On March 1, 13 Republicans joined 228 Democrats in voting 241–185 to pass landmark legislation that would level the playing field for workers trying to form unions. (Two Democrats and 183 Republicans voted against the bill). The Employee Free Choice Actwould give workers more options when trying to organize.
Over the years, we in the union movement have seen how employers use the management-controlled election process to harass and intimidate workers trying to form a union—at least one-quarter of private-sector employers illegally fire workers seeking to form a union during the ballot process. We have lots of examples here of just how employers intimidate workers seeking to form unions.
The New York Times on March 6 wrote a glowing editorial in support of the bill, writing "Labor unions have a role to play in helping to fix today’s economic ills—most notably, worsening income inequality, a problem that’s caused in part by unions’ decline and the workers’ resulting lack of bargaining power," and urged the Senate to quickly do the same. But The Washington Post, buying into the mega-money corporate-speak that’s behind the campaign to kill the bill, rejected it as giving labor "too much power to spring unions on employers."
American labor historian David Brody, author of Labor Embattled: History, Power, Rights, wrote a letter to the Post, pointing out what’s wrong with its rationale. Since the Post didn’t publish the letter, we wanted to share it with you here.
Your editorial on the Employee Free Choice Act (March 12) is one of those "yes, but" deals. Yes, there are abuses. But no, this solution goes too far. Often that's the sensible course. Not in this case. The present bill snaps into focus, at long last, a fundamental question about our labor law, which, in its bluntest form, is this: What role should employers play when their employees exercise their statutory right to organize and engage in collective bargaining? In its original meaning, the answer was: none at all. That was the intention of Robert L. Wagner, the great New Deal senator who wrote the law. He understood that the employment relationship was inherently coercive and that the only way to ensure the integrity of labor's rights was to insulate them from employer interference.
Over the years, we have lost sight of Sen. Wagner's perception, thanks to the genius of employers at re-framing the law. And the Post, alas, has been taken in. That's apparent in the unexamined language of your editorial. Labor would have too much power to "spring" unions on employers? Employers who don't like it "deserve a chance" to make their case? C'mon, editors of the Post, think a little harder.
The failings of our modern law arise precisely from the success of employers at pushing their way into the unionizing process. The Employee Free Choice Act pushes them back out. Card-check [also called majority verification] would really do that. It restores to the workplace the freedom of association that Americans cherish and, on that basis, deserves the support of the Washington Post.