Right to Work Blog

In a blockbuster story, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Bush Administration is weighing an executive order that would protect workers on government construction sites by banning card check union organizing.

The executive order would require large government contractors to use secret-ballot elections for union organizing or risk losing government contracts, say people familiar with the order. Though companies typically prefer secret ballots, some are willing to accept card checks to avoid a fight. It isn’t clear if the order would apply to a company’s entire operations or only those operations serving the government. According to a person familiar with a draft of the order, it would exclude companies with small government contracts.

Mr. President, you have been in office for seven years — what are you waiting for?

Right to Work President Mark Mix reminds Americans that “You Don’t Have to be Trodden by Unions.”

William Donohue, the head of the Chamber of Commerce, speaks out against the Card Check Scam:

Labor Day signals the beginning of the sprint toward the November elections, when Americans cast a secret ballot for the candidates of their choice.

Sadly, this year - whether they know it or not - voters may very well be deciding whether to do away with that sacred tradition when it comes to union organizing campaigns.

That’s because the fate of legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act - better known as the Card Check law - may depend on what happens in November. Unions are pouring as much as $400 million into the 2008 campaign to ensure that the next Congress will pass Card Check, effectively stripping workers of the private ballot.

How would this unprecedented power grab work?

Traditional union organizing relies on secret-ballot elections overseen by the federal government. Prior to the election, both unions and employers make their cases to workers. If more than 50 percent of workers then vote to form a union, the employer must recognize that union and begin collective bargaining.

The key is that regardless of what either side tells workers, and regardless of what workers say about their intentions, individual workers get to make their final decisions in private, and no one knows how they voted. This is a critical protection that assures honest elections.

The Card Check law, however, would essentially abolish secret-ballot elections. Instead, union organizers would simply ask workers to sign a card. Any worker who refused could be asked over and over again, and even be repeatedly visited by union organizers in their homes.

Once a bare majority was persuaded to sign a card, the union would be recognized, and it would be illegal to have a secret ballot election. All workers would then be forced into the union, whether they had signed a card, whether they wanted an election and whether they even knew there was an organizing drive under way.

So how do unions justify this violation of workers’ freedom?

Unions argue that Card Check would not get rid of secret-ballot elections; it would just give workers the choice of organizing through an election or by Card Check.

In reality, since union organizers are the ones gathering the cards, they would decide which method to use - and the $400 million they are spending to pass Card Check makes their intentions absolutely clear.
Moreover, Section 2 of the legislation states that the government “shall not direct an election.” And as The Los Angeles Times wrote in 2007, “The legislation would do away with a secret ballot in so-called organizing elections.”

Unions also claim that Card Check is needed because there is too much pressure put on workers during secret-ballot elections.

Indeed, during election campaigns, workers can face real pressure from unions, from employers and from co-workers. But Card Check will make this worse. Forcing workers to sign cards publicly is simply an open invitation for harassment, coercion and intimidation that would make current organizing practices seem tame by comparison.

Finally, unions claim that Card Check is the only way to ensure that workers can really express free choice. But unions don’t want to use Card Check procedures when workers vote on decertifying a union. For that process, unions still advocate the secret ballot. Seems they want an easy way in, but don’t want workers to have an easy way out.

Casting a private ballot has been an American right since the beginning of the Republic. This Labor Day, workers need to be on the lookout for those who want to take that right away.

Bernie Marcus is a successful entrepreneur who took a small hardware chain and turned it into Home Depot. He knows a thing or two about labor law and its impact on job creation.

That’s why Marcus is so concerned about the Card Check Scam Bill.

In the Wall Street Journal, Marcus writes:

I recently said that America “would become France” if a certain bill now in Congress — which would virtually guarantee that every company becomes unionized — ever became law. Deceptively named the Employee Free Choice Act, this bill would in most cases take away an employee’s right to a secret ballot in a union election and give unions the option to have federal arbitrators set the wages, benefits, hours and all other terms and conditions of employment. . . .

My advice today about the Employee Free Choice Act is the same as I gave in England: You better fight to stop this undemocratic bill. I’m not the only one who thinks the proposed law violates long-established principles of democracy. In these pages, George McGovern, a former Democratic senator and a champion of organized labor, called this bill what it really is — “a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.”

To my astonishment, most CEOs in America are unaware of this planned hostile takeover of their human resources. I am retired, so this is not business for me. It’s strictly personal. I care deeply about the competitiveness of American companies and our system of free enterprise.

I know that labor-union contributions are the lifeblood of many in the House and Senate. But I just cannot understand how so many in Congress are willing to sell out America for political dollars. When the bill came up for a key vote in 2007, all Senate Democrats voted yes and only two Democrats in the House had the courage to vote no. While the bill passed the House, it failed in the Senate because the Democrats were unable to get the required 60 votes to stop a Republican filibuster.

If the Democrats have a good November, the measure could become law early next year. Bill co-sponsor Barack Obama has said: “We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. We may have to wait for the next president to sign it, but we will get this thing done.”

Those who support the bill claim that it will “protect workers.” This doesn’t pass the straight-face test. Mr. McGovern saw through the false rhetoric of the bill’s sponsors, saying that the measure “runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, [it] risks silencing those who would speak.”

It’s time to stand up and fight. America’s competitiveness, jobs and right to a secret ballot are at stake. CEOs, employees who want to keep their jobs in America — and those retirees like me who would not be where we are today but for our system of free enterprise — must stop this anti-democratic legislation.

The prospect of a Democrat House, Senate and Presidency has union bosses drooling about the prospects of enacting legislation that could coerce millions more on to their rolls.

Roll Call (subscription required) reports that:

Unions and Congressional Democrats believe a Barack Obama presidency could mean that after years of futility, the political stars might finally align to pass controversial labor organizing legislation.

The legislation, known as the Employee Free Choice Act, or card check act, requires employers to recognize a union if the National Labor Relations Board finds a majority of employees have signed cards designating the union as their bargaining representative. . . .

Since the 1970s, pro-labor Democrats have sought to pass the legislation but have faced opposition from either Congressional Republicans or a GOP administration. The measure cleared the House this year but has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats lacked the votes to overcome a GOP filibuster. . . .

A Senate GOP aide said that if Democrats are able to capture 60 Senate seats, or close to that, “big labor will just run the table” on all of its priorities.

Big Labor is making its presence felt at the Democrat convention in Denver and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by the Wall Street Journal.

We all know of Big Labor’s desperate effort to enact the Card Check Scam Law. But wait, there’s more:

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal “right to work” laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories. He pointed out that John Kerry didn’t win a single right to work state in 2004, while Al Gore won only one — Iowa — and only by a few thousand votes in 2000.

With Washington State quickly developing a reputation as a big labor fiefdom, SEIU boss Andy Stern has set his sights on the Evergreen State in his effort to limit the state’s investment in private equity companies.

The Wall Street Journal notes:

The SEIU recently filed a citizens initiative to the Washington legislature to limit the state’s investment in private equity companies. Under the proposed SEIU-drawn rules, the State Investment Board, which manages $62 billion in public pension money, would be required to consider certain “societal criteria” before it could invest in the likes of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts or the Carlyle Group.

On the SEIU political checklist are a private equity firm’s “lack of transparency, poor employment practices, environmental impacts and other indicators of irresponsible corporate behavior.” The Investment Board would also have to encourage private equity to comply with the SEIU’s vision of “corporate responsibility.” That means firms would have to release data on revenues, taxes, and executive compensation, provide “living wages and benefits,” recognize a “collective bargaining representative” at each portfolio company, and mitigate “climate risk,” which is to say be politically correct on global warming. The Investment Board itself would also have to “support changes to tax laws that eliminate unfair advantages” to private equity, and more.

In other words, Washington state pension funds would for all practical purposes be barred from investing in private equity. State Investment Board Executive Director Joe Dear concluded as much when he told a local newspaper that “No private equity firm that we want to do business with will do business with us under these terms.” He predicted this would “cost taxpayers and beneficiaries millions in higher taxes and contributions.”

And he has the data to prove it. Nearly $14 billion of Washington’s investments are in private equity, which has provided returns of 12.6% over the past decade, compared to 7.9% for pension holdings as a whole. Barring private equity would “destroy our ability to invest in our highest-returning asset class,” said Mr. Dear. The losers would be union pensioners who depend on those returns for retirement income.

Mr. Stern’s real agenda here is to coerce private equity firms into giving his union a free hand in organizing workers at their portfolio companies. Having failed to organize those workers in elections, or to negotiate unionization deals with private equity management, Mr. Stern is now seeking political retribution. His strategy is to demonize the industry in public and promote damaging legislation until the companies give in. . . .

Investment boards should be focused in on one goal — achieving the best return for investors and taxpayers possible. Playing Big Labor politics with seniors’ retirement funds is a recipe for disaster.

It is no surprise that union officials have been given amazing access to the podium at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The forced-dues dollars that have flooded into support and sponsor the Convention should buy something. Among those who will call on the delegates to support more forced unionism among other themes will include:

* Tom Balanoff from Illinois SEIU

* NEA President Reg Weaver

* AFT President Randi Weingarten

* Change to Win’s Anna Burger

* AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

Massachusetts labor bosses are used to getting their way, especially from Gov. Deval Patrick. But labor activists are throwing up the red flag at Patrick’s proposed idea to use civilian flaggers on highway work projects instead of state troopers. Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that uses police officers instead of civilian flaggers at nearly all road and utility construction sites, giving union officers a way to make overtime pay. In fact, nearly five percent of the state highway construction budget went to pay state troopers.

Patrick’s draft regulations, which could go into effect as soon as October, would encourage the state to use less expensive civilian flaggers or electronic signs on roads with a 45 mph speed limit or less, and the AFL-CIO isn’t happy about it.

AFL-CIO spokesman Tim Sullivan, who blasted the plan as unsafe and questioned the cost savings, said the union would fight the regulations. “Who’s going to pay for these flagmen to be trained, who’s going to pick up their unemployment insurance? We just don’t think the cost savings are there,” Sullivan said.

This, of course, raises a more important issue in the eyes of David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute. Under Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law, the state pays about $40 an hour to police officers who do flag work. Union activists note that the law would require civilians to be paid the same amount — thus create no savings to the taxpayers.

Tuerck correctly argues, “By making this argument, the unions have done us a service. If a law compels the state to spend the equivalent of $80,000 a year for someone to flag down oncoming traffic, then it’s time to rethink the law.”

As you watch the Democrat convention in Colorado, keep in mind that over one quarter of all delegates are union activists. With a receptive audience, the AFL-CIO promises to “. . . charge up delegates for the convention and a hard-fought election season. They’ll discuss the Labor 2008 grassroots political program and key issues in the election, . . . ” including the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.

Big Labor’s organizers will brief delegations as to why the law is priority number one for the union bosses.

It’s sad but true, the party that claims to champion voting rights for all now supports repeal of secret ballot elections for some. With so many union operators pulling the strings at the convention, there is little hope the Democrat party will stand up for workers’ right to choose whether or not they want to join or pay dues to a union.