I wrote a letter to my senators asking why they would vote no to Senate amendment 2588. They both responded, but I still have questions. Here's my response to their response.

Dear Sen. Johnny Isakson, Sen. Saxby Chambliss:

Thank you for replying to my letter asking you about your no vote on S. Amdt. 2588 of the Defense Authorization Bill. I am sending this follow-up letter because from reading your response your no vote was based on different information than what I was aware existed. I’m hoping that this letter can help clarify matters, so if I’m wrong please let me know.

Sen. Isakson, you wrote that you voted against the amendment “in accordance with the recommendation of the President and his Department of Defense, which opposed this amendment.” Perhaps you aren’t aware that the President is not against the intent of this legislation. He had some concerns about how it would be implemented, but he supported the legislation. The Department of Defense had questions about whether the amendment was enforceable, but it is overstating the case to say they opposed it.

As an aside though, can you clarify how important the President’s opinion is in casting your vote? I don’t have a problem with you deciding to vote “in accordance with the President.” That cannot be any worse than any other way of voting. I’m assuming that since the President is for the Employee Free Choice Act, you will now also vote in favor of that bill.

Sen. Isakson you also wrote that the amendment “would lead to defense contractors eliminating arbitration altogether as an option for employees.” Sen. Chambliss you wrote that employers would be “forced to eliminate mandatory arbitration as an option for resolving employment disputes.” Are you both aware that, in fact, this amendment wouldn’t do that? The amendment doesn’t eliminate arbitration, it eliminates having arbitration as the only option. In other words, workers would still be able to go to court.

What’s interesting to me is that the both of you are so concerned about making sure employees have multiple options when it comes to settling grievances. I applaud this intent. I would once again like to suggest you support the Employee Free Choice Act since this legislation would give employees, not employers, more options when it comes to deciding whether or not to have a union. Right now, workers can be forced by their employer into an election, “a very expensive and lengthy process.” (That’s from your letter about the court system, Sen. Isakson.) Also, the current process is ripe with employer abuse including harassment and illegal firings. Giving employees more options- like only having them vote once on whether they want a union rather than filing cards asking for an election and then voting in a months-long election process designed to protect employers while they abuse human rights- would help stop this process.

Lastly, I’m curious about your votes on federal funding for ACORN. The both of you have supported banning the group from receiving federal monies because of their transgressions. Will you also call for other organizations to be banned from federal funds? I’m talking about organizations like Blackwater since they killed civilians in Iraq. In fact, they have a history of it. Also there’s the case of Halliburton. Jamie Leigh Jones, a former Halliburton employee, alleges she was gang raped by her coworkers while in Iraq. You both know about her because Sen. Franken introduced his amendment to give her some relief in court. She also alleges that Halliburton covered up the crime. If this is true, then Halliburton would be guilty of covering up a horrific crime. Without a doubt you both would agree with this since you both stated in your letters how much you believe rape to be a terrible violation. I have no doubt that you both would support banning Halliburton from receiving federal funds. That's the only way I can see your votes as being consistent. If you aren't consistent, then there must be some ulterior motive for attacking ACORN but leaving Halliburton and Blackwater alone. If I’m wrong, please let me know.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Dan

Check out this blog post at Facing South, magazine of the Institute for Southern Studies. We should expect conservatives to screw over workers. We should also expect liberals to screw us too.

If you missed, Tom Frank had a provocative column in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about the likely demise of the Employee Free Choice Act -- the bill that labor has made its #1 priority for the new era of Obama and Democratic politics.

First, it's important to note the EFCA isn't dead yet. Labor has vowed it will keep fighting, and as Roll Call reports they were in full force during the recent Congressional recess:

Union organizers held more than 400 grass-roots events, sent more than 27,000 letters to Members of Congress and put in nearly 100,000 calls supporting EFCA. Additionally, the unions spent more than $1 million on two TV ads over the recess, AFL-CIO spokeswoman Amaya Smith said.

But after the defections of key Senators like Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln -- and even pro-labor stalwarts like Ohio's Sherrod Brown (D) predicting it will be watered down -- Frank observes that the EFCA as we know it won't pass:

After massive lobbying both by labor and by business, it appears that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which, as it now stands, would allow workers to organize in many cases merely by signing cards instead of holding elections, will not have the 60 votes required to get past a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Even Andy Stern of the Change to Win labor federation is signaling compromise is on the horizon given the math.

But it's important to step back a moment and ask how, after the rush of hope that surrounded the victory of Obama and Congressional Democrats -- backed by millions in labor contributions -- did we get to this point?

Many have pointed to the well-financed corporate opposition to the act -- a war chest which, among other things, has been used to fund dubious research warning that the labor bill would cost "thousands of jobs."

But Frank points to an important and under-reported piece of the story -- lobbying firms with strong ties to Democrats who are helping deep-six labor's agenda. After asking why Democrats seem treat labor like an ATM machine for campaign cash, only to turn their backs on them in Congress, Frank offers these devastating set of facts:

[M]aybe it's just the money. Consider the lineup of lobbyists that retail giant Wal-Mart has assembled to make its case against EFCA. According to lobbying disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate we find that Wal-Mart's lobbyists include Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti (which employs former presidential candidate John Kerry's liaison to Congress during the 2004 campaign), a former legislative director for Rahm Emanuel, and a former assistant to Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

Wal-Mart has also secured, according lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, the services of Tony Podesta, of the Podesta Group, one of the hottest lobby shops in Democratic D.C. Mr. Podesta is joined in pushing Wal-Mart's views on EFCA by a former assistant to Democrat Mark Pryor, the other senator from Arkansas. [FS note: The firm was co-founded with John Podesta, a lead Obama advisor, although he's no longer listed on the group's manifest.]

The real standout on Wal-Mart's labor-issues roster, though, is D+P Creative Strategies, which wears its liberalism as proudly as last week's tax protestors did their three-cornered hats. According to its Web site, D+P "highlights partnership, shared benefits, and a commitment to advancing social justice goals." The disclosure form for its Wal-Mart EFCA activities lists a former assistant to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. The bio of its principal, Ingrid Duran, who is also listed as a Wal-Mart lobbyist, declares that the firm's mission is "to increase the role of corporate, legislative and philanthropic efforts in addressing the concerns of Latinos, women, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) communities."

There's much more evidence of the ties between these firms to the Democrats. For example, this month the Podesta Group -- which proudly boasts [pdf] of its special access in the new Democratic administration -- announced the addition of six new principals to their lobbying army. Half have solid Democratic resumes.

The case of the former aide to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) -- Walter Pryor (no relation) -- now lobbying against the EFCA for Wal-Mart is especially bizarre. As Wal-Mart Watch pointed out last month, Walter Pryor's lobbying filing for Wal-Mart lists him as still being an aid to Sen. Pryor -- which is impossible, because legislative aides aren't allowed to lobby.

Melhman & Co. started out as a mostly GOP shop, but ever since 2006 has been cultivating its Democratic Party connections.

Labor has mobilized people and money in unprecedented amounts to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed. But at the end of the day, the money and connections of the corporate opposition -- including Democratic lobbyists -- may carry the day.

Which Side Are You On?

100 Days

By Christopher Hayes

This article appeared in the April 6, 2009 edition of The Nation. March 18, 2009

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/hayes?rel=hp_currently

Legislative fights in Washington rarely break down neatly along class lines. Often, the coalitions on either side of an issue are unwieldy and eclectic, with one sector or industry battling another. The notable exception is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would reform a broken labor elections system, making it easier (one might say possible) for workers to unionize.

On March 10 the bill was reintroduced in the House and the Senate, ushering in the final act in a six-year legislative battle that has become the most bruising and intense in Washington, one that--literally--pits Capital against Labor.

For the GOP the politics are straightforward. Woven into the DNA of the modern conservative is opposition to unions and unionism of any kind. Defeating the bill has become a kind of jobs program for right-wing hacks: no fewer than sixteen groups are raising money, mobilizing constituents, running ads and lobbying senators to kill it.

But for a Democratic Party that for several decades has awkwardly attempted to be the party of both business and labor, it's a very difficult circle to square. "It comes at a bad time," says a wealthy, business-friendly Democratic donor. "[Democrats] are blaming bankers, blaming lots of people, and it sounds like these people are anti-business.... A lot of us warned the guys working for Obama that [EFCA] would be a problem. They said, Don't overreact to this--it's a long way from becoming law, blah, blah, blah."

In this particular fight, class solidarity--if I may use a phrase that has long since gone out of fashion--seems to trump partisan loyalties.

Obama supporter and advocate of progressive taxation Warren Buffett has come out against the legislation.

And according to that wealthy Democrat I talked with, he's not alone: "I think a lot of Democratic donors are downright pissed off," he told me. His fellow well-heeled Democratic donors, he said, are complaining that "this is the danger of having Democrats control Congress and the White House." The head of a large progressive nonprofit echoed the point. The act, he said, "happened to come up a few times" recently with donors. He was surprised by how intense their opposition is. "The passion of it threw me off a bit," he added.

Part of the source of these tensions is the fact that the disgraced financial sector (which increasingly leans Democratic in its donations) has largely thrown its weight behind opposing the bill--despite the fact that these same businesses are being kept on life support by the government. A Citibank retail analyst downgraded Wal-Mart's stock for fear that the bill would pass; the next day she hosted an "informational" conference call featuring a representative from the US Chamber of Commerce, who spent the entire call warning darkly about EFCA. (After the Huffington Post broke the news of the anti-EFCA call in mid-March, Citi hurriedly hosted a call with members of the United Food and Commercial Workers.)

"This is the biggest battle between labor and corporations in this country since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947," the AFL-CIO's organizing director, Stewart Acuff, told me. What makes the battle especially intense is that while both sides have attempted to shape public opinion, polls show that the issue doesn't amount to even a blip on voters' radar. A recent poll found majority support for a bill that would make it easier to organize, but only 12 percent of respondents said they were following the EFCA bill "very closely."

That means victory will ultimately come not from shaping public opinion but from pressuring the handful of swing senators. Each side is ferociously organizing constituents in those senators' states.

A few of these red state Democrats--in a kind of parody of squishy centrism--have hinted they'd like to find some legislative compromise. "This legislation is not perfect," Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor said recently.

"And while I have been supportive in the past, I will consider amendments to make it better if and when it is considered by the Senate." Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson said he thinks that "there'll be a major effort to modify it before it ever comes up for consideration, and I'll have to take a look and see what it is then."

Some senators have floated compromises, such as extending the amount of time management would have to negotiate a first contract before binding arbitration.

If Senate Democrats think an amendment will give them political cover, they're fooling themselves. Just ask big business. Speaking on the Citi conference call, Glenn Spencer of the Chamber of Commerce said, "There is no amendment you could make to this bill to make it acceptable. From top to bottom it's a bad piece of legislation. You'd have to start with scrapping this bill."

Labor also sees EFCA as a black and white issue and is eager to take away the middle ground. Acuff says the fundamental question is, "Are you for unions or are you against unions? If you're against this legislation, you're against unions. You can't say you're for unions if you don't think workers should be able to form unions without fear of retaliation."

Sometime in the next few months, every Democratic elected official is going to have to answer a very old question that in a post-meltdown world is newly resonant: Which side are you on?

About Christopher Hayes Christopher Hayes is The Nation's Washington editor. His wife works in the White House Counsel's office.

Two articles on the Employee Free Choice Act, sorta. The first one is about rights at work which is related to EFCA. The second is about a reform piece that should be in EFCA but isn't. Both are good pieces.


"Can My Employer Do That To Me?"
Find Out If You're Being Treated Fairly
By Kari Lydersen
AlterNet
Posted March 13, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/131152/%22can_my_employer_do_that_to_me%22_find_out_if_you%27re_being_treated_fairly/?page=entire

[Alternet moderator: find the website refered to here at:] http://www.canmybossdothat.com/

Labor and employment laws are complicated beasts. A new website launched by the Chicago-based national group Interfaith Worker Justice offers help.

"Can my boss do that?"

It's surely a common refrain nationwide, especially in the current desperate economic climate. Labor and employment laws are complicated beasts, often filled with deceptive terms such as "right to work", which actually has a lot more to do with keeping unions down than anyone's right to work.

With unionization at record lows nationwide and lawyers who offer pro bono advice stretched to their limits, it is hard for workers of any shade of collar to know where to turn for help answering the question "Can my boss do that?" A new website launched by the Chicago-based national group Interfaith Worker Justice offers a good start.

The user-friendly site covers a comprehensive range of the most common workplace related legal terms and situations, providing explanations and answers in clear and concise terminology that breaks down nuances without overwhelming the already-stressed out worker with too much text or extra detail.

The home page features a section tailored to workers facing job loss, with information on severance pay, health insurance including the new stimulus COBRA provision and how to "not get scammed" in looking for a new job. There is a warning that the viewing or emailing of the site may be tracked on work computers...and the strategic disclaimer apparently meant for employers'
eyes: "Ethical employers should not have to face competitors who violate laws and basic decency. This site seeks to have all work honor justice and respect the laborer and employer."

In some cases the answers leave you wanting more context, such as the description of Right-to-Work:
"Right-to-Work laws have nothing to do with whether you can be fired. It's a way to take power away and give workers the Right-to-Work for less."

But the entry on "Fighting unfair treatment" is more typical of the site and comprehensive:

"Even if it's not illegal, you can try to fight unfair treatment. Some companies have internal grievance procedures, (although it may not be impartial). If you have union protection, you have many rights to fair discipline and appeal.

Non-union workers do not have the right to have a co- worker present when they are questioned. You don't have the same job protections as a union member, since you can still be fired with no good reason. Even though it's not a right, you can ask to have a co-worker with you. A witness and advisor can help."

The sections covering worker health and safety and workers' comp appear extremely useful, giving detailed checklists of what one needs to successfully file for workers' compensation and what to do if you are hurt at work.

The site also breaks down the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the 1935 law protecting a workers' right to collective organizing. It lays out the separate laws for railway and airline workers limiting their ability to strike, and outlines which industries are not covered by the NLRA. (It is widely known that farm workers and domestic workers aren't covered, but you might be surprised to learn that neither are employees of religious organizations or of horse and dog racing
tracks.)

There are helpful downloads and links throughout the site, including copies of actual laws, contact information for government agencies and a directory of National Labor Relations Board offices. The section on unions explains both workers' rights to organize a union and their rights within a union. If those rights aren't being respected, the site tells you how to change unions or get rid of a union, with information tailored by state.

Interfaith Worker Justice (previously known as the National Interfaith Committee on Worker Justice) has a long history of working in partnership with unions and with non-union workers in a variety of community-based and democratic campaigns, including creative actions and civil disobedience. Their staff and affiliated faith- based leaders and "workers centers" nationwide probably have first hand experience with nearly every subject covered on the website. They are known for being energetic and effective supporters of union campaigns, while also being quick to help workers fight for their rights within a union or opposing an undemocratic or sluggish union.

For example the section on a union's fair duty of representation reads:

"Representatives of the union (elected leaders, staff, and shop stewards) can't discriminate against a worker because of union politics (for example, because a worker spoke out against something the union was doing or supported another candidate in a union election). The union cannot play favorites. They must represent every worker who is covered by the contract -- members and non-members. The union cannot make a non-member join in order to represent her grievance or discipline case.
Unions have to give a reasonable level of representation, but the standard is pretty low."

This winter Interfaith Worker Justice was deeply involved in the successful struggle of workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago, where more than 200 workers occupied the factory after it was closed suddenly and they were not given federally mandated notice or severance pay. In the face of the occupation and surrounding public and political pressure, two major banks extended loans to cover the money due workers, and a California-based manufacturer of green building components ended up buying the factory and promising to hire workers back. Republic Windows workers were represented by the UE union, whose organizers and supporters were on top of the complicated legal issues involved. But since their high profile victory, the Republic Workers have heard from countless other workers nationwide whose legal rights were violated, and who didn't know it at the time or didn't know where to turn.
This website should be a valuable aid for workers across the country and across the spectrum of industries and positions.

Kari Lydersen, a regular contributor to AlterNet, also writes for the Washington Post and is an instructor for the Urban Youth International Journalism Program in Chicago.

----------------------

Jonathan Cutler

'Free Choice' Must Mean Switching Unions, Too
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-cutler-union-free-choice.artmar15,0,7563380.story

Hartford Courant

March 15, 2009

More than 50 percent of employees represented by SEIU at Kaiser-Permanente have signed petition cards requesting the switch to the competitor union. But SEIU enthusiasm for petition cards seems not to apply in this instance. The SEIU says it will not accept a check of petition cards as evidence of popular support for the National Union of Healthcare Workers.

Indeed, it has gone further by asking that the NLRB deny the Kaiser employees' request for a secret ballot challenge election.

Incumbent unions are not the only ones who seem to fear the whole business of union competition — raiding, poaching, challenge elections, etc. Many so-called "pro-labor" academics recoil at the idea of union rivalry. Catherine Fisk, a professor of labor law at the University of California, Irvine, recently warned that employers would probably try to capitalize on the schism.

"Historically, fights within unions have been used by employers to their advantage," Fisk said. "It's the classic divide and conquer strategy."

But that old dog won't bark. In March 2008, one of the nation's most prominent law firms specializing in helping employers manage labor trouble distributed a memo analyzing the growing challenge to the SEIU. The memo warned that "this struggle" would "almost certainly" result in "an energized and aggressive" union movement "in California and elsewhere." The "debate" will force all contenders to prove that they "can bargain strong contracts and organize new members effectively." "Employers are advised," the memo concluded, to prepare for "more aggressive organizing and collective bargaining campaigns." In other words, prepare for a strong labor movement.

But that strong labor movement depends on real employee free choice. In the last instance, union revitalization does not await the end of the secret ballot in union elections but the end of the contract-bar doctrine and the freedom to replace ineffectual unions with nimble, hungry challengers.

•Jonathan Cutler is associate professor of sociology at Wesleyan University. He is the author of "Labor's Time: Shorter Hours, the UAW, and the Struggle for American Unionism."

This makes me happy to be entering this field professionally. Find out more at the Labor and Working Class History Association. This post originally found on portside.org.

Historians in Support of the Employee Free Choice Act

By Michael Honey, Fred and Dorothy Haley Professor of Humanities, President, Labor and Working-Class History Association University of Washington, Tacoma http://faculty.washington.edu/mhoney/

One hundred historians have declared their support for the Employee Free Choice Act, introduced into Congress on March 10 by Senator Tom Harkin and Rep. George Miller. The legislation would make it easier for workers to organize unions and harder for employers to evade them. Workers could obtain a union when fifty percent sign cards authorizing a union. The law would also force employers to respond quickly and bargain in good faith or face increased fines and mandatory, binding arbitration by the National Labor Relations Board.

Why are faculty members, who are so notoriously un-organized, speaking on behalf of unions? There are many reasons, but on one level the reason is simple:

democracy depends upon it, and our economy needs it.

The last great depression occurred when unions declined to almost nothing in the 1920s. Republican government cut taxes on the rich and removed many of the regulations of the Progressive era, which in turn allowed bankers and corporations to make sky-high profits. The housing and stock market boomed, and the rich got richer. That led to the crash of 1929.

Because labor was not organized, it had almost no restraining influence on government, leading to a vast divide between the rich and the working class. Sound familiar?

In 1935, the Wagner Act made it easier for workers to organize, establishing the right to freedom of association and speech on the job without employer intimidation or interference. The rise of unions paved the way to the Social Security Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and many of the government safety nets we rely upon today.

Because unions gained in strength, workers increased their wages and their buying power. When the economy came out of its stupor during the rapid industrialization of World War II, unions became widespread. The result was the rise of the largest middle class in world history.

This history favors two arguments about the need for labor law reform today. Without unions, government will not reflect the needs of the great majority of people who work for a living. Not only will democracy suffer, but wages will stagnate, people cannot afford to buy what they produce, and our economy will suffer.

Those who have jobs need to be able to advocate for themselves. Employers will not voluntarily raise wages, and government will not do very much to make that happen either. Only workers themselves can do that, but to do it, they need to be able to harness their numbers in an organized way.

Employers will say EFCA takes away the workers right to a secret ballot. It isn't true. If thirty percent or people in a work place petition for it, they can demand a secret ballot election. The trouble is, employer strategies since the 1980s have turned elections into a nightmare of intimidation, delays, and poor results for workers.

EFCA allows that if fifty percent petition for a union, it will take effect immediately. The choice of methods belongs to workers, not to the employers, who seem perfectly capable of protecting themselves. Let's face

it: Labor laws are written to protect workers.

History shows that we are in a time where worker rights need increased protection. Unions are clearly not the answer to every problem. But for capitalism to function in a democratic manner, we need them.

For a list of signers to the historians' petition, and for more information on the Employee Free Choice Act, see the web site (http://LAWCHA.org/tls.php).

******

Michael Honey is Haley Professor of Humanities at the University of Washington Tacoma, and author of "Going Down Jericho Road: The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther King's Last Campaign."

David Brody University of California-Davis

Alice Kessler-Harris Columbia University

Michael Honey University of Washington, Tacoma

Joseph Hower Georgetown University

Bethany Moreton University of Georgia

Brian Greenburg Monmouth University

Eileen Boris University of California, Santa Barbara

James J. Lorence University of Wisconsin—Marathon County

Alison Jaggar University of Colorado, Boulder

(Philosophy)

Michael C. Pierce University of Arkansas

Charles A. Zappia San Diego Mesa College

Susan Hirsch Loyola University, Chicago

Thomas Dublin SUNY Binghamton

Kevin Boyle Ohio State University

Bruce Cohen Worcester State College

Eric Fure-Slocum St. Olaf College

John S. Olszowka Mercyhurst College

Leon Fink University of Illinois, Chicago

Harvey Schwartz San Francisco State University

David Montgomery Yale University

Peter Cole Western Illinois University

Jacquelyn Dowd Hall University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

Susan Levine University of Illinois, Chicago

John L. Revitte Michigan State University

Elliott Gorn Brown University

Harvey Kaye University of Wisconsin, Green Bay

Deborah Cohen University of Missouri, St. Louis

Nancy F. Gabin Purdue University

Robert Reutenauer Middlesex Community College

Charles Williams University of Washington, Tacoma

Peter Rachleff Macalester College

Michael Denning Yale University

Ellen Schrecker Yeshiva University

George Hopkins College of Charleston

Joshua B. Freeman City University of New York

Ina Clausen University of California

Jacob Remes Duke University

Joseph Abel Rice University

Matthew Basso University of Utah

Daniel A. Graff University of Notre Dame

Daniel Clark Oakland University (Michigan)

Michael Kazin Georgetown University

Roberta Gold Fordham University

John Enyeart Bucknell University

Alan Derickson Pennsylvania State University

Linda K. Kerber University of Iowa

Jennifer Klein Yale University

Laurie Mercier Washington State University – Vancouver

Fraser Ottanelli University of South Florida

John P. Lloyd Cal Poly Pomona

Leslie S. Rowland University of Maryland, College Park

Scott Saul University of California, Berkeley

Andrew H. Lee New York University, Bobst Library

James N. Gregory University of Washington

Landon Storrs University of Houston

Theodore Steinberg Case Western Reserve University

David Zonderman North Carolina State University

Rachel Batch Widener University

Alexander Keyssar Harvard University

José A. Soler University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

Liesl Orenic Dominican University (IL)

Gordon K. Mantler Duke University

Lizabeth Cohen Harvard University

Devra Weber University of California, Riverside

Randi Storch State University of New York, Cortland

Shannan W. Clark Montclair State University

Elizabeth Shermer University of California, Santa Barbara

Patricia Cooper University of Kentucky

Stanford Jacoby University of California, Los Angeles

Steven Attewell University of California, Santa Barbara

Dolores Janiewski Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)

Jennifer Luff University of California, Irvine

Dana Frank University of California, Santa Cruz

Elizabeth Lamoree University of California, Santa Barbara

Cassandra Engeman University of California, Santa Barbara

Tobias Higbie University of California, Los Angeles

Mary O. Furner University of California, Santa Barbara

Lisa Phillips Indiana State Universsity

Jack Epstein Ohio University

Matthew Bewig University of Florida

Michael Robert Bussel University of Oregon

Roxanne Newton Mitchell Community College (NC)

Kenneth Fones-Wolf West Virginia University

Otto Olsen Northern Illinois University

Melvyn Dubofsky State University of New York, Binghamton

Robert Schaffer Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania

Michelle Haberland Georgia Southern University

Linda Gordon New York University

Moon-Ho Jung University of Washington

Jennifer E. Brooks Auburn University

Seth Wigderson University of Maine at Augusta

Sean Burns University of California, Santa Cruz

Darryl Holter University of Southern California

Beth English Princeton University

Eric Foner, Columbia University

Robert Zieger, University of Florida

Mai Ngai, Columbia University

Charles Bergquist, University of Washington

Nelson Lichtenstein, University of California Santa Barbara

Kimberly Phillips, William and Mary

Nikhil Pal Singh, University of Washington

Michelle Nacy, University of Washington Tacoma

Grace Palladino, University of Maryland

Today, March 10, 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced into Congress. The ability to join a union could actually get a little fairer if this passes. The EFCA makes it possible to have a legally recognized union through card check. Card check is a modern version of what used to happen back when the National Labor Rights Act was first introduced. If a majority of workers sign a card saying they want a union, there's a union. Right now, 33% of workers have to sign a card saying they want an election. Then the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) runs an election. Of course, while the workers are deciding if they want a card or not they are harrassed by management. If there is a call for an election, the boss then delays it by going through an endless hearing process that decides who gets to vote and who doesn't. During this delay the workers are subjected to a fierce anti-union campaign, sometimes run by professional human rights violators. Here's how one of these defenders of authoritarianism advertises:

Isn't nice to know that in a free country you can make a good living using "aggressive, practical and tacticall sound" approaches to prevent people from exercises their constitutional right of freedom of association?

The pro-poverty coalition of the Chamber of Commerce, American Manufacturing Association, etc. are blathering on about the end of the world. Rachel Maddow nails the response pretty well. See the ad in the Washington Post for a bit more info.