about card-check elections, and suggested that some controls would be needed to protect workers.
NLRB officials point out that these kinds of cases cited by Gould make up only a tiny percentage of the organization's workload.
Unions claim 7.4 percent of the workers in private businesses, a low point since the rise of labor in the 1930s.
Cornell University labor expert Rick Hurd is not sure what a final bill might look like, nor is it clear that the proposed changes will markedly affect labor's problems. "It would make it easier for unions to organize, but it would still be a struggle," he said, adding that labor's woes go beyond its NLRB tangles.
The biggest payoff would come, he suggested, for unions that have invested heavily in organizing drives in workplaces not facing long-term job layoffs. One of these, he said, is the hotel industry.
Unions had planned over 150 events last week around the nation with the goal of showing Congress that they have the public support.
In turn, the business leaders have cobbled together what one Washington business lobbyist describes as the largest coalition of diverse business and interest groups united behind a single cause. The group is known as the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.
___
<< Home