EFCA In A Scott Brown World?

While most of the political world was focused on what Scott Brown’s win means for big-tickets items like healthcare or cap-and-trade, many of the back-burner issues will also be affected. This, of course, includes the Employee Free Choice Act.

With 41 seats in the Senate, Republicans can now filibuster EFCA (or any other bill) should they hold the entire caucus. EFCA was never an issue on the campaign, and Brown’s position is beyond me, although you would have to think he opposes it. Labor unions- both nationally and in Massachusetts- backed the Democratic nominee Martha Coakley, but interestingly Brown won about 46% of union members- a surprisingly high total for any Republican.

My first thought is that it is not the fact that Republicans have 41 votes, which may kill EFCA for 2010, but the fact that this should be a warning sign to Democrats that voters are not happy about the direction of the country and they need to modify their agenda. It is not whether Scott Brown supports or opposes EFCA, but that I don’t see how you get moderate Democrats from conservative states to vote on this bill in light of the Massachusetts special election.

Now, Obama has initially responded that he will not alter his agenda- but rather kick it up a notch. But morning-after statements from various Congressional Democrats have given me the impression that that will not be possible. After all, they are the ones up for re-election in 2010 who have to sell these unpopular plans to their constituents.

Labor unions have also taken a similar approach to Obama’s. SEIU President Andy Stern said the reason Democrats’ lost last night was because of “Washington's inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008.” I wouldn’t expect labor to back down anytime soon considering the money they have invested in the president.

Labor leaders kept insisting that EFCA would come after healthcare. They have also made a point of saying that Democrats will need them to win in 2010. As long as big labor is still heavily involved in politics with a friendly White House and majorities in Congress, bills such as EFCA will still hang around. But as for right now, I would say the best labor can hope for is a weak compromise bill, hiding it in a jobs bill (and hoping no one finds out), or getting the NLRB to institute certain provisions of it.

So what is Projections' advice for companies wondering what to do now? It is the same as it ever was--take advantage of organized labor's current state of confusion (and the time it gives you) to communicate with your employees and train your supervisors and managers about your company's union free philosophy. Waiting for the EFCA to come to fruition or letting labor continue to devise other work arounds will be simply giving your advantage right back to the unions.

Ever Been to Onaway, Michigan?

Ever been to Onaway, Michigan? Don't feel bad neither have 95% of the UAW members. Onaway, Michigan is in the Northern tip of Michigan, a stone's throw (across Lake Huron) from Canada.

What's in Onaway you ask?

Why the $33 million dollar lakeside Walter and May Reuther Family Education Center and Black Lake Golf Club that the UAW owns on behalf of its members. Surely, you've vacationed there! Or at least went to a UAW convention there or maybe a Local meeting? No? Huh, that's strange. I just figured since it had lost (and is still losing) an estimated $23 million over the past five years, that perhaps you had visited there or played a round or two of golf. I hear the $6.4 million dollar, award-winning course has only $2 locker rental for UAW members (the public pays $5). See the advantages you are missing?

"The Family Education Center was the dream of former UAW President Walter P. Reuther who built it as a retreat for workers and their families that would give them a deeper understanding of the UAW and the union movement away from the routine of their daily lives." (from blacklakegolf.com)

Try this for a deeper understanding, the UAW says that it covers the cost from the interest it earns on its strike fund but the reality is that with the $23 million in losses they had to make heavy loans to keep the retreat afloat. So don't go on strike until at least 2015...

"It's their member's money that they're spending on this thing," said Justin Wilson, managing director of the Center for Union Facts. Other critics call it a resort for union leaders that wastes money from union dues.

The UAW says it sends workers there to "learn, experience unionism and commit to labor's cause," according to their website.

In fact, the UAW website says: "Youngsters ages 12-15 will enjoy union involvement workshops, golf, swimming and gym games." But you had better hurry, because the UAW is about to unload the entire thing--It's For Sale.

"UAW officials say the recession and shrinking membership are behind the expected sale of it lakeside retreat in Northern Michigan." (from wilx.com AP report)

So expect a refund on your hard-earned dues money any day now and use it to enroll your "youngsters" in summer camp somewhere else. Be sure to ask the camp director about the "union involvement" workshops across from Archery and Basketweaving...

Labor Leaders Push For EFCA in 2010

We have seen two things through the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency that tend to contradict each other. On the one hand, labor leaders such as Andy Stern and Richard Trumka have been some of the most active guests at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. At the same time, labor has been largely disappointed by what they have seen from the president and Congress- both strong allies.

They have, on a couple of occasions this year, criticized legislation being pushed by the House or Senate. They have not, however, decided to openly rebuke the president. I imagine most of their dealings happen behind the scenes and would rather avoid a public fight. Because of this, labor leaders have been rather quiet with respect to the Employee Free Choice Act- their marquee legislation that the president promised to advocate for when he was a candidate.

Their happy face on EFCA generally revolves around “it’s coming soon.” With the Democrats deciding to spend most of 2009 on healthcare reform legislation, labor leaders said EFCA was next.

In recent articles, both AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and SEIU President Andy Stern expressed confidence in a vote coming sometime soon- with Stern indicating a vote in the spring. Stern is certainly privy to this type of information, and Senate leaders have said talks are continuous, but whether there is the stomach for this type of bill remains to be seen.

If the Democrats were to lose just one seat in the fall, Republicans would be able to block this bill in the next Congress should they hold their entire caucus. Right now, signs indicate Democrats will have a net loss of seats- at least one- if the elections were held today.

I would expect more of a panicked tone from labor should we get into the summer with no EFCA yet and the political winds continue to look much as they do now. They will not let the money and effort they spent in 2008 go without at least a vote and serious push by the president.

House Republicans Voice Opposition to Proposed NMB Labor Law Change

Thirty-one House Republicans signed a letter addressed to National Mediation Board Chairwoman Elizabeth Dougherty expressing their opposition to changing union election procedures for airline and railroad personnel. The proposed law would allow a union to be voted in if just a majority of those voting approve of it. Currently, a majority of the bargaining unit has to support it for the union to be recognized.

Here is the letter:

Dear Chairman Dougherty and Members of the Board:

We are writing in strong opposition to the Board’s proposed rule to modify a 75 year policy and legal precedent contained in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) in order to allow union representation in circumstances where a majority of the workers do not wish to join a union.

The current longstanding voting rules are well grounded in the unique language of the RLA. The law does not refer to a majority of “voters”. It says that a majority of the workers in a class or craft must vote for a union for it to be certified. The decision on the right to join a union belongs to a majority of workers, not to the company, not to the government and certainly not to the union. Under the Board’s proposal a small minority of a work group could impose union representation on the majority. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the current majority rule voting procedure used by the NMB.

Unlike the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, once it is certified, a union might never have to stand for reelection because the NMB voting rules do not have a voting process that allows employees to petition for decertification. We understand that the Board has failed to consider various requests to include this change in new voting rules. Clearly, in its present form the Board proposal violates the rights of workers who choose not to purchase the services of a labor union.

We have concluded that this proposed voting rule change is quite similar to the approach contained in the Employee Free Choice Act. It is a politically motivated decision that tilts airline and rail representation elections in the favor of organized labor. This decision is too important to be decided by two appointed and unelected Democrats who have chosen to ignore legal and policy precedents that have governed representation rules for airline and rail employees for more than 75 years.

We firmly believe that the Board does not have the legal authority to change the majority rule representation requirement and that any changes should be made by Congress. We urge you to withdraw the proposed rule.

EFCA in 2010?

Steve Rosenthal, a Democratic consultant and former political director of the AFL-CIO, told Bloomberg last week that the Employee Free Choice Act may have life in 2010. He sees it being incorporated in legislation next year designed to create jobs. A “jobs bill” has been at the top of the Senate’s list for 2010- but what is included in it remains to be seen.

Rosenthal based this on the theory that Democrats will need labor’s support in the mid-term elections, and this is the bill that will energize the traditional ally.

Of course, the flip side of the argument is that Democrats were forced to take a number of controversial votes in 2009 and may not have the appetite to do so in the election year. This specifically includes Democrats in potentially competitive elections such as Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, Michael Bennet in Colorado and Byron Dorgan in North Dakota. Several other Democrats- with and without upcoming elections- have also expressed reservations.

Nancy Pelosi has already gone on the record to say that any controversial vote- such as EFCA- will need to pass through the Senate first as she doesn’t want to ask members of the House to make these difficult votes only to see bills die in the Senate.