After the stimulus is passed (assuming the GOPers don’t ruin it), one of the most important pieces of pro-worker legislation in decades will be considered in the House and Senate. actually considered again. The Employee Free Choice Act passed in the
House in 2007, but was
filibustered in the Senate. Some GOP Senators are apoplectic about the legislation. Their friends who run corporate America hate it. In fact, the day after the election,
November 5, 2008, Corporate America, made it clear they were going to fight Obama's pro-worker policies. At a time when average CEO pay is
344 times higher than average worker pay, it’s not hard to understand why allowing workers the freedom to have a say isn’t the top priority of corporations or most Republicans. But – what has been an annoyance is the apparent opposition of the traditional media to this measure that – very simply - would make it easier for employees to join a union.
Reporters have consistently utilized the language of the
conservative shills and gotten this
issue wrong. The most important misconception is this:
The Employee Free Choice Act does not take away the right to a secret ballot:
That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply gives workers the choice of forming their union through an election or through majority sign-up. The majority sign-up process has been a widely used path to union representation since 1935, but workers may only use the majority sign-up process currently if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act puts that choice in the hands of employees rather than their employer.
In other words, the Act will do just what it says: Give Employees – instead of Employers – the right to choose whether they want to form a union by majority sign up OR secret ballot election. Face it, right now in union elections, the corporations hold all the power. The elections are held on their property under their watchful eyes. It would be like holding all of our elections at the RNC headquarters.
The most pro-worker administration in generations is now in power. But, you wouldn't know that from the traditional media. At a meeting last month with the Washington Post editorial Board, President Obama made very supportive and welcome remarks about
the Employee Free Choice Act:
Here's my basic principal that wages and incomes have flatlined over the last decade. That part of that has to do with forces that are beyond everybody's control: globalization, technology and so forth. Part of it has to do with workers have very little leverage and that larger and larger shares of our productivity go to the top and not to the middle or the bottom. I think unions serve an important role in that. I think that the way the Bush Administration managed the Department of Labor, the NLRB, and a host of other aspects of labor management relations put the thumb too heavily against unions. I want to lift that thumb. There are going to be steps that we can take other than the Employee Free Choice Act that will make a difference there.
I think the basic principal of making it easier and fairer for workers who want to join a union, join a union is important. And the basic outline of the Employee Fair Choice are ones that I agree with. But I will certainly listen to all parties involved including from labor and the business community which I know considers this to be the devil incarnate. I will listen to parties involved and see if there are ways that we can bring those parties together and restore some balance.
You know, now if the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me. If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see. Then I think that's a conversation that not only myself but folks in labor would be willing to have. But, so that's the general approach that I am interested in taking. But in terms of time table, if we are losing half a million jobs a month then there are no jobs to unionize. So my focus first is on those key economic priority items that I just mentioned.
After eight years of anti-worker leadership, those were very welcome words. Pretty clear that Obama supports the new legislation. Pretty clear he's not going to accept purely anti-union arguments from business.
But, the
Washington Post downplayed Obama's remarks and intimated that he was going to compromise:
The president-elect also gave his support for legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but he said there may be other ways to achieve the same goal without angering businesses. And while many Democrats on Capitol Hill are eager to see a quick vote on that bill, he indicated no desire to rush into the contentious issue.
"If we're losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items I just mentioned," he said. "Let's see what the legislative docket looks like."
That missed the gist of what Obama said, but fits in with the animus the corporate media has shown to the Employee Free Choice Act.
While it isn't a surprise to see corporate interests spreading misinformation, it still is very annoying when so many reporters, whose own ranks are diminishing by the day, do the same. The Employee Free Choice Act isn’t that complicated. And, it should get more than a regurgitation of the right wing’s talking points.
But with some digging, the reasons might become a bit clearer: Some of the corporations that run these news outlets just aren’t interested in laws that make it easier for workers to join unions. In fact, they’re not interested in cooperative relationships with their workers at all. Production workers at the Washington Post, for example, have been embroiled in a dispute with the corporate leadership
for years:
"All we want is a fair contract," said Hunter Phillips, the administrative director and lead negotiator for the District-based Communications Workers of America, which represents the workers in what is known as the mailroom. "We want The Post to sit down with us and bargain in good faith, which we don't believe they have done. They have pretty much given us a take-it-or-leave-it offer."
Phillips said the contract negotiations, which began in early 2004, have stalled because The Post is insisting on contract language to withdraw from the union's pension plan.
Yep. The Post management wants to take away workers’ pensions. They’ve also refused to raise workers wages since 2002, improve their healthcare or any other benefits. At the same time, the Post has made millions and doled out millions more to its top execs. Sound familiar?
This is an important debate for American workers. They’ve been getting screwed for years. The nation’s economy is a disaster because of the wrong decisions made by so many government and corporate leaders. And, too many in the press have sat idly by while it happened.
Fortunately, we're not limited to getting our news from corporates sources anymore. We’re going to make sure that the Employee Free Choice Act gets fair coverage. It would be nice if some of the reporters who get paid a lot of money to cover politics would do the same. We'll remind the public about their true motivations for not fairly covering the Employee Free Choice Act.
Read More......
