DUNLAP: Employee Free Choice Act is best bet for workers
By Anne Dunlap
Published December 23, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.
For months, the collapse of the stock market and the size of the government bailout have dominated the national debate. While we are spending $800 billion or more to keep our financial institutions afloat, what are we doing to help the recovery of average American families? We are repairing the budgets of executives flying to Congressional hearings in their corporate jets, but how do we repair the budgets of working families who can’t pay the house payment, the utilities, or the medical bills?
A report released on Dec. 2 by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) provides important insight into one way that government can improve the lives of millions of American families. The report, Unions and Upward Mobility for Women Workers, demonstrates that belonging to a union raises women’s wages to about $2 more per hour compared to similar women in similar jobs that are non-union. In Colorado, the impact of union membership raises women’s wages by 5.8 percent.
And that’s not all. The data show that women in unions are significantly more likely to have employer-provided health insurance and an employer-provided pension. Both of these benefits are crucial for families and individuals to maintain financial security, the backbone of a healthy economy.
Women play an increasingly important role in U.S. family economics. About 40 percent of American families are headed by women. In many more families, women earners contribute essential shares of the family income. Allowing Americans the freedom to join a union is a crucial element in strengthening the economy where it matters most: in our homes.
Most Americans understand the union advantage. Sixty million workers say they’d form a union tomorrow, but too few will ever get the chance under current law. Employers routinely harass, intimidate and even fire people who try to form unions, and labor law is helpless to stop them. Under current labor law, the National Labor Relations Board does not have the authority to impose fines, revoke licenses, or impose prison time on those who violate the National Labor Relations Act. While the FCC can fine CBS $550,000 for Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl, the National Labor Relations Board cannot fine an employer for willfully bribing, threatening, assaulting, or firing pro-union employees.
Here in Denver, I and several other religious leaders have met with low-wage janitors who report that during their recent efforts to unionize, supervisors threatened them with termination and attempted to entice them with illegal offers of additional work hours if they would oppose the union. One worker said that she was forced to quit her job rather than face continued harassment from management.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will restore working people’s single best ticket to the middle class - the freedom to form a union and bargain for a better life. The right to form a union and collectively bargain is a basic right, recognized by U.S. federal law since 1935 and universally recognized and protected around the world. The Employee Free Choice Act would give workers a fair and direct path to form unions through majority sign-up, help employees secure a contract with their employer in a reasonable period of time, and toughen penalties against employers who violate their workers’ rights.
Long before Wall Street’s investment firms started going belly up, working families were struggling to make ends meet. Things have gotten much worse in recent months. So far, the federal government has spent a lot of money we don’t have to shore up companies that still may fail. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act won’t cost the government anything. There could even be a slight increase in revenue because workers who make more will pay higher income taxes. Most importantly, the Employee Free Choice Act will bolster our economy in the best way, by putting money, health care and pensions into the pockets of American families.
Anne Dunlap is pastor of Comunidad Liberacion/Liberation Community Church in Englewood.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 23, 2008
4:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
By all means let's pass a law that eliminates the secret ballot. That's the single greatest barrier to union organization. If people can vote to reject a union, the union wants to eliminate the vote.
All the various violations listed are punishable by law. Perhaps Anne feels that a judge is not qualified to decide such things as whether or not a law was broken. Unions are frustrated by the freedom of the worker to reject a union picking their pocket and a majority of American workers have voted to reject unions. That is the way it should be.
Anne lists many implied benefits of unions. I guess she also feels the individual workers are too stupid to understand that unions know best. That's why unions want the right to shove a union down the throats of workers without the secret ballot.
Ask yourself why or better yet ask who would be better served by eliminating the secret ballot, the union or the worker who wants no part of a union? Strongarm tactics are part and parcel of union history. Let them die the death they have so long deserved. Allow the workers to vote on unions.
Of course, a company can move out of states where such tactics are used. Many states have Right to Work laws where workers can then choose to be a union member or not. Bad luck for those states without such protection for the workers.
You want to see how much good a union can do you? Look at Detroit. Without a lot of tax dollars, the automobile industry will die there. In the non-union plants it might struggle for a while then bounce back. Union plants will just die and take their unions with them.
December 23, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Dear Pastor Anne: With all love due a sister, I ask how comfortable you would be with a 6'4", 325# Republican thug sitting at your kitchen table while you fill out your mail in ballot for the 2010 general election.
You see, when I worked in a non-union grocery store, the UFCW sent "organizers" in to get the cards signed. They bore more resemblance to hockey enforcers than anything else. The intimidation was obvious and overt. Nearly 3/4 of the employees signed the card asking for an election.
10 per cent voted for union representation in the secret ballot.
The secret ballot is the foundation of freedom. Are you willing to give that up?
December 23, 2008
7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Pastor of a liberal Spanish language religious institution who meets with "low-wage janitors". Can we say "she's pro-illegal immigrant" and that's her bias? That should be her opening statement.
Unions want the secret ballot eliminated. Why? Fairness dictates a worker's selection should be secret. If the only way the unions can grow in membership is to remove secret ballots what does that say about union membership?
Of course businesses oppose unions. Unions impose inefficient work rules that drive up the cost of business.
December 23, 2008
7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
Taking away a humans right to a private ballot? Another great religious leader.
What if your shift boss is collecting the cards? That is always ignored.
The fact is roughly 12.5% of the country belongs to a union; nearly half of those work in the public sector or gov't. Detroit says it all.
I think obama's going to get a break when this doesn't make it out of the senate, and he'll be glad.
December 23, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dub writes:
One more time. Name me ONE industry, and while we're at it, name ONE state that is heavily unionized that isn't going down the toilet. When they fail, how many people will be without any kind of job? Look at Detroit, the steel industry, Kalifornia, New York ect.Now, name ONE union executive who has had a pay DECREASE in the last two years.
December 23, 2008
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
JAFOY writes:
Just a random thought; when conservative religious leaders such as Archbishop Chaput speaks out for life the liberals "claim" separation of Church and State. However when a liberal minister with a relativist background speaks out, there is silence. I will defend this minister right to speak out on what ever social issue that they might. However, I also would call into account any of this minister supporters or who agree with her to do the same for the Archbishop. Otherwise they are no different than the Pharisees.
December 23, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
eagleye writes:
As a pastor myself, I cringe when I read things like this editorial. My congregation, like other churches, synagogues, mosques, and non-profit organizations, does not pay property tax. We are absolutely not political, but provide valuable services to the community (in our opinion, anyway!), including childcare, counseling, and assistance to indigents, besides our real purpose, which is sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But then I read something like this from Pastor Dunlap, and I wonder just how much longer my church will enjoy its tax-exempt status. She has every right to speak her opinion on politics (however wrong it may be). But to do so representing her church just confirms the mindset of those who are critical of churches being exempt from property taxation. And frankly, based on editorials like this, I can't say I blame them.
December 23, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
tjason11 writes:
I have no problem if you want to belong to a union, but at that point you are nothing more than a contractor that is an employee of the union, not the company that is paying your salary. Based on this, the company should be responsible for nothing more than your hourly wage. All health care and retirement benefits should be paid for and provided by the union. Unions do a wonderful job of painting a rosey picture for their members, but bottom line is that only a few of the top tenured union people make the money, the rest are thrown to the wolves. If you look at the auto bailout, it's not the companies and the executives that are the issue currently, it's the UAW saying they don't want to take any wage cuts. Did you know that the UAW has people working on the assembly lines that make between $60 to $70 an hour? That is crazy.
December 23, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
TGagliardi writes:
More and more, employers are being forced to recognize labor unions without first holding a private-ballot employee election -- the election process that is guaranteed in law and administered by the National Labor Relations Board. To prevent intimidation or harassment, the law establishes that neither a union nor an employer may coerce, harass or restrain employees in exercising their right to choose whether or not to support the union. Each employee's choice is made in the privacy of a voting booth, with neither the employer nor the union knowing how any individual voted. This is not an Employee Free Choice Act, it is an Employee FORCED Choice Act.
December 23, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
pezix writes:
It is amazing the amount of mis-information, or LIES that I see in these letters. The EFCA does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT take away the right to a secret ballot. The opponents to EFCA would have you believe that you would lose the right to a secret ballot, but that is a LIE. if you believe everything that the opponents to EFCA espouse, believe me, you NEED a union more that you know!
December 23, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
JAFOY writes:
Eagleye-Quick question, based on your statement then you want to have religious institutions as a separate class that does not have the same rights as other groups? I do not think so, but that is what your statement is saying. Also, based on what you are saying you would be part of the group who tried to silence Martin Luther King or the Archbishop of New Orleans who all took hard line stances.
December 23, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
eagleye
In all due respect pastor I being a 59 yr old man remember when you went to church and it wasn't some mega million dollar church. And they spring up like weeds. I'm sorry but today's churches is gone big business. I wish I could start a business where I got big government funding and didn't have to pay any taxes.
December 23, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Liberalsrising writes:
Anti-unionists rely on the same flawed assumption that was active in the unregulated financial markets, to wit: that either men are good and so will produce good (libertarians), or that the evil men are capable of will somehow and mysteriously cancel each other out and good will result.
In the case of unions the free-marketers assert than in the absence of union pressures and power the owners of production will either act altruistically for the benefit of their workers or that, again somehow and mysteriously, their selfishness or evilness will cancel each other out and the best possible results for everyone will result (the Pareto Optimization).
This is a tragic and naive misunderstanding of human nature and the way the world works.
December 23, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
jlbiggs101 writes:
Labor unions have destroyed the steel, rubber, airline, and several other industries. They are also doing their best to destroy the auto industry. I personally try to patronize only businesses that are non-union. We drive Japanese and German automobiles. I chose to work only part time but if I was forced to join a union I would quit. I refuse to pay dues to any organization whose whole philosophy is based on greed.
December 23, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
eagleye writes:
JAYFOY: You asked if I feel that churches should not have the same rights as other groups. By that, I assume you mean the right to free speech. No, the First Amendment guarantees all groups and individuals that right. But the IRS takes a dim view of churches which promote political causes and candidates, and rightly so. They certainly have the right to do that. But when they choose to become a political lobby, they give up their privilege of tax exemption.
There are lots of people who feel that churches, whether they are politically active or not, do not deserve tax exemption. And pastors like Ms. Dunlap and churches like hers reinforce their ideas.
Dilligaf: I agree with you that in too many cases, churches have become not only political lobby groups, but businesses. And my fear is that neighborhood churches like mine, who are by no means mega-corporations, but are just quietly going about our Father's business, will get lumped in with the above-mentioned churches.
December 23, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
eagleye writes:
JAFOY: I didn't answer your specific question about whether or not I would be among those who tried to silence MLK. Of course not. But if you're trying to equate a pastor and her church promoting controversial legislation which supports unions with churches who promoted the civil rights movement in the 60's, then I completely disagree with you.
December 23, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngryDragon writes:
pezix - You need to check your facts. The EFCA would eliminate part of the process which is in place now to form unions. Basically the first step is for the union to gather signatures of support for a union. If 30% of the employees sign the petition then a secret ballot vote is held. EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot and use only the "card check" process.
I'll even make it easy for you and provide a link that explains this for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee...
Now that we have those pesky "FACTS" taken care of, there may be a time and place for unions however I do not believe it is now. There are current labor laws that deal with workplace discrimination, treatment of employees, employee safety (OSHA anyone????).
The big argument I always hear from the pro-union side is that wages will increase. I would like to just point out the teaching profession as exhibit A. A friend of mine got a job teaching out of college and her salary was about $31k. A whopping $6k a year were union dues. She was eligible for a 0.1% raise each year. Yes you read that correctly.
Someone please tell me how exactly the union is helping her move ahead in life?
December 23, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
eagleye
Good for you. Your kind of church is what I grew up with. The big church that was built by my house the so called pastor walks around with jewelery that is probably worth $50,000.
December 23, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
pezix writes:
angry dragon, wikpedia is user driven and unreliable, fact is the option of secret ballot is NOT taken away.
December 23, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
FreeToChoose writes:
Anybody here ever try to hire an electrician or a carpenter in Philadelphia?
Are there any shareholders in GM or Ford out there?
Anybody ever try to have something fixed in a timely manner in a Union shop?
Ever try to push education reform against a tide of Union Teachers?
There are many social costs associated with increased unionization, most of which entail a great deal of inflexibility and enforced mediocrity in our public and private institutions. Neither of these qualities will help us, as a nation, compete against the highly flexible and innovative worldwide competition of the 21st century. This is a 19th/20th century solution to address societal equality. However, a 21st century solution would likely entail creating a highly educated and flexible workforce, not shackling more and more of our businesses to a less motivated and less flexible work force!
In short, our leaders would serve the nation best by working towards 21st century solutions, not turning back to the inflexible and outdated institutions of the last century. In the long run, a person's education level is the largest determinent of lifetime earnings and the more knowledge we nurture and grow in our people, the more successful and innovative we'll be as a nation.
December 23, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
AngryDragon writes:
Peziz, facts are sometimes pesky details. Let me ask you a question, if the option for a secret ballot was not taken away, why introduce any legislation that requires businesses to recognize an organized workforce upon the "card check" process?
http://www.freechoiceact.org/petition/
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voic...
The purpose of this legislation is to force businesses to recognize unions when a majority of employees signs a petition. The problem with that is exactly the same as the scenario proposed by this letters author - coercion, bullying, intimidation. Except this time it will be by the union.
Many people will simply sign the petition so they can maintain a civil work environment. Once the secret ballot is sent out they can then freely express their own opinion without fear of retribution from either the employer or the union.
How many of us would be accepting of a bill that required a representative from every party to an election be present when you are filling out your ballot?
Even many of our own elected leaders want to keep secret ballots:
http://www.employeefreedom.org/downlo...
December 23, 2008
12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Imagine starting a company with your own money and building into a success by virtue of your imagination and hard work. Then imagine your employees banding together and telling you how to run your business, how much they should be paid, and how extensive their benefits will be.
Is that really the American way?
December 23, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Liberalsrising writes:
FreeToChoose: Your question should be "who determines who will bear the social costs" for a given policy, cultural bias, etc. Unionization in the United States has been part of the struggle to democratize power, i.e., take power away from wealthy and influential white men and distribute it evenly. The "workforce" should determine the rules of the game, not have the rules handed to them at birth. The anti-union posts here don't deal with the fact that this is an adversarial process and that the money-men will do everything in their power to increase their power and fragment the power of their employees. Middle-class employees have listened to the advertisements for the kool-aid, which today contains not poison but feel-good tranquilizers. The middle class is a date-rape victim, with the feel-good effects just now wearing off.
December 23, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
Nice try pezix. "wikipedia is user driven and unreliable"? Quit lying about the use of a secret ballot.
The EFCA does away with secret ballots. Otherwise there is no reason for it to exist.
As others have pointed out, whenever its face-to-face "persuasion", getting 30 or 50% to sign a petition is easy. When allowed to vote in private, unionization tends to fail. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
A private ballot is so basic and simple of a right that grade-schoolers voting for class president can understand it.
December 23, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Liberalsrising,
Are you saying that forced semi-socialism is the way to go? Naturally those who earned their fortunes are reluctant to give it away. Would you be so generous if the poor and homeless came and wanted part of your money and one of the rooms in your house?
Want more money, more benefits, more respect from your employer? Try taking classes, additional training, and better yourself to become more valuable. Why should anyone receive more money because they feel they "deserve" it?
I came from a lower-middle class home and had no college education, but I worked on my own time (and my own dime) to improve my worth to prospective employers. The results were clearly worth it. Success come from effort, not luck.
December 23, 2008
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
MUC writes:
Acemon, I usually don't always agree with you but both of your posts are right on. You always notice on these posts when someone makes a good point. Little in response to what you said. Instead of folks complaining, go out and start your own business, better educate yourself and take the risks necessary to improve your lot in life.
December 23, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
The Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate the secret ballot. I repeat, the Employee Free Choice Act DOES NOT eliminate the secret ballot.
Here is the gist of where the Act will differ in comparison to the current National Labor Relations Act (from wikipedia, which I don't normally quote, but in this instance seemed the most cut-and-dried and objective):
"The most widely publicized change to the National Labor Relations Act is a change to employer disputes over recognition of an individual or labor organization claiming to represent employees.
Currently an employer can demand a secret ballot election even if a majority of employees has signed cards authorizing a representative to bargain on their behalf, also known as a card check election.
Under the EFCA, an employer can only dispute the legitimacy of an employee representative if less than a majority of employees have signed authorization cards, or if illegal coercion is alleged.
*The process of union decertification does not change under the EFCA, with a secret ballot election held when thirty percent of employees request decertification of a union*, or an employer can voluntarily accept the results when a majority of employees sign decertification cards."
December 23, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Acemon: "I came from a lower-middle class home and had no college education, but I worked on my own time (and my own dime) to improve my worth to prospective employers. The results were clearly worth it. Success come from effort, not luck."
Good for you, but I guarantee anyone who ever organized and successfully formed a trade union worked even harder, and under threat of their life, too.
What's more, not every field is conducive to an entrepreneurial start-up. In case you haven't noticed, there aren't a lot of mom-and -pop automakers, mines, and air traffic control businesses. For better or for worse, this is largely a nation of wage-earners who work for someone else, often a large corporation in an industry dominated by just a few players. Unions give them at least some say in their destiny.
Now, it seems to me you're saying union workers should "do something better" with their lives - which strikes me as rather disdainful, especially towards blue-collar workers. Do you think blue-collar work is the province of slackers? Do you think they don't offer something valuable and critically needed? Do you think they don't take pride in, maybe even sometimes love what they do?
December 23, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Unions are the biggest special interest group of all. They're also a favorite of Democrats. What doesn't work with the piece is that most people I hear say that unions are outdated, not that they want in one. The problem in Detroit with the big three is related to unions and compensation packages that are out of line with the real world. The unions have failed the automakers in Detroit!
December 23, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Liberalsrising writes:
Acemon: There are many threads, some historical, some social and cultural that weave together to produce our present day. One of the quotes I like from Rockefeller was when he said that people should quit complaining about his patriotism because he'd sent 25 people in his place to fight in the civil war. Rockefeller was making his chops, I believe, in providing clothing to the union army. Armor(?) began his fortune supplying food to the union army and a number of other fortunes were started with similar government contracts, not privatization or free market, but government founded fortunes. Some old money was earned, as you say, honestly, but many, many fortunes began with shenanigans and deals and outright theft, witness the white men in Oklahoma who found the means, I forget how, to take property owned by black people. Your faith in earning is wide eyed innocence. You talk about getting educated, etc., much of the struggle in America has been about spreading such opportunities out to all Americans. I think your model needs a good dose of realism.
December 23, 2008
9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
FreeToChoose writes:
Liberalising:
Nice, cherrypicking examples that are over 100 years old and wrong as well. Rockefeller made his money building Standard Oil by monopolizing the access to the oil fields in western Pennsylvania, slowly choking his competitors into submission. He became the world's wealthiest man through very hard work and he had very little special advantages at the outset.
The great thing about America is that great fortunes STILL rise from ALL ranks of American society. Where would we be today without the remarkable contributions of college dropouts Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison? It's still possible to work your way through college, as Sam Walton did, and grow a retail empire from a SINGLE store. And you can start a business as part of a school project and grow it into a billion dollar enterprise as Sergey Brin and Larry Page did with Google when they were at Stanford.
But why stop at business opportunity... Obama just proved that if you're smart and ambitious, you don't need family money to get a good education and a step up in this world.
But I fail to see how encouraging further unionization in America will address equality in America in the 21st century. Creating an educated and flexible workforce is a far better solution that creates LASTING equality.
December 26, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
pezix
Here's a link to the actual bill. It eliminates the secret ballot, places restrictions on employers and demands, without the benefit of legal defenses, that employers be fined or punished upon the accusation of wrongdoing. Read it for yourself.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billt...
There is both a summary of the legislation and the full text of the bill. Unions have invested millions of dollars in this effort. If it becomes law, many businesses will decide to leave the country entirely while others will relocate in right to work states. The loss of jobs will be severe.
Perhaps this will make things better for worker in the long run because many more states will pass right to work when all the anti-business and anti-workers' choice provisions are shown.
Obama should be very glad there will be enough votes in the Senate to block this one. He won't have to wear this one around his neck.
December 28, 2008
10:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
Thanks for the link P-myers. It clearly states that no election shall be held if a majority of workers sign a card endorsing a union as a representative. Rising, two sense and pezix cannot refute this so my prediction is they will quit this thread. Unions want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. How many union leaders have ended up in jail after bilking the very people they were supposed to help? They are corrupt, collectivist enterprises.