EFCA and Getting the Country Back on Track

(The inspiration for this post was a story in Sunday, 11 November's NYT: "After Push for Obama, Unions Seek New Rules: Priority is to Make it Easier to Unionize" by Steven Greenhouse.)

In the 111th Congress, one of the likely bills facing the Senate (it passed in the House) is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which allows workers to organize when a majority of workers sign a card stating their preference for a union--known as card check. And the bill provides for binding arbitration if a contract is not agreed on after 120 days. Reps from the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)--two of the most ardent pro-business and anti-union organizations--oppose the EFCA or any card check legislation, and they now claim that it will increase unionization and stifle business at a time when the country needs economic growth. To give you some perspective, NAM has been fighting an anti-union campaign since the end of the nineteenth century.

Here's the fundamental question, if unions don't get support now when will they? The fact remains: there have been no major gains for labor in times of prosperity. Since 1947, and really the end of WWII, labor has suffered legislative, judicial, and executive set-backs. Conservative opposition has carried the day in targeting unions. That's not to say that unions have been pure as the driven snow, but there has been nothing short of a campaign to reverse labor's gains made during the Great Depression's explosive CIO drives and the New Deal. (Specifically, Norris LaGuardia's anti-injunction provisions and the sweeping Wagner Act and its support by SCOTUS in '37 were monumental points of labor successes. But for the 20th century, those are the sole biggies.)

Make no mistake, NAM, the Chamber of Commerce, and their Republican allies have one goal in mind: destroy unions and curtail any organizing efforts. They've been successful for quite a while, and they will fight what they see as an obstacle to our unfettered free market capitalism. At the core, there is an essential matter that divides pro- and anti-union camps. Do you want economic growth that depends on cheap labor with little protection for workers? Or do you want social and economic justice in the workplace that guarantees workers' protection and their ability to prosper as a class? There doesn't seem to be any middle ground for anti-union proponents. Sure, they say they support unions, but the truth is they stand against any new pushes for organizing drives or any legislative efforts that could curtail their ability to fire pro-union workers or advocate against unions in the workplace prior to an NLRB vote.

Conservatives like David Brooks say it's a matter that should be ignored until later while the country gets back on track. The problem remains that if labor doesn't make gains now, there is little chance they will in the future. The argument is static and recycled regardless of the state of the economy or country: why impede economic growth by permitting union gains? That is their line for all seasons and conditions. The time is now; history's precedent is not favorable to unions if Obama doesn't push this through. I accept that he will be limited in what he can achieve, but this could have a lasting impact on the health of the working-class and its ability to survive and thrive.