Matt Yglesias

How (Not) to Form a Union

Some CAPAF colleagues have put together this informative animation on how incredibly difficult it is to form a union under the current anti-worker, anti-organizing rules:

This is why we need serious labor law reform.

Making Unionization Easier is Popular

Whatever reason “centrist” politicians may have for being made queasy by the idea of reforming labor law in a more union-friendly direction, please do keep in mind that public opinion isn’t the issue:

Meanwhile, to state the obvious, whatever the merits of the Employee Free Choice Act may be, nobody can deny that increasing union membership would be beneficial to the Democratic Party from the standpoint of narrow partisan self-interest. It’s worth asking yourself if you can imagine a scenario in which Republicans would vote against a bill that enjoys majority support and would serve the GOP’s electoral interests. The answer is that you can’t.

But while it should surprise nobody to learn that some Democrats put their own self-interest ahead of the broader public interest, the really striking fact about certain elements of the Democratic Party is that they actually put the welfare of corporate executives ahead of their own self-interest and the public interest at the same time.

Jagdish Bhagwati Argues That Free Trade and Labor Law Reform Are Two Great Tastes That Go Great Together

Precisely paralleling an argument I had yesterday with a colleague, Jagdash Bagwati makes the case for seeing a linkage between support for free trade and support for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Bagwati’s basic point is that among the competing visions for how you could have a more egalitarian economy is, on the one hand, the idea that we need to sharply restrict imports. On the other hand, though, there’s the idea that we could remain open to trade and let the economy undergo its structural shifts while bringing more widespread unionization to the service sector. It’s not a fact handed down from god that the unionized firms are mostly in the manufacturing sector, it’s just that manufacturing was big during the period of time when U.S. labor law was friendly to union organizing. EFCA could create a new era of organizing-friendly labor law, and an opportunity to shift to an economy that features more decent jobs in the sectors that aren’t import-competing.

Citi Hosts Anti-Union Conference Call

Sam Stein reports that Citigroup, which only still exists as a firm thanks to taxpayer largess, was hosting a conference call to help mobilize opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. This, it seems, is capitalism. First you manage your business so catastrophically badly that your company not only becomes worthless, but that it threatens to destroy the livelihoods of billions of people around the planet. Second, you get the taxpayer to keep you in business. And third, you turn around and warn that higher wages for workers might destroy the world economy! As I’ve said before I don’t think we want congress meddling with the details of business decisions at major companies, even companies that are receiving taxpayer support. But there’s a fairly clear case to be made that firms on the public dole shouldn’t be engaged in lobbying or political activities.

Meanwhile, there’s a broader point to be made about the prestige of business in general and financiers in particular. A tendency develops to think that businessmen not only have in practice a loud voice in economic policy decisions because they’re so rich and politicians and media organizations are so corrupt, but that they deserve a loud voice in economic policy decisions because they’re so knowledgeable. But, look, I could take a bank and render its stock worthless. And so could Andy Stern or my cousins in grade school. These guys haven’t shown themselves to be knowledgeable about anything other than enriching themselves and there’s no particular reason to take their opinions about Employee Free Choice or unions or taxes or anything else especially seriously.

Economists for an Employee Free Choice Act

Conservatives have two main arguments about the Employee Free Choice Act. One is that it would “eliminate the secret ballot,” which is false. It would put the decision about what election method to use in a unionization process in the hands of workers, rather than in the hands of corporate executives. Their other argument, which is true, is that it would lead to more union organizing. This, they think, is a terrible ill destined to wreck the economy. I would beg to differ, and the Economic Policy Institute has put together a group of economists who likewise beg to differ, including some blogosphere favorites, Nobel prize winners (but not Paul Krugman?), and even Jagdish Bhagwati who some people think is a conservative.

For my part, I’ll link back to my previous posts on unions and growth and how even the Heritage Foundation’s list of most economically awesome countries is full of high levels of unionization.

UPDATE: Apparently the Times doesn’t permit its writers to sign petitions, which would of course explain why Krugman didn’t sign. I can see why you would apply that rule to news reporters, but it’s a little odd for columnists.

Linda Chavez Sees Social Democracy Around the Corner

Dave Weigel gets an intriguing quote from Linda Chavez in his article on Employee Free Choice Act opponents:

“This is basically about a 40-year struggle to bring the social democratic model to America,” said Linda Chavez, the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity and President George W. Bush’s first nominee for Secretary of Labor, on Thursday. “Unfortunately, I think it’s going to succeed. Having 58 or 59 Senate seats, instead of 55 seats-that makes a big difference.”

I wish I shared Chavez’s pessimism (or optimism, or whatever you want to call it) about the right’s odds of blocking a social democratization of the United States. Even if EFCA were to pass in its strong form, which I’m not at all certain it can, I think that would still leave us with a long way to go. I suppose the rhetorical function of this sort of right-wing rhetoric about “Europeanizing” America or a “social democratic” model is to get progressive to swiftly disavow any ambitions of changing the country in a serious way. But while of course it would be foolish to try to model U.S. social policy precisely on what exists in any foreign country, I actually think it’s quite important for progressives to sketch a view on the horizon of what sort of society progressive governance is supposed to create. And I think Chavez’s nightmare scenario of a country in which the middle and working classes earn a larger share of national income, in which educational attainment is rising rather than flat, in which people are healthier and live longer, in which crime is lower and fewer children grow up in poverty isn’t such a terrible place to start.

Centrist Dems Loving Opportunity to Block EFCA, Pretending to Be Upset

Ben Smith writes that “the campaign against [EFCA] is also taking its toll on moderate Democrats in the House and Senate, as this Arkansas News column vividly illustrates.” What the column illustrates is that Blue Dogs like Rep. Marion Berry who supported EFCA in the last congress are now telling business leaders that they did so only because they knew the bill couldn’t pass, and now they’re going to the House leadership and whining that they can’t support the bill.

It’s extremely naive to see this dynamic as anything “taking its toll” on moderate Democrats. What’s happening is that even though the Republican Party lost the last election, the wealthy business interests who’d been financing the Republican Party can’t be defeated at the ballot box. And they hate the Employee Free Choice Act. EFCA would make it easier to form unions. And the evidence indicates that unions flatten the compensation structure at unionized firms—more money for folks at the low end, less for folks at the top. If I were a corporate manager, I wouldn’t want that to happen to me. And if, as a manager, I was able to use the company’s resources to advance my interests by fighting EFCA, I would want to do that. And that’s what they’re doing. And they have a lot of money to spend on that cause. Which means that if you can be the guy who blocks this legislation, you’ll be a hero to a lot of rich people prepared to spend a lot of money rewarding their hero. It’s a great opportunity for a moderate House Democrat. In the last congress, WalMart didn’t really need to care what Rep. Berry thought or did. The bill wasn’t going to pass anyway. Now it really might. Which means Berry might get to be a pivotal player in stopping it from happening. Which is great news for him.

Europe: A Continent Full of Lovely Countries

Mitch McConnel warns that passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, permitting workers to form unions through a majority sign-up process rather than an election rigged by employers, would “Europeanize America”

My colleague Pat Garofalo correctly observes that it’s hardly just Europe that has more organizer-friendly labor laws—it’s pretty much everyplace you look including Canada, Australia, and all the rest. One might also add that the United States had a much higher level of union density back in the immediate postwar decades when growth was both more rapid and more broadly shared than it’s been in recent decades.

Beyond that, though, there’s some nice places in Europe. The big European economies of Germany and France both feature a lot of legislation aimed at deterring or preventing people from working long hours which, naturally, reduces overall output in exchange for increasing leisure time. Their workers are, however, highly productive—unions and all. And the small northern European countries such as Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark combine high levels of unionization and a strong social welfare state with labor markets that feature more American-style flexibility. The result is societies that are wealthier than France or Germany but with much more equally shared wealth than we have in the USA. Relative to, say, Kentucky, Europe is a continent full of countries featuring better educated, healthier, longer-lived people, with lower poverty rates and dramatically fewer poor children. It isn’t, however, as friendly to the interests of rich people or business managers.

Card Check Delay?

I’ve read a bunch of talk about the idea that Barack Obama and/or congressional Democrats may or may not be postponing or delaying or dropping their support for the Employee Free Choice Act. I think this is implicit in Marc Ambinder’s reporting on the subject, but that whole framing seems off. It’s a pretty simple up-or-down issue, and it’s a question of whether or not the Democrats have the votes to invoke cloture. It’s not as if they do have the votes but then are perversely delaying action. It’s a question of votes—it’s not clear that the votes are there, and nobody’s interested in bringing it up to the floor just for fun.

EFCA in International Comparison

Seth Michaels notes that not only do countries with strong economies feature strong unions even according to the Heritage Foundation, but specifically they feature the kind of labor-friendly legal environment that progressives are trying to bring to the United States:

What’s more, most of the countries Heritage considers to have a high degree of “economic freedom” have far more worker-friendly labor laws than we do in this nation. In Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, the process for forming a union and bargaining is controlled by workers, not by bosses. Indeed, of the top 20 countries on the Heritage list, 16 have labor laws similar to the Employee Free Choice Act, letting workers have the choice to form unions through majority sign-up. In giving corporations veto power over how workers form unions, the United States is a rare exception among industrialized democracies.

In review, of the ten countries Heritage deems to have the largest degree of economic freedom, seven feature majority sign up as an option for workers trying to form a union. Then there are two East Asian dictatorships. And then there’s the United States of America. The next ten spots on the list are composed of nine labor-friendly countries and Bahrain—a small Persian Gulf dictatorship.

Blanche Lincoln and EFCA

It seems that Senator Blance Lincoln (D-AR) thinks the Employee Free Choice Act is unnecessary. After all, non-union Arkansas is a bastion of prosperity! Well, actually, no, it’s poverty-stricken and features ultra low wages. But guess who likes low wages? Wal-Mart. And guess who loves Wal-Mart? Arkansas politicians like Blanche Lincoln. After all, Wal-Mart cares:

“I was raised in a family that believed we have a responsibility to help our fellow man in need, and I’m proud to see Wal-Mart – a corporate constituent – embrace that same belief,” said Senator Blanche Lincoln, co-founder of the bipartisan U.S. Senate Hunger Caucus. “Millions of Americans are hungry every day. Wal-Mart’s generous donation of nutritious food to those most in need will encourage others to join us in our fight to eliminate hunger.”

Personally, I was raised in a family that believed that in a just society people who work hard at full-time jobs wouldn’t live in poverty and wouldn’t need to rely on charitable handouts to feed their families. That means high wages and unions.

Just Got More Fierce

Sam Stein continues to change the game, spinning a one-word answer (”yes”) from a spokesman into a story.

Suffice it to say that Barack Obama still supports EFCA.

Chamber Stimulus

It seems the US Chamber of Congress is getting ready to do its part to keep recession at bay, looking to stimulate the economy with $10 billion in spending to ensure that American labor law remains a bad joke in which companies can break all kinds of laws and stifle union organizing with impunity:

The chamber deployed a network of operatives in a number of key Senate races this year and campaigned aggressively — on the air and on the ground — against the card-check legislation. It will be maintaining those operations, hoping to win over some senators and peel back others, in addition to running TV ads. Last week it released the first in a series of reports refuting what it calls union rhetoric.

In theory, Chamber types hate unions because unionization is bad for business. It’s difficult, however, to see why it is that a union would want to wreck the business model of a firm whose workers it represents. By contrast, it’s easy to see why a union would want to shift the relative balance of compensation enjoyed by top managers versus lower-level employees. And it’s easy to see why Chamber types would be virulently hostile to such a shifting of the balance. Not at all clear why normal people would want to join them in their hostility or treat as credible the view that returning to a higher state of unionization would wreck the economy.

CNN Versus Labor Law

I read the news today:

Judge Arthur Amchan found that CNN violated the rights of more than 250 employees at the network’s bureaus in Washington, D.C., and New York City when it ended its subcontract with Team Video Services (TVS) [in 2003-2004], whose employees were represented by NABET-CWA. He also ruled that CNN discriminated against TVS employees who wanted to continue working at CNN’s bureaus to avoid having to recognize and bargain with the union.

A couple of points. One is just to observe that labor law and its enforcement in this country are a joke. You want to engage in some illegal union busting in 2003-2004 and, at worst, you’ll get mild punishment for having done so years in the future. Two, this is what makes about 98 percent of the protestations I’ve read about the evils of the Employee Free Choice Act such a joke. People’s fussy concern about the integrity of union-management relations somehow doesn’t seem to manifest itself amidst these constant violations of existing law by employers. Related, this is what I actually like about Mickey Kaus’ take on labor issues — he just believes, without any evidence whatsoever, that unions and unionization are bad and they should be crushed by any means necessary and he firmly grounds his EFCA opposition in that principled point of view. Fourth, I don’t think we should expect to see anything remotely resembling fair coverage of the EFCA issue when it comes before congress. Fifth, there’s a lot the new congress and new administration could do in terms of stiffer penalties and more expedient justice to improve the state of labor law short of a card check bill.

Vulgar Marxism

It’s very strange, when you think about it, that all these groups talking about how EFCA will deny workers their rights seem to be getting their money from business interests rather than broad-based groups of concerned citizens. It’s almost as if the right to a rigged election in which your employer makes it all-but-impossible for unionization efforts to succeed is more important to bosses than to workers.

But who’s to say, right?