State Ballot Initiatives Ensure Employee Free Choice Act Stays Dead
Oct 29, 2010
For politicians in several states, it's not enough that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is dead in the water on Capitol Hill. Next Tuesday, they'll be pressing voters to hammer another preemptive nail in the coffin, with deceptive ballot initiatives that purports to defend, of all things, workplace democracy.
On Tuesday, ballots in Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah will include initiatives that apparently aim to prevent the moribund EFCA from being implemented on the state level.
Long a focus of labor's advocacy in Washington, EFCA would strengthen unions' power primarily by allowing streamlined recognition through a card check vote--a simple majority sign up that would circumvent the notoriously corruptible formal election process under the National Labor Relations Board.
On its face, the language of the secret ballot provision may seem innocuous enough. Utah's proposed Amendment A, for instance, would alter the state constitution to ensure secret ballot elections for unionizing drives, adding employee votes to a general electoral mandate. Why is this needed? To protect workers from coercion and trickery by evil union organizers, of course.
But South Dakota's "Vote No on K" campaign explains that state's secret ballot amendment initiative as both paranoid and nefarious (not to mention funded by shady out-of-state influence peddlers):
It was written to undermine a possible change to federal law, the Employee Free Choice Act--which Congress hasn't even voted on. In other words--the supporters of Amendment K are asking South Dakota voters to un-do something that hasn't happened...
The cold hard truth is--South Dakota workers are the lowest paid workers in our United States. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, South Dakota has the sixth highest work place death rate per capita in our United States. Still, the supporters of Amendment K are asking voters to help them make it harder for workers to form unions and bargain for better wages, benefits, and safer working conditions--and to foot the bill for an expensive federal lawsuit.
The anti-EFCA initiatives are not surprisingly clustered in so-called "right to work" states, which already curtail unions' leverage to organize a given workplace.
Though it's been spun as an assault on workers' rights, in reality, card check simply gives organizers more leverage in the voting process. ITT's coverage of the struggle to unionize at the Jimmy Johns fast food chain illustrates how the regular election process could be perverted.
Organizers reaching out to some 200 workers at 10 Jimmy John's sandwich shops in Minneapolis originally got 60 percent of workers to endorse a union. But once the NLRB process was set in motion, the employer's aggressive anti-union campaign ended up whittling down the pro-union majority and killing the drive. It's just one more example of how bosses in low-wage sectors might deploy capital and management to hire union-busting consultancies, bribe employees, or crack down on organizers.
If card check were all that was needed for union certification, the process would allow unions to bypass the management terror gauntlet. So when employers fight for workers' "right" to a secret ballot, they 're really lobbying for their right to carry on a rich tradition of harassment and intimidation. According to Center for Economic Policy and Analysis's (CEPR) report on data on workplace organizing drives:
If we assume that employers target union organizers and activists, and that union organizers and activists make up about 10 percent of pro-union workers, our estimates suggest that about one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign.
Even after we adjust for the increase in organizing campaigns not built around NLRB elections, our calculations suggest that more than one-in-seven union organizers and activists are illegally fired while trying to organize unions at their place of work.
To make sure that the corporate version of workplace democracy prevails, four states will have a chance to vote this Tuesday on a constitutional amendment that appears to have no real impact other than to add another legal obstruction to block EFCA.
Granted, EFCA would be no panacea. As Labor Notes points out, organizers still face an array of political and bureaucratic obstacles to unionizing, with or without card check. But the current system, under a flaccid lame-duck Congress, doesn't even allow for a simple logistical reform that might help restore some political balance to unionization campaigns. Somehow, big business isn't happy with those nightmarish odds of getting canned for trying to organize. They may not be satisfied until they cut a worker's chances for forming a union down to zero.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 In These Times
Michelle Chen is a contributing editor at In These Times. She is a regular contributor to the labor rights blog Working In These Times, Colorlines.com, and Pacifica's WBAI. Her work has also appeared in Common Dreams, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, Newsday, and her old zine, cain.
For politicians in several states, it's not enough that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is dead in the water on Capitol Hill. Next Tuesday, they'll be pressing voters to hammer another preemptive nail in the coffin, with deceptive ballot initiatives that purports to defend, of all things, workplace democracy.
On Tuesday, ballots in Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah will include initiatives that apparently aim to prevent the moribund EFCA from being implemented on the state level.
Long a focus of labor's advocacy in Washington, EFCA would strengthen unions' power primarily by allowing streamlined recognition through a card check vote--a simple majority sign up that would circumvent the notoriously corruptible formal election process under the National Labor Relations Board.
On its face, the language of the secret ballot provision may seem innocuous enough. Utah's proposed Amendment A, for instance, would alter the state constitution to ensure secret ballot elections for unionizing drives, adding employee votes to a general electoral mandate. Why is this needed? To protect workers from coercion and trickery by evil union organizers, of course.
But South Dakota's "Vote No on K" campaign explains that state's secret ballot amendment initiative as both paranoid and nefarious (not to mention funded by shady out-of-state influence peddlers):
It was written to undermine a possible change to federal law, the Employee Free Choice Act--which Congress hasn't even voted on. In other words--the supporters of Amendment K are asking South Dakota voters to un-do something that hasn't happened...
The cold hard truth is--South Dakota workers are the lowest paid workers in our United States. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, South Dakota has the sixth highest work place death rate per capita in our United States. Still, the supporters of Amendment K are asking voters to help them make it harder for workers to form unions and bargain for better wages, benefits, and safer working conditions--and to foot the bill for an expensive federal lawsuit.
The anti-EFCA initiatives are not surprisingly clustered in so-called "right to work" states, which already curtail unions' leverage to organize a given workplace.
Though it's been spun as an assault on workers' rights, in reality, card check simply gives organizers more leverage in the voting process. ITT's coverage of the struggle to unionize at the Jimmy Johns fast food chain illustrates how the regular election process could be perverted.
Organizers reaching out to some 200 workers at 10 Jimmy John's sandwich shops in Minneapolis originally got 60 percent of workers to endorse a union. But once the NLRB process was set in motion, the employer's aggressive anti-union campaign ended up whittling down the pro-union majority and killing the drive. It's just one more example of how bosses in low-wage sectors might deploy capital and management to hire union-busting consultancies, bribe employees, or crack down on organizers.
If card check were all that was needed for union certification, the process would allow unions to bypass the management terror gauntlet. So when employers fight for workers' "right" to a secret ballot, they 're really lobbying for their right to carry on a rich tradition of harassment and intimidation. According to Center for Economic Policy and Analysis's (CEPR) report on data on workplace organizing drives:
If we assume that employers target union organizers and activists, and that union organizers and activists make up about 10 percent of pro-union workers, our estimates suggest that about one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign.
Even after we adjust for the increase in organizing campaigns not built around NLRB elections, our calculations suggest that more than one-in-seven union organizers and activists are illegally fired while trying to organize unions at their place of work.
To make sure that the corporate version of workplace democracy prevails, four states will have a chance to vote this Tuesday on a constitutional amendment that appears to have no real impact other than to add another legal obstruction to block EFCA.
Granted, EFCA would be no panacea. As Labor Notes points out, organizers still face an array of political and bureaucratic obstacles to unionizing, with or without card check. But the current system, under a flaccid lame-duck Congress, doesn't even allow for a simple logistical reform that might help restore some political balance to unionization campaigns. Somehow, big business isn't happy with those nightmarish odds of getting canned for trying to organize. They may not be satisfied until they cut a worker's chances for forming a union down to zero.
Michelle Chen is a contributing editor at In These Times. She is a regular contributor to the labor rights blog Working In These Times, Colorlines.com, and Pacifica's WBAI. Her work has also appeared in Common Dreams, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, Newsday, and her old zine, cain.
For politicians in several states, it's not enough that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is dead in the water on Capitol Hill. Next Tuesday, they'll be pressing voters to hammer another preemptive nail in the coffin, with deceptive ballot initiatives that purports to defend, of all things, workplace democracy.
On Tuesday, ballots in Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah will include initiatives that apparently aim to prevent the moribund EFCA from being implemented on the state level.
Long a focus of labor's advocacy in Washington, EFCA would strengthen unions' power primarily by allowing streamlined recognition through a card check vote--a simple majority sign up that would circumvent the notoriously corruptible formal election process under the National Labor Relations Board.
On its face, the language of the secret ballot provision may seem innocuous enough. Utah's proposed Amendment A, for instance, would alter the state constitution to ensure secret ballot elections for unionizing drives, adding employee votes to a general electoral mandate. Why is this needed? To protect workers from coercion and trickery by evil union organizers, of course.
But South Dakota's "Vote No on K" campaign explains that state's secret ballot amendment initiative as both paranoid and nefarious (not to mention funded by shady out-of-state influence peddlers):
It was written to undermine a possible change to federal law, the Employee Free Choice Act--which Congress hasn't even voted on. In other words--the supporters of Amendment K are asking South Dakota voters to un-do something that hasn't happened...
The cold hard truth is--South Dakota workers are the lowest paid workers in our United States. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, South Dakota has the sixth highest work place death rate per capita in our United States. Still, the supporters of Amendment K are asking voters to help them make it harder for workers to form unions and bargain for better wages, benefits, and safer working conditions--and to foot the bill for an expensive federal lawsuit.
The anti-EFCA initiatives are not surprisingly clustered in so-called "right to work" states, which already curtail unions' leverage to organize a given workplace.
Though it's been spun as an assault on workers' rights, in reality, card check simply gives organizers more leverage in the voting process. ITT's coverage of the struggle to unionize at the Jimmy Johns fast food chain illustrates how the regular election process could be perverted.
Organizers reaching out to some 200 workers at 10 Jimmy John's sandwich shops in Minneapolis originally got 60 percent of workers to endorse a union. But once the NLRB process was set in motion, the employer's aggressive anti-union campaign ended up whittling down the pro-union majority and killing the drive. It's just one more example of how bosses in low-wage sectors might deploy capital and management to hire union-busting consultancies, bribe employees, or crack down on organizers.
If card check were all that was needed for union certification, the process would allow unions to bypass the management terror gauntlet. So when employers fight for workers' "right" to a secret ballot, they 're really lobbying for their right to carry on a rich tradition of harassment and intimidation. According to Center for Economic Policy and Analysis's (CEPR) report on data on workplace organizing drives:
If we assume that employers target union organizers and activists, and that union organizers and activists make up about 10 percent of pro-union workers, our estimates suggest that about one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign.
Even after we adjust for the increase in organizing campaigns not built around NLRB elections, our calculations suggest that more than one-in-seven union organizers and activists are illegally fired while trying to organize unions at their place of work.
To make sure that the corporate version of workplace democracy prevails, four states will have a chance to vote this Tuesday on a constitutional amendment that appears to have no real impact other than to add another legal obstruction to block EFCA.
Granted, EFCA would be no panacea. As Labor Notes points out, organizers still face an array of political and bureaucratic obstacles to unionizing, with or without card check. But the current system, under a flaccid lame-duck Congress, doesn't even allow for a simple logistical reform that might help restore some political balance to unionization campaigns. Somehow, big business isn't happy with those nightmarish odds of getting canned for trying to organize. They may not be satisfied until they cut a worker's chances for forming a union down to zero.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.