If consistency is really the
hobgoblin of little minds, then Hilda Solis and George Miller must be
America's top ghostbusters. They think the secret ballot is the cornerstone
of democracy, except for American workers deciding whether to join a labor
union.Miller is the U.S.
House's chief sponsor of the Orwellianly named Employee Free Choice Act, a
bill much-coveted by labor unions that would do away with secret-ballot
voting when they're trying to organize a company workforce. And Solis, a
former congresswoman from Southern California who is President Barack
Obama's newly confirmed labor secretary, is EFCA's chief cheerleader.
Different rules for
U.S.
Oddly enough, Miller and Solis
used to think secret ballots were the very lifeblood of democracy. In 2001,
introducing himself as someone ''deeply concerned with international labor
standards,'' Miller wrote Mexican officials urging them to allow workers to
vote on unionization with secret ballots.
''The secret ballot is
absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated
into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose,'' Miller wrote,
adding that the practice ''will help bring real democracy to the Mexican
workplace.'' (The American workplace, I guess, is quite another
matter.)
If that's not hobgoblin-free
enough for you, consider Solis, who was in Miami last week promising labor
leaders her full support for EFCA. Poor Solis felt quite differently in 2007
when she and her allies were losing a campaign for control of the
congressional Hispanic Caucus. Back then, she was bitterly demanding
a secret ballot. ''It is important that the integrity of [the caucus] be
unquestioned and above reproach,'' she wrote.
Miller and Solis, career
politicians, have no trouble with the ethical and logical contortions
required to oppose secret ballots in a country built on them. But I suspect
the hobgoblins of most Americans will be wailing like banshees before the
EFCA fight is over.
Secret ballot should
rule
Under U.S. law stretching back
to the 1930s, workers decide if they want to join a union by casting a
secret ballot in a government-monitored election. Organized labor and its
Democratic Party vassals want to change that to a so-called card check
procedure; a union would simply present signed cards from more than half the
affected workers, and poof! The union is in charge, no election muss or
fuss.
But EFCA doesn't stop there.
Once a union is certified, employers have just 130 days -- a comparatively
short time to put together a contract from scratch -- to reach a collective
bargaining agreement. If there's no deal, in comes a federal mediator: in
effect, a government commissar in charge of wages and work rules.
Labor leaders say they need a
new law governing elections because they're losing membership. Unionization
of private-sector employees, which peaked at 35 percent in the mid-1950s,
has dropped to less than a quarter of that. But the decline hasn't come
because unions are losing elections -- they won two-thirds of them in the
first six months of 2008. Union membership is falling because unionized
industries are dying, automating or fleeing overseas. That's not
coincidental. When the average UAW worker makes $73 an hour in wages and
benefits, when UAW contracts impose more than 5,000 pages of rules on how
factories can operate, both capital and consumers migrate toward nonunion
Japanese carmakers.
The thought of employers concerned about the rights of employees is amusing. They fought against regulating child labor, the minimum wage, overtime, and equal pay for equal work.
They want elections so they can have the time needed to stop unionization. They hire experts to work their magic. Here's Martin Levitt in his tell-all book, Confessions of a Union Buster: “Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on the truth. As such, it is a war without honor. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack.”
Anger about the Act is about maintaining employer power in the workplace...just as it was when employers fought unions in the past. Same song; different verse.