Was that just a cheap applause line, or does Dick really think the bill's going to pass the Senate?

This should be a great chance for the unions to capture some attention in the MSM - and in the lefty sphere, where my impression is that they're not as prominent as their weight of membership and importance as organizers would suggest they should be.

Should be a slam dunk in the House; but I wonder what sort of rule Pelosi's going to give it; and what kind of amendments the GOP might be offering if she lets them.

(In other words, can the GOP find a poison pill or two to tempt the Blue Dogs/NDC with?)

The Senate? How crass will GOP manouevers need to be to stymie it?

A fascinating process story to look forward to.

The bill should come out of the House clean. The trade union movement played a vital role in last November's Democratic victories. Now is the time for the Dems to show their appreciation for, the role the trade union movment played in their victories, as well as; the need to provide workers with protections when they attempt to provide workplace fairness by forming unions.

This issue has to become as popular and well understood as the need to increase the minimum wage. The netroots community can play a major role in promoting and supporting this bill.

The current system under the NLRB provides no real protection for activist workers trying to form unions. 25%of organizing campaings end up with activist workers disciplined and/or fired, with no effective recourse.

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceat work/efca/brokensystem.cfm

The Employee Free Choice Act provides effective protections for workers, and enforceable punishments for employers who trample on the workers' rights to form unions.

John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C

As a labor organizer I would succeed in helping an organizing committee get started. Employees would sign cards, pick a chairman, make a plan for recruiting more employees to come to the next meeting to hear about the union and sign a card. Next meeting: nobody came. Between meetings the employees were invited, on agency time, to meet with their supervisor, her supervisor and sometimes the CEO would drop in, too, to hear all about evil unions. Repeat. Oh, this was a non-profit Christian-based agency.

Thanks for this diary.  The netroots need to get it -- unions matter.  This bill is essential.

The only issue I have with card checks is doesn't this put a great deal of coercive power in the hands of unions? Couldn't unions get a guy in an alley with three tough guys saying "Sign this card or else"?

First, in terms of realpolitics, every Democrat and progressive should pray for a bill like this, even if you didn't care a whit about labor or working people... straight up, when labor was strong, back in the day, the Dem Party dominated and could push all kinds of other progressive legislation. This was called the New Deal coalition. Now that private sector union membership is down around 10% (from over 30% at its height), the organizational muscle of the Christian Right, the GOP noise machine, etc. have changed that balance. We're catching up with new organizations and the blogosphere, but nothing could do more to give us an organizational boost than making it easier for workers to form unions.

As a former union organizer, I can vouch, moreover, that a card check system like this is absolutely necessary to a free process. Note that in most developed countries all workers have a union by default, and just have to vote on the makeup of a bargaining committee.

Our current system is frankly crazy, because there is no real free and fair election in a workplace dominated by an employer with the ability to control workers' movements, force them to sit through propaganda meetings scripted by highly-paid union-busting lawyers, and threaten to fire them if they dare say favorable things about a union to colleagues. The last (and only the last) is technically illegal, but hard to enforce, especially with an NLRB packed with Bush Admin appointees. It's like saying we should trust the results of an election that favors Mugabe in Mugabe's Zimbabwe; or the old, rigged elections of the USSR days.

But don't take my word for it, check out:
Confessions of a Union Buster by an ex-anti-union lawyer.
Honestly, though, the stuff I saw personally would make you sick. Trying to scare working mothers who didn't get any health insurance for their children by telling them they could lose their jobs, and then trying to get them to give the names of everybody else they knew who supported the union, so they could be threatened too. I mean, really scum of the earth.

Finally, is there a potential for abuse of power by unions? This is the obvious argument on the other side, but it's not a good one. Unions aren't going around with baseball bats in alleys; this is an old stereotype that right-wingers love to pull out. In fact, unions have no power to intimidate workers - while employers have every power, every day, and they almost always use it. My job was 99% convincing workers that they didn't have to be afraid and that they could trust us to fight to protect them and find them a new job if they got fired for supporting the union. I mean, this is reality. Most polls show that many non-union workers would prefer to have a union, and cite fear of their employers as the principle reason they dont' have one (though, notice that a number of right-wing hack think tanks have recently been set up to try to put out talking points confusing the issue).

If workers got a union by card-check, they could also "decertify" the union that way if they didn't like it. Ask yourself honestly who workers are more likely afraid of and manipulated by - a random union organizer or their boss. I bet if you really think about it, and if you've ever held a job, the answer should be pretty clear.

I have spent my entire career as what Nancy Scola and her union associates call a "union buster".  In fact, I was a very successful management consultant specializing in conducting management's side of NLRB  representation elections.  Some of what Ms. Scola says about the inherent unfairness of these elections is true.  I believe management has always had the better opportunity to present their side in these elections.  Much of what the unions allege (coercion, firings, threats, intimidation, bribes, etc) though completely illegal, does in fact go on under the not so watchful eyes of the entirely pro-management NLRB.  It didn't use to be that way when Congress and the White House were controlled by Democrats.  In those days, the bias was on the side of the unions, and it was assumed that management would have a hard time winning in front of a "liberal" NLRB hearing officer.  This made up for a lot of the inherent advantages management enjoys under the NLRA.  The Republicans have destroyed what could arguably have been one of the better laws written by our Congress.  Before Reagan fired the striking Air Traffic Controllers, unions won nearly half the time.  Union organizers would get "authorization cards" signed by at least 60-65% of potential voters knowing that there would be a fall off in support as the campaign moved along.  Getting the cards signed was relatively easy, because the employees were told they were "only to get an election", or "we need to get the boss's attention".  Management could agree, based on a card count, to recognize a union.  Of course, they never did, because they were entitled to an NLRB supervised secret ballot election.  By the way, I have never heard ANYONE, union or management, allege that these elections were not scrupulously fair and honest.  Our federal elections should be so well run.

There were actually quite famous lawyers and consultants who were hired to break the law and get away with it.  They were a minority and were scorned by those of us who followed the rules.  Good labor lawyers would forbid any stretching of the law to win an election.  Good consultants worked with these lawyers and won elections by communicating effectively.  In my experience, management lost elections when they deserved it.  If they had so abused their employees that they could not be trusted with a second chance, they lost.  If they had "lost sight of the ball", asked for forgiveness, understanding they would never be given another opportunity to do this, they won.  Obviously, this is a gross simplification of thousands of inputs and impressions, but I think it is essentially correct.

Now, to make things fairer for unions, something has to be done.  I don't agree that this card count idea is good because it swings things far too much in the other direction.  It is way too easy to coerce and pressure a co-worker to sign a card.  My experience with elections is that they have far more potential to be fair, if we even the playing field.  We could let union organizers have equal access to employees - in the workplace during breaks and mealtimes.  We could insist that all meetings include "both sides".  These changes, among many others would dramatically improve fairness.

Finally, though, there is one change I believe is the most important to "changing everything".  The way things now stand, and always have, is that once a union gets in, getting them out is close to impossible.  Decertification elections are extremely difficult to arrange, because of NLRB rules that have never changed.  Management can have nothing to do with it, and employees who try are intimidated by the union officers in the place of employment.  What is the effect of this?  First, it's the main reason that management fights "to the death" to keep unions out.  Once they get in they are in "forever".  Second, it's the reason so many unions "get in bed" with management, to the detriment of what is good for the workers. Dues are now guaranteed and a long term sure thing.  Unions need to be constantly aware that when they stop working 100% on behalf of the dues paying workers, they can be replaced by another union, or no union.

If unions want to push the new "card signing" rule, I would not object IF they agreed that decertification were just as easy.  If they won't agree with that, then I think proper supervision of current law, with a few improvements - such as equal access - would be excellent pro-union rewards for helping elect Democrats into solid majorities in House and Senate, and of course the Presidency.

Nancy - Great post.  Is there a fact sheet out there somewhere on the bill?  Also, I understand the two sides of the argument being "union elections are unfair because of boss intimidation and union busting" vs "secret ballots and democracy should be used," but what is the best response to someone who says that Card Check is not the solution, but rather that we beef up the NLRB to really provide for free and fair elections with real and speedy sanctions for employers?  Thanks.