EFCA - Democrats Drop Card Checks

A half-dozen Democratic senators have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier for unions to organise in the USA.

The card-check provision - which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognise a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election.

Democrats have a 60-40 vote advantage in the Senate, and President Obama supports the measure, but several Democrats opposed the card-check provision as undemocratic.

In its place, several Senate and union officials said the revised bill would require shorter unionisation campaigns and faster elections.

While disappointed with the failure of card check, union leaders argued this would still be an important victory because it would give companies less time to press workers to vote against unionising.

The card-check provision was so central to the legislation that it was known as “the card-check bill.” Unions had called the bill its No. 1 objective, and both unions and business deployed their largest, most expensive lobbying campaigns ever in the battle over it.

Several Democrats, including Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have voiced opposition to card check, convinced that elections were a fairer way for workers to unionise. They were swayed partly by business’s vigorous campaign, arguing that card check would remove confidentiality from unionisation drives and enable union organisers to bully workers into signing union cards.

Though some details remain to be worked out, under the expected revisions, union elections would have to be held within five or 10 days after 30 percent of workers signed cards favoring having a union. Currently, the campaigns often run two months.

To further address union concerns that the election process is tilted in favor of employers, senators are considering several measures. One would require employers to give union organisers access to company property. Another would bar employers from requiring workers to attend anti-union sessions that unions say are “captive audience meetings.”

Unions have pushed aggressively to enact the bill - the Employee Free Choice Act. They view it as essential to reverse union membership decline. Just 7.6 percent of private-sector workers belong to unions, one-fifth the rate of a half-century ago.

One top union official, who insisted on anonymity because both sides have agreed not to discuss the status of the bill, said, “Even if card check is jettisoned to political realities, I don’t think people should be despondent over that because labor law reform can take different shapes.”

While voicing confidence they have the 60 votes to pass the revised bill, labor leaders acknowledged an additional hurdle: two powerful Democrats, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, are seriously ill.

“This bill will bring about dramatic changes, even if card check has fallen away,” said an A.F.L.-C.I.O. official.

The official said the revised bill achieves the three things organised labor has been seeking.

“Our goals,” the official said, “have always been letting employees have a real choice, having real penalties against employers who break the law in fighting unions, and having some form of binding arbitration to prevent employers from dragging their feet forever to prevent reaching a contract.”

Union leaders argue that under current law, unionisation ballots are often unfair because, they say, employers have a huge opportunity to intimidate and pressure workers during the lengthy campaigns that precede the unionisation vote.

Corporate lobbyists have indicated they would oppose fast elections, arguing that such a provision would deny employers ample opportunity to educate employees about the downside of unionising, such as strikes and union dues.

Business also oppose the bill’s provisions to have binding arbitration if an employer fails to reach a contract with a new union. Companies argue it would be wrong for government-designated arbitrators to dictate what a company’s wages and benefits should be.

Union officials have urged the White House and Senate leaders to schedule a vote this month. But Senate leaders have told unions that the Senate is so preoccupied with health care legislation that September would be the earliest time to take up the pro-union legislation.