Was Card Check Just A "Red Herring?"

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Labor

(CBS/AP)

There has been a fierce battle this year over a piece of legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill the potential to revitalize the U.S. labor movement. On one side of the debate is organized labor, which has seen its rolls shrink dramatically in the past 50 years. Just 7.6 percent of private-sector workers now belong to a union.

On the other side are business groups, who say the legislation will cripple businesses by increasing labor costs at the worst possible time. (Here's Hotsheet's primer on the bill.)

On Friday, the New York Times ran a front-page story declaring a key provision in the bill known as "card check" -- which would mandate that a union is formed when a majority of a company's employees sign cards saying they want one -- effectively dead. According to the Times, moderate Senate Democrats killed the provision during negotiations, arguing that it is undemocratic because it effectively eliminates secret ballots. Since Democrats need all sixty of their Senate votes to overcome a filibuster of the legislation, these moderates -- among them Arlen Specter, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln -- are key to the bill's passage.

But representatives on both sides of the issue signaled in interviews with Hotsheet Friday that they are skeptical of the Times report. Josh Goldstein of American Rights at Work said in an interview that it is "premature to make any assumptions about what's going on in negotiations when the people who are in those negotiations are clearly stating that there is no deal."

"As far as I know, majority sign up is still on the table," he said. "And we're still fighting for it."

And Mark McKinnon of the Workforce Fairness Institute, a business group, told Hotsheet, "I don't think it's so much a compromise as it is a trial balloon."

But it's logical that a compromise had to come -- Democrats simply did not have the votes to push through the legislation without one. Indeed, from a pragmatic perspective, the deal outlined in the Times might actually be a victory for labor, since it may have saved a bill that still has a lot in it that would help unions, even without the card check provision. Someone like Specter, who announced his opposition to EFCA earlier this year, could plausibly change his mind and back it with the card check provision stripped out.

And according to McKinnon, card check isn't the most important provision in the legislation -- "the more onerous provision," he says, "is the forced arbitration component."

"The notion of federal bureaucrats coming in and dictating your contracts is a nightmare," he told Hotsheet. "And it will unquestionably lead to additional costs."

That talking point is countered by Goldstein of the labor-backed American Rights at Work, who says language in EFCA mandating binding arbitration if a union and company cannot agree on a contract is key to helping interested workers successfully form unions.

The latest version of the bill, according to the Times, would also mandate faster elections (giving companies less time to lobby against a possible union), require companies to offer union organizers access to their property, and keep companies from mandating that workers attend what critics call "captive audience meetings" in which the case against the union is made.

It also includes something called injunctive relief, which would mandate that if the National Labor Relations Board believes an employee was fired for forming a union, the employee would immediately be reinstated to his job.

As one A.F.L.-C.I.O. official told the Times: "This bill will bring about dramatic changes, even if card check has fallen away."

American Rights at Work's Goldstein, meanwhile, referred to card check as a "red herring" used by the opposition in an interview, though he maintained that his group "strongly" believes in the principle of majority sign-up.

Now both sides are digging in for a new round of fighting, and though labor is maintaining its allegiance to card check -- SEIU President Andy Stern said Friday "we expect a vote on a majority signup provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress" -- it appears likely that labor groups would accept a bill without the provision so long as the watering down doesn't go too much further.

As for business interests, who have poured millions of dollars into lobbying against EFCA, the possible death of the card check provision is a mixed blessing. A bill that looked dead thanks to the opposition of moderate Democrats now has new life, and the debate now shifts toward the arbitration question, which from their perspective is less friendly turf.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

3 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by garlicoatmeal July 18, 2009 11:24 PM EDT: Unions are inefficient and expensive. Their unreasonable demands and benefit packages will continue to send revenue oversees and prevent America from competing globally. The effect is to slowly destroy free enterprise from within the once greatest nation in the world.

Empower unions and increase business taxes and fees --let's find more ways to destroy the American dream.

What a shame.

I bought a cell phone battery from Taiwan for $8.00 -- at the local AT&T store it was $38.00.; Reply to this comment


by tgrimes834 July 17, 2009 4:50 PM EDT: Throughout the debate over EFCA, we have being advising employers whether this particular bill passes or not, labor laws are going to change and they need to be prepared. Even if the removal of card check actually happens, employers need to realize that what is left presents a very generous, pro-union set of reforms. Labor organizing success will tip heavily in favor of unions. Labor reform compromise without card check could still include: a short campaign window; the elimination of any so-called captive audience meetings about union representation with employees; union access to the employer?s premises; significant financial penalties for unfair labor practices; and, compulsory binding arbitration. That is not a very pleasant reality for employers or employees who want to maintain a positive, direct relationship with each another. Right now companies should be assessing their risk, correcting their vulnerabilities, training organization leaders on employee and labor relations, and improving communication across the board. The best way to avoid undesirable outcomes is to act now, before labor changes happen. If the management team is honest, upfront, and willing to communicate with employees about important employee and labor issues, they will be in a much better position to deal with third party organizing attempts and assure employees the organization is invested in them and their futures.
Tom Grimes
The Mickus Group
www.mickusgroup.com; Reply to this comment


by sdrdk5 July 17, 2009 4:33 PM EDT: The government needs to get out of the union!!! It is NOT the governments responsibility to meddle between unions and business. This is Obama's way to repay them for helping him win his (illegitimate -wheres the birth certificate?) presidency. Unions served their purpose years ago now it is mainly to make them fatter cats. If they were so great people would be clamoring to join. Just another dictatorial move for Obama and unions. SEIU is another ACORN entity and just as corrupt. Can't believe anything they say or do either.; Reply to this comment