Obama backs Free Choice Act

New law would make formation of unions easier

By Joanne Kelley, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, August 1, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama has promised to back changes in federal labor law that local union leaders say have been long overdue.

In a conference call Thursday with members of unions who have endorsed him, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee talked of the "need" for a stronger labor movement and the passage of a bill that would change the way unions can organize workplaces.

"We're going to sign the Employee Free Choice Act into law because if a majority of workers want a union they should get one," Obama told the hundreds of union members taking part in the call.

Denver's labor community has been part of a nationwide effort to push for a new law, arguing that current law gives employers too much power over workers who want to form unions.

"The current system is broken," said Ted Texter, political director for Teamsters Local 455 in Denver. "Everybody knows it."

Unions point to the long delays workers face getting a hearing before the National Labor Relations Board if employers interfere with their organizing efforts.

"If you try to exercise your rights, you do that at the peril of your job," said Mike Cerbo, executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO.

Cerbo pointed to Wal-Mart as an example of what he sees as the shortcomings of the current system. "Under the Wal-Mart regime, exercising a democratic right of self-organizing is an act of courage," he said. "Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it'll be an act of democracy."

Unions want workers to be able to have the choice of forming unions in the workplace by signing up fellow employees individually through what's known as a "card check" process. They prefer it to the secret-ballot process some employers favor; unions say scheduling an election gives companies leverage and time to launch an anti-union campaign.

"There needs to be a fair and equitable way to do this," said John Fleck, president of the Denver Area Labor Federation. "We need labor law reform in our country and this is our version."

kelleyj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5068

At issue

The Employee Free Choice Act would ensure workers the right to form a union through a majority sign-up process instead of a scheduled, secret-ballot election. It was co-sponsored by Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, and opposed by John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

• August 2, 2008

  12:50 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mmannino writes:

  Barack Obama wants a union nation. If you want to experience a union nation, go to France. Someone is always on strike. It is a pathetic situation.

  Increased unionization will drive up labor costs beyond market wages. Employers will respond by moving work to right to work states, increasing automation, and moving offshore. For the employers unable to move work, prices will rise and services will suffer. If the right to work initiative does not pass in Colorado, you will be forced to pay union dues.

  Unions are government sanctioned cartels intent on controlling both the supply and price of labor. Few companies would deal with unions if not compelled by labor law. Labor unions are the antithesis of economic freedom. Labor unions are coercion supported by government force.

• August 2, 2008

  7:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  davies writes:

  "There needs to be a fair and equitable way to do this," said John Fleck, president of the Denver Area Labor Federation."

  Employers want to keep the present system where a scheduled, secret ballot election gives them time to campaign against forming a union, while the union organizers are campaigning in its favor.

  The unions want to be able to organize and sign people up via a 'card check' process, apparently without necessarily even notifying the employer of their activities. This is more fair and equitable than letting both sides make their case, and then holding a secret ballot?

• August 2, 2008

  8:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Marcus writes:

  davies (7:43) makes a good point about fairness but I think it's reasonable to bet that Wal-Mart and others will still have the edge under a card check process. Of any retailer, Wal-Mart is best aware that unions have it in their sights. Knowing that, they will surely have a great deal to say to new employees (and current ones) about the consequences of unionization and they will say this from day one. Maybe even before they officially hire anyone. In other words, their campaign will begin before the unions have any contact with the employees.

• August 2, 2008

  11:03 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  tmsloan writes:

  You can judge today's benefits of big unions to the community by looking at two big union states, Michigan and Rhode Island. They are the only two states with a declining population and they were once big union states. If Wal-Mart is so bad why are they one of the largest corporations in the country? It is because they provide a good product at an affordable price. Unions want to target Wal-mart because of the huge number of potential members. What people in the west don't realize, because of your lack of experience with unions, is that unions only care about dues paying members not the communities thay are located in or the industries they work in. Individual teachers may care about their students, but the teachers union only cares about their members and not your kids. Why is it that secret votes are OK for electing our government officials but not good enough for unions? Union membership has declined in every industry but government and elected officials pander to unions for votes. Don't be fooled that either government or unions have your interest in mind. Elected officials want your vote and unions want your dues.

• August 2, 2008

  11:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Joebob writes:

  tmsloan: MIchigan and Rhode Island have traditionally been heavy industry states, and their population decline has nothing to do with the unions- this is like saying that Colorado has traditionally been a snowy state, so we have had a population increase- it is a logical fallacy.

  And to everybody: Do any of you work at Wal-Mart? I'd like to hear from someone who has, or does- and I'm sure they would tell you the same stories that all the union campaigners do- poor wages, shifty practices, withheld pay... Just because a company is huge (the largest employer in CO.) doesn't mean they're just- we don't have a minimum wage, an 8 hour day, and child labor laws in this country because corporations are moral beacons...

  And as for European unionism (and the continued fearmongering in this country in regards to Unions, socialism, or anything that steers us away from Reaganism-) I would ask you why the US poverty rate, infant mortality rate, and incarceration rate are so high... Wal-Mart can make billions while millions make less than $20,000 a year- and you're worried about the union leadership robbing them? It sounds as if all of you are in management- so why should the workers trust what you say?

• August 2, 2008

  11:06 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  incognitoboy writes:

  the word from the ‘largest corporation in the world’ to their employees is this: why do you need someone to represent you when we have an open door policy that allows you to speak for yourself? You can air your greivances to anyone in the company, and (supposedly) without fear of retaliation, and the policy is to get you an answer within 24 hrs.; thus far, I have not had to put this rosy policy language to the test.

  Here’s the thing about unions: unions don't and CAN'T guarantee higher wages, they can only guarantee you will be paying a portion of your check to the union. okay, so it’s for representation. Then the next time the contract is up for negotiation, no telling how long you’ll be out of work, or what the contract will look like when it’s over. maybe you gain wage and benefit considerations, maybe you take cuts. just look at the airline industry for examples. in the mean time, you walk the picket line yelling at your friends and neighbors and acquaintances who continue to shop at the store, or who opt to feed their families by working in your place. oh, AND you get the benefit of advancement by SENIORITY and not necessarily thru MERIT. Then, what happens when an employee sees something that NEEDS to be done, (like a spill cleanup) but can’t do it themselves because it’s NOT THEIR JOB?? If the union steward sees that person doing it anyway, they can be fined by the union. W.T.F.??? what about firing someone who’s lazy or incompetent? good luck! been to the d.m.v. lately?

  What you never hear about these proposed changes to the law, at least in print I’VE seen, is the ‘largest corporation in the world’ corporate line about how a union rep can approach workers, and tell them simply to sign a card ‘for more information about unions and organizing’, and they don’t have to tell the worker that SIGNING THE CARD IN AND OF ITSELF IS ACTUALLY A VOTE FOR THE UNION, and the store could literally go union overnight, with a simple majority (51%). suddenly those people who don’t WANT to join the union are forced to join or be out of work.

  if this is true, i’m fairly sure this legislation is a TERRIBLE idea, because yes, it DOES make it easier for unions to organize, (especially as it relates to the largest corporation in the world) but also makes it too easy for them to be sneaky about HOW they organize. power corrupts, and it doesn’t seem to matter which side the power is representing….my goodness, I can’t believe I’m actually siding with SASQUATCH here……

  JOEBOB: i’d like for you to give me an example of a CUSTOMER SERVICE related business that is UNION and THRIVING, and has NOT lost the ability to keep prices low and grow the company. one thing unions seem to be famous for…. ensuring that it’s harder to dump the dead wood, and move on to an employee that has the smarts and ambition to succeed, not just the tenure.

  So, joanne- laying the groundwork for a future union job? why no input from corporate america here?

• August 3, 2008

  12:10 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  freethinker07 writes:

  Under the new law, unions would be able to pressure individuals until they sign. In the past, there has been threats of violence and other retaliation. That is the reason that the current system is in place.

• August 5, 2008

  5:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  oneworker writes:

  There is absolutely no basis to assert that union's caused any of today's economic problems. Wall street has been run by people so greedy and foolish that they forgot to remember that lending money to people who could not pay was not an good idea. The government is now bailing out banks and investors, not unions.The automakers and steel industry have been run by corporate managers that refuse to look ahead, invest in new technology, and make hard decisions - management agreed to every one of of those labor contracts. The $4 per gallon gas goes to companies that make $11,000,000,000 per quarter. Now they need to get another sweet deal on oil leases. Enron was not a union. Qwest's CEO was not a union president. The billions in cost overruns in Iraq are not the result of unions. If OSHA, the FDA, EEOC and ADA don't work as intended, its because the corporate world makes sure they do not. The corporate world will not protect workers because it is not in its economic interest to do anything but make short-term profits. It also not in its interest to protect the environment, provide health care, or sensible economic practices in government. That is why the corporate mentality blames unions for its own failures.
  Union's have only one function - to represent workers. That is why the corporate world wants to emasculate them. (Compare all union dues to Exxon's receipts last quarter) There is no mystery who wants 47 - Corporate interests

• August 8, 2008

  4:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  gabbahey writes:

  mmannino- "Employers will respond by moving work to right to work states, increasing automation, and moving offshore." - The type of employers you are describing are merely looking for a launching pad to get out of our country and move to somewhere without any protection or standards for their workers. How does allowing our workers proper representation change that?

  freethinker07- That is a very serious charge - any sources to back that up?

• August 8, 2008

  4:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  esolis writes:

  People need to understand that if at any time employees feel as if the need a union they sould be able to with out the fear of company retaliation. The way things are now, employees fear being fired if they even talking about unions!! People can be pro union or against union but to take way the FREEDOM of collective bargaining with AMENDMENT 47 would kill colorados economy! An unions have improved wages and working conditions of EVERYONE in this state by setting standerds for diffrent jobs. (only 8% of colorado workers are union)

  NO on 47
  Save Colorados Economy!!!!!