Yesterday, the Huffington Post was first with the news that Sen. Ben Nelson is opposing the just-introduced Employee Free Choice Act, on which the American labor movement appears to be banking its entire future. Specifically, they reported:
Ben Nelson will once again be playing a key role in Senate negotiations over a major legislative drive. The centrist Nebraska Democrat told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he does not currently support the Employee Free Choice Act --- also known as card check -- a bill that would allow workers to choose to unionize either through a secret ballot or by signing cards of support.
"I'm not in favor of the bill as it -- I haven't seen exactly what was put in, but if what was put in is the same as it's been described, I'm not in support of that," he said.
Nelson, as he almost always does, left a window open. "But I also believe there'll be a major effort to modify it before it ever comes for consideration, and I'll have to take a look and see what it is then," he said.
Democrats need 60 votes to invoke cloture to end a Republican filibuster of the measure, meaning that each of the 58 Democratic votes -- 59 if Al Franken is seated -- is crucial. Nelson was asked by a reporter if he would vote for cloture even if he ended up eventually voting against the bill. But Nelson wouldn't commit to such support.
"We'll have to see whether there's adequate debate. There are a lot of questions that remain about what the process is long before we have to make a decision about the cloture vote," he said.
There is a real problem here, and it isn't Ben Nelson's being too conservative. The problem is that - as written - I can't blame Nelson in the slightest for opposing the EFCA. In fact, I agree with him.
It pains me to admit that. I'm fully aware how important this legislation is and couldn't be more supportive of its underlying goals. But, frankly, I'm appalled and a little bit dumb-founded that the Democrats introducing the EFCA would again choose to put forward the most extreme version of the bill's controversial "card check" provisions.
It's perfectly reasonable that labor unions could be certified without a vote by secret ballot. There's nothing sacred about the current system, especially when it's proven so susceptible to abuse by employers with an arsenal of tactics at their disposal for employee intimidation and union-busting. But, the idea that a union might be certified upon a show of support from just a bare majority of employees clearly shifts power too far in favor of labor organizers - who are capable of their own forms of coersion even if they're not the ones signing paychecks and threatening closures.
Nelson discussed one possible compromise with the Lincoln Journal-Star - restricting the delay tactics currently used by employers to buy more time for their union-busting campaigns. I'd also like to see him suggest that - if "card check" is to be saved - it needs to be amended to require Union endorsement by a supermajority of employees, be it 3/5ths (60%) or even 2/3rds (67%). A fraction of employees (think 10 or 20%) having the right to counter petition for an election might also be an option so long as the minority is afforded some legal protection.
Although I can understand a supermajority having the authority to certify a union, a mere 50% of employees should not be able to subject the other 50%-minus-1 to collective bargaining without their having an opportunity to be heard in a free and fair election. Signed cards simply aren't enough to make such a decision in a workplace that is truly so evenly divided. No matter how much we might believe in the benefits of collective bargaining, we can not respect worker's rights if we don't respect that workers deserve an honest choice.
There was a balance to be struck here. Hopefully, there still is. But, coming right out of the gate, it's unfortunate and disheartening to see this legislation in a form that would offend the conscience and sensibility of most Nebraskans. The Chamber of Commerce and major business interests have been very effective in their attacks against the EFCA as a power play by organized labor. Rather than using this opportunity to silence that criticism by offering the American people a more balanced and reasonable alternative, we've seen a line drawn in the sand right where big business and the Republican Party have wanted it all along.
Of course, there will be efforts to moderate the EFCA. I suspect they'll even succeed. But, the danger is, by putting up flawed legislation right from the start, we might end up having to concede more essential ground just to get the legislation passed. At a time when we should have put our strongest foot forward, we've instead seen labor-backed Democrats take a stand on very weak ground. Even if an eventual compromise has always been the plan, we won't be seeking compromise from a position of strength and have outright forsaken support from those Americans who have doubts about this sort of legislation - mainly, people in places like Nebraska. |
