America’s top CEOs — the clueless millionaires whose greed, ignorance and arrogance drove our economy off a cliff — have declared their top legislative priority for 2009. It isn’t the president’s budget. It’s not promoting jobs or health care for their workers. And it’s certainly not limits on CEO pay.
Instead, they’ve launched an all out campaign to scuttle bi-partisan legislation that would restore workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life. The legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, fixes a broken system and would restore the promise of the American Dream for working Americans. It must be a key component of our efforts to rebuild the middle class, promote economic growth and create an economy that works for all Americans.
America’s CEOs have made the defeat of this bill their biggest goal in 2009. To spearhead their campaign, they’ve hired Rick Berman, a shadowy P.R. man who has spent his career attacking nonprofits, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, through phony front groups and misleading advertisements. Berman made a name for himself by winning huge fees working for clients including the tobacco and alcohol industries, mounting campaigns to defeat or weaken drunk driving laws, quieting concerns about cigarettes, and blocking increases in the minimum wage.
Berman specializes in Big Lie campaigns. That’s why the CEOs have hired him. The Chamber of Commerce, The National Association of Manufacturers and other front organizations for the CEOs have decided that they can’t oppose the Employee Free Choice Act on the merits, so they’ll create a Big Lie to raise concerns about the bill. The lie they’re promoting is that the bill would eliminate secret ballots for workers forming a union.
The claim is simply not true. The bill gives workers, not their employer, the choice in how they choose to form unions: either after a majority of workers sign a card in support of the union or through a secret ballot election. Workers could choose elections, but the opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act don’t care about the truth. They’ve already begun spending $200 million to spread the lie that the bill eliminates secret ballots, hoping that enough people will believe it to kill the bill. That’s why we need to call them on their lie.
The real reason CEOs oppose the bill is because they know that giving workers a better chance at forming a union will undercut corporations’ ability to keep the rewards only to themselves. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott – who made about $23 million in 2007 – is one of the few CEOs to tell the truth about his motives. He admits that the secret ballot canard isn’t the real reason he’s fighting to kill the bill. "We like driving the car,” he said, “and we’re not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us.”
Playing fast and loose with the truth is not going to defeat this important legislation in Congress. In the last Congress, the Employee Free Choice Act passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin, and in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has helped to build a solid majority of Democrats to support the bill. Thanks to Senator Reid, we now have a senate majority that supports giving workers a ticket to the middle class. But Republican senators have threatened a filibuster. Too many Republicans appear to be frightened that if they stand up to the Big Lie about secret ballots, they will upset the leaders of the their party. They know from experience that those leaders – anti-worker talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity – will make it difficult for them to stand with America’s workers.
That’s why it’s important to keep the facts in front of the GOP senators. They need to be reminded that union members earn 30 percent more than workers who don’t have one. Union members are 63 percent more likely to have health care through their employers. That’s why workers want to join unions. CEOs don’t want to pay more so that workers can live better.
Americans want an economy that works for everyone, not just CEOs and right wing radio and TV talk show hosts. The Employee Free Choice Act will help rebuild the middle class and jumpstart our economy, by giving every worker a chance to bargain for decent wages, benefits and safe working conditions. A union job is not only a ticket for workers into the middle class, it’s the best way to jumpstart our economy.





9 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Gerald, if you believe that union organizers are not going to insist on using employee signature cards as THE way of getting workers to form unions, you’re telling yourself the FIRST big lie (Oh, sure, you can have a secret ballot, but this way is SOOO much easier!!). Once that lie is established, if you believe that union organizers wont strong-arm employees into signing those cards, your telling yourself the SECOND big lie.
Change that one provision, and you have a great piece of legislation. Keep that provision as it is, and you have a badly flawed piece of legislation. It will be a baseball bat for union organizers.
Is FDL financially supported by unions? I ask because it is SO obvious that that part of the proposed legislation is awful, yet this site puts the blinders on and continues to endorse it. This site likes to pride itself about uncovering the truth. Why are you doing just the opposite on this legislation?
BBBbbbuuutt Obama mentions EFCA
And Andy, card check MAY be easier but it’s easier for a reason
Hey Ubetchaiam,
Nice to talk with you again. Here’s the two things about the article you linked: 1) The post seems to suggest the system will be completely rigged either for union organizers or for management, so it would be better to completely rig it in favor of the union organizers. 2) The only part of the EFCA worth a damn is the provision to end the secret ballot, the rest is nice window dressing, but really has no teeth. The legislation is meant to toughen the penalties against management if they try the intimidation methods mentioned. Are these insufficient unto themselves to end the intimidation? Then toughen the penalties till they ARE SUFFICIENT to end the intimidation. Two wrongs don’t make a right, so simply rigging the rules to allow union organizers to beat (mentally? emotionally? physically?) employees into signing the cards is just as egregious as the present system. If the union organizers really believe they can win on an even playing field, then a level playing field is all they should need or want. Add more bite to the penalties, don’t rig the system.
“Add more bite to the penalties, don’t rig the system.”; the ’system’ is already ‘rigged’. It’s like gun laws; there are plenty of laws already on the books to track/prevent those who shouldn’t be trusted with such weapons but they’re not enforced. Same with labor laws.A couple of months ago i took a company to court for violating CA labor laws; won the case(I was the plaintiff,not the attorney) but the CA Labor Board didn’t pursue it(that’s the first step before going to court) and the Company-defendant- wasn’t enjoined to stop it’s violations.
Yes, ‘justice for all’ is the motto but some get more ‘justice’ than others(usually those with the most money).
In that case, FDL should refrain from making any more posts like the above. Or any stories about how EFCA will ‘right’ things. An honest post would say something like, “We believe the system is rigged. We believe the system is rigged in favor of management. We believe there are ‘plenty of laws already on the books’ to counter this abuse. However, we don’t believe those laws are being enforced. We don’t believe they will be enforced. Therefore, we believe we should rig the system in favor of unions. We understand that once this law is passed, unions will be begin efforts (legal or otherwise) to make as many organizations into unions as possible. We understand all kinds of intimidation MAY be used to get workers to sign the check cards. However, we believe that this is better for workers, whether they think so or not.” My question to you is, will you be just as fast to represent Joe Schmoe who comes to you and tells you he was coerced into signing a check card he otherwise would not have signed? What if he has video proof? What if he only has ‘psychological scars’ from the ‘talk’ he received from the union organizer? 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Rigging the system in unions favor will work, but at what price? And if management has found ways to circumvent the existing laws, union organizers will find a way to circumvent rules they don’t like. Trading one evil for another is wrong. KEEP THE SECRET VOTE!
Yeah, I’m sure the management of this public author – repeat, public author region of the blog will get right on it.
I notice no comment about the substance of what I say. Only my error about where the post is.
Newtonusr, if you don’t want to discuss the issue, but only nitpick, please go elsewhere. I’m happy to discuss issues, not play games.
You would take away my right to secret vote, if you don’t see that as a violation of basic principles of democracy, I believe you are wrong.
I actually have no argument with your comments.
But this is where the public – anyone – gets to write. You, me, anyone can author here.
If you don’t like the ideas expressed, you are free to disagree in print, as you have done. However, if you want to exclude ideas because you do not like them, you are the one with a problem. Either you believe in anyone being free to express their opinions and ideas, or you do not. If you recommend censoring ANYONE, you are, in my opinion, trolling, and at a disadvantage in the argument, and your opinion will not stand scrutiny.
Think again before suggesting that anyone be censored.
I was accusing you of doing that. I didn’t think you were discussing the issue, only taking issue with a minor point of what I was saying. Thank you for stating your point. If I am trying to deny anybody their voice, I am wrong. However, I was saying if all you want to do is nitpick, not to bother, that I’m not interested. That it came out as saying I deny you the right to post is wrong of me, and you are right to straighten me out. I appreciate you saying you have no argument with my comment, I see it as you are considering the subject. To me, that is what we should discuss. I apologize for saying go elsewhere. I should have said, if you don’t want to discuss the issue, then I don’t wish to have a discussion with you.
Thanks.