Educating on Employee Free Choice, Part 15

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today on the importance of strong unions to economic growth and recovery. Included in his analysis is this passage on the Employee Free Choice Act:

Although America and its economy need unions, it’s become nearly impossible for employees to form one. The Hart poll I cited tells us that 57 million workers would want to be in a union if they could have one. But those who try to form a union, according to researchers at MIT, have only about a 1 in 5 chance of successfully doing so.

The reason? Most of the time, employees who want to form a union are threatened and intimidated by their employers. And all too often, if they don’t heed the warnings, they’re fired, even though that’s illegal. I saw this when I was secretary of Labor over a decade ago. We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.

This isn’t right. The most important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be considered by the just-seated 111th Congress, toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers’ rights. The sooner it’s enacted, the better — for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy.

The American middle class isn’t looking for a bailout or a handout. Most people just want a chance to share in the success of the companies they help to prosper. Making it easier for all Americans to form unions would give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits. And a strong and prosperous middle class is necessary if our economy is to succeed.

Reich’s whole essay is worth a read, but that passage stood out.

Remember the 17th

Today’s New York Times has another op-ed on the abomination that is governors appointing senators to vacant seats. This time the piece is written by David Segal, a Rhode Island state representative. Segal calls on us to remember that the 17th Amendment mandates elections to fill Senate seats. He’s right in asking Congress to push for legislation that makes explicit the requirement for special elections to fill vacancies and goes a step further to demand states themselves take this step if the federal government is unwilling.

What strikes me as most shocking in Segal’s column is the statistic on the proportion of appointments to the Senate since 1913, “Nearly a quarter of the United States senators who have taken office since the 17th Amendment took effect have done so via appointment.” It’s mind-boggling that this is the result of an amendment specifically intended to bring greater democracy to the Senate.

We have a long way to go. I know there are federalism problems with Congress legislating state election law, but the 17th Amendment did just that. I see it as a question of how the 17th Amendment is applied to state election law, not the creation of new laws. But that doesn’t mean Congress should be timid; rather they must recognize that the Constitution is on their side in this matter.

Of the four Senate appointments that just took place, each has problematic notes to it. The Illinois appointment has lead to the indictment of the sitting Governor on corruption charges. The New York appointment has the appearance of Governor Paterson’s self-interest leap-frogging the interests of the state in his choice (by picking a pol in a state where he needs greater political clout to win reelection). In Colorado Governor Ritter picked a close friend who has never held elected office before. And in Delaware, while Ted Kaufman has already pledged to be a place holder who will serve only until an election can be called, remains the consummate insider, someone who most people in his state (let alone nationally) have never heard of.

This is not to say that Burris, Gillibrand, Bennett, and Kaufman may not be great senators and great public servants in the upper chamber of the US Congress. All of them have spent time working for the public in varying capacities. But the citizens of Illinois, New York, Colorado, and Delaware deserved the opportunity to choose who represents them for themselves. Gubernatorial appointments are an antiquated way to fill Senate vacancies. There may be other greater problems in our democracy — ensuring accurate vote counting and easy access to polls come to mind — but I can’t help but view this practice as anything but a stain on our democracy.

I can only hope that Burris, Gillibrand, and Bennett have the opportunity to speak with Senator Kaufman and have the humility and patriotism to call for special elections in their home states with the greatest possible speed. Let them serve until their state legislatures can pass laws governing special elections, then they should resign and if they so wish, seek the office via special election. I would guess that the voters of Illinois, New York, and Colorado would be so impressed by their selflessness in resignation for election that they would have ample chance to win. Unfortunately I doubt any of these three will feel a greater pull towards democracy than personal power. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Update:

Senator Russ Feingold just announced that he’s introducing a Constitutional amendment to end Senate appointments by governors and require special elections. From a press release (link):

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end.  In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators.  They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people.  I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute.  As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

This is great news.

Gillibrand Moving Left?

The New York Times editorial board gets it – for Kirsten Gillibrand to be a successful senator for New York, she has to move her views to the left to represent the entire state, not merely the conservative NY-20th district. Gillibrand has already changed her views on marriage equality, coming out in favor of gay marriage after her pick. We need her to do the same on gun control, domestic surveillance, and comprehensive immigration reform.

But the question arises: was Gillibrand always capable of being more progressive because she believes these things and was representing her district before? Or is she only making these changes now because it’s politically expedient? After all, she’ll have to run for reelection in 2010 and will likely face a primary challenger from the left. Moreover, if the point is that New York deserves to have a real liberal representing them as the state’s junior senator, why in the world didn’t Governor Paterson not pick a liberal in the first place? The policy changes Gillibrand makes now may be for the better, but they also amount to future ammunition for any Republican who runs against her (presuming she avoids or survives a primary challenge).

Maybe the statewide constituency will compel Gillibrand to become a real New York Democrat, but Paterson and anyone who supports this pick are relying on the assumption of a hypothetical outcome to ensure that New York has not taken a step rightwards in the makeup of the Senate delegation. I’m not sure if Paterson cares about that or not, but I know most Democrats do. At minimum, if Gillibrand doesn’t find a way to represent the views of the Democrats of New York, she should face a primary challenge from a progressive Democrat.

Educating on Employee Free Choice, Part 14

Big business lobbyist and anti-American worker activist Rick Berman has been the subject of scrutiny on this blog before. But apparently his son, musician David Berman of the Silver Jews, has even more insight about his father than currently available from places like American Rights at Work or CREW. David’s take on his father is about as brutal as anything I’ve read on the man:

Now that the Joos are over I can tell you my gravest secret. Worse than suicide, worse than crack addiction:

My father.

You might be surprised to know he is famous, for terrible reasons.

My father is a despicable man. My father is a sort of human molestor.

An exploiter. A scoundrel. A world historical motherfucking son of a bitch. (sorry grandma)

You can read about him here.

www.bermanexposed.org

My life is so wierd. It’s allegorical to the nth. My father went to college at Transylvania University.

You see what I’m saying.

A couple of years ago I demanded he stop his work. Close down his company or I would sever our relationship.

He refused. He has just gotten worse. More evil. More powerful. We’ve been “estranged” for over three years.

Even as a child I disliked him. We were opposites. I wanted to read. He wanted to play games.

He is a union buster.

…

I fled through this art portal for twenty years. In the mean time my Dad started a very very bad

company called Berman and Company.

He props up fast food/soda/factory farming/childhood obesity and diabetes/drunk driving/secondhand smoke.

He attacks animal lovers, ecologists, civil action attorneys, scientists, dieticians, doctors, teachers.

His clients include everyone from the makers of Agent Orange to the Tanning Salon Owners of America.

He helped ensure the minimum wage did not move a penny from 1997-2007!

Like I said, simply brutal.

Educating on Employee Free Choice, Part 13

Jane Hamsher has one of the best side by side organizing process comparisons I’ve seen between current organizing elections and organizing in a post-Employee Free Choice Act world.

This is the “secret ballot” process, which is in place right now:

A union decides they want to unionize workers of a particular company. They have to collect cards signed by more than 30% of that company’s eligible workers saying that they want to join the union and allow that union to negotiate with management on their behalf. The union usually does this by talking to workers and gathering signatures outside the work place, frequently at their homes, because companies have a bad habit of firing workers who try to organize (Dean Baker estimates one in five lose their jobs).

The union then turns the cards over to the NLRB, who verifies them and calls for an election. Now in practice, although the union only has to have cards signed by more than 30% of the workers they usually present 50%, because they know there is going to be intense pressure put on workers by employers and professional “union busters,” and they don’t want to waste their time unless they think there is serious support.

The NLRB is required to then set a date for a “secret ballot” election within 42 days, during which time workers are usually subject to various forms of intimidation. It’s easy for employers to ask for and receive extensions, however. When the “secret ballot” election is finally held, it’s conducted on the work premises, and workers have to file past the watchful eyes of their supervisors in order to cast their ballots. This is the “right” to “secrecy” that the anti-union forces seem to be so committed to preserving.

If more than 50% of workers vote to recognize the union to represent them, the union is recognized and they can begin negotiating with the employer for a first contract.

This is how majority sign-up (“card check”) would work under the Employee Free Choice Act:

A union decides they want to unionize workers of a particular company. They have to collect cards signed by more than 50% of that company’s eligible workers saying that they want to join the union and allow that union to negotiate with management on their behalf.

The union then turns the cards over to the NLRB, who verifies them.

If more than 50% of the cards are verified by the NLRB, the union is recognized and they can begin negotiating with the employer for a first contract.

Got that?

“Secret ballot” isn’t “more secret,” it’s an extra step. In both cases, the union is responsible for getting cards signed and turning them over to the NLRB, so they know who has signed them. The “secret ballot” is just an extra hurdle that workers have to surmount if they want to recognize a union.

This is all to point out that the “secret ballot” canard pushed by big business lobbyists and GOP hacks is just that – spin meant to confuse the public (and voting members of Congress) about what is at issue with the Employee Free Choice Act. Business lobbies and Republican elites don’t give two shakes about protecting workers during union organizing drives. They only care about protecting the lop-sided structure of current NLRB regulations of how unions can be formed that gives businesses a huge leg up to block unionization. Employee Free Choice creates a level playing field and puts the decision about when and how to form a union back in the hands of workers.

Blue Dog Dem Trumps Liberal Aristocrat

I’d posted a few times on the outrage that would have been the appointment of aristocrat Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat in New York. The idea of someone who has never ran for office or been a public servant to be handed on of the most important exclusive jobs in the land was repugnant to me. Seeing Kennedy step aside from the seat hunt was satisfying, but I can’t say that Kirsten Gillibrand is a better pick, even if she has actually won her office a few times.

Gillibrand is a conservative Democrat – a Blue Dog with little understanding of the rule of law. She voted for the FISA Amendments Act, which included retroactive immunity for telecoms who helped the Bush administration spy on Americans. She is an opponent of comprehensive immigration reform. That said, she also voted against TARP and will be a support of worker rights legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act.

How does the conservative Gillibrand represent New York, one of the most progressive states in the country? How will her views evolve in the Senate, where she won’t have to appeal to fairly conservative voters in upstate New York’s 20th Congressional District? It’s certainly possible that she will become as liberal as her constituents, but I can’t think of a single Democratic Senator who became more liberal after attaining office. It’s much more common for senators to become less liberal as the enter the collegial, risk-averse Democratic Senate caucus.

There were many better candidates to represent New York in the Senate — Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Andrew Cuomo, Tom Suozzi, Nydia Velazquez, Steve Israel, and the list goes on. Paterson picked a conservative Blue Dog, a rarity in New York federal politics. I just don’t get it.

The most likely (and cynical) answer is that Paterson wants up-state political credibility and he believes Gillibrand will be a strong advocate for Paterson’s first campaign for governor. Unfortunately while this move may help keep Paterson in office, it doesn’t serve the citizens of New York as well as it serves New York’s Governor. As is so often the case in Democratic politics, the best liberals can do is hold their breath and hope centrists and conservatives will end up being more liberal than they’ve ever been before while entering the conservative legislative bodies in Washington.

Parting Shots

You know what, if the Bush team is unhappy that President Obama repudiated the last eight years’ failed policies and disastrous results (while not mentioning Bush by name), they can just deal with it. Bush, Cheney and a host of top administration officials may be spending the remainders of their life carefully choosing which countries they take connecting flights to, but by all appearances there will be no such legal accountability here in the U.S. That Bush staffers have the temerity to even suggest a speech calling for change from the past was inappropriate or partisan is astonishing.

The Bush administration, including Bush and Cheney, have unquestionably broke US law during the course of their tenure in office. In a society truly governed by the rule of law, these men and women would now be facing prosecution for their crimes. Yet comity has already won out over accountability, under the false veil of moving forward. Ignoring the past may be the mode of the day in Washington, but that doesn’t mean that President Obama’s mere mention of areas where he will break with Bush is somehow uncouth or impolite. It’s the weakest of pats on the wrist and the Bush team can’t even take that without whining to the press like a bunch of spoiled children. What a joke.

Hillary Clinton on US-Tibet Policy

Hillary Clinton was not asked any questions about Tibet during her confirmation hearings earlier this month. This marked the first time in sixteen years that a nominee for Secretary of State was not verbally asked about Tibet in their hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an ominous sign for how the Committee is thinking about America’s relationship to Tibet and its impact on Sin0-American policy.

The Boston Globe has published the written questions posed by Senator John Kerry to Senator Clinton, as well as her responses (PDF link). Here is the question and answer on Tibet.

98. The government of China and the Dalai Lama of Tibet disagree on the issue of greater autonomy for the Tibetan Autonomous Region, which has been a stumbling block in their ongoing dialogue.  Meanwhile, many Tibetans have lost faith in the possibility of a negotiated compromise, while Chinese leaders have expressed a deep distrust of the Dalai Lama’s intentions and foreign contacts.  What options may be acceptable to both sides?  What kinds of international pressure, if any, would be helpful in promoting a resolution?

The Obama Administration will speak out for the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet.  If Tibetans are to live in harmony with the rest of China’s people, their religion and culture must be respected and protected.  Tibet should enjoy genuine and meaningful autonomy.  The Dalai Lama should be invited to visit China, as part of a process leading to his return.  We will condemn the use of violence to put down peaceful protests, and call on the Chinese government to respect the basic human rights of the people of Tibet, and to account for the whereabouts of detained Buddhist monks.  We will also continue to press China on our concerns about human rights issues at every opportunity and at all levels, publicly and privately, both through our mission in China and in Washington.

This is a very solid statement, though it does not support Tibetan independence nor explicitly call for the end of China’s 50 year old military occupation. It would have been great to see an explicit call for the release of political prisoners or ending population transfer of Han Chinese into Tibet or Tibetan nomads into concrete villages.

That said, this is a written policy response and it is a jumping off point. It’s my hope that Senator Clinton and her staff at the State Department will push for President Obama to meet with the Dalai Lama in the Oval Office. That would be meaningful change that I could believe in.

China Censors Obama’s Speech

Simply remarkable.

China Central Television, or CCTV, the main state-run network, broadcast the speech live until the moment President Obama mentioned “communism” in a line about the defeat of ideologies considered anathema to Americans. After the off-screen translator said “communism” in Chinese, the audio faded out even as Mr. Obama’s lips continued to move.

CCTV then showed an anchor asking an analyst about the economic challenges that President Obama’s faces. The analyst was clearly caught off guard by the sudden question.

The offending line in the president’s speech was this: “Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.”

Later, the president went on to say: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Chinese translations of the speech published Wednesday by state-run news organizations here and on prominent Web portals omitted that line and the word “communism” in the earlier line. The government, however, has allowed the full English text of the speech to be published.

The Chinese government: Always Classy!