LaborPains.org

A couple of anti-EFCA editorials to share today.

Investor’s  Business Daily: “Son of Card Check”

But this doesn’t mean congressional Democrats have given up on passing out gifts to the unions that help elect them.

New legislation would contain a provision from the earlier bill requiring federal arbitrators to set the terms of the initial contract if labor and management can’t agree on a deal three months after a union is certified. Based on Washington’s history of pro-union bias, chances are good rulings will favor organized labor.

In addition, lawmakers are likely to attach language instituting quicker elections, giving businesses less time to show workers what they’d be getting into, and drop the standard needed to call an election from a simple majority of workers signing cards to 30%.

It’s possible the bill could include, as well, a rule that forces employers to grant labor organizers access to company property.

The Daily News Record (VA): “Re-Wrapping Card Check”

So by agreeing to eliminate the “card-check” component of the legislation, thereby preserving the secret ballot in union elections, liberal proponents of the egregiously misnamed Employee Free Choice Act have given up the ghost, or cried “Uncle,” right?

Not by a long shot. They’re merely taking a different tack to attain their dubious and job-killing ends. This stinkeroo has simply been re-packaged. Many of the bill’s noxious elements remain. Others have been added.

Just because I enjoy following the seemingly never-ending dispute between the SEIU and UNITE HERE, here are some excerpts from Andy Stern’s bold letter to John Wilhelm:

Dear John:

Over the past few months, you have charged that Workers United and SEIU have been engaged in raiding activity against your union. This is false. …

We have repeatedly called on you to bring forward your evidence, and permit the Change to Win procedures to resolve charges of raiding to resolve this matter. If you truly believe that SEIU is engaged in “raiding” activity, why would you not bring this forward for a hearing? It would seem that if your allegations are true, this would certainly prove your claims against Workers United and SEIU.

However, your continued public attack of this union and your unwillingness to bring evidence of your allegations before an independent panel suggests bad faith. We can only assume that you have been advised that most if not all of your blanket charges of raiding are NOT true and you would likely lose before an independent body.

Stern continues to push for Wilhelm to capitulate by giving into this “hearing” (binding arbitration) he proposed, which Wilhelm and other labor leaders have already rejected.

Stern goes on to admonish Wilhelm, essentially blaming him for labor’s inability to get their priorities (EFCA) passed:

This is not the battle we need to be fighting right now, John.

Right now, your members and ours are suffering from the effects of the economic crisis, and they are at real risk of being left behind in the slow moving recovery. Hardworking women and men get up each day wondering if they will still have their pension, their benefits, or even their jobs.

The level of snarkiness is palpable just from Stern’s signature line in which he writes, “In solidarity, Andy Stern.” I doubt  this letter is going to resolve anything between the two union leaders.

As I said last week, EFCA is still a bad piece of legislation even with the Democrats announcing that they will drop card check. There have been a number of op-eds and editorials making the case against EFCA.

The Eagle-Tribune in MA: “EFCA still bad news, even post compromise”

“The Employee Free Choice Act was a poor policy when it was reintroduced in Congress this spring. It’s still a bad idea now, when the economy is just beginning to show signs of recovery.”

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: “Card (check) trick”

“JUST WHEN YOU might have thought the secret ballot was safe when it comes to elections over whether to unionize American workplaces . . . the union bosses are back with a “compromise” that sounds all too much like their original power grab. … [T]HE REAL joker in the deck is the provision in the bill that would have a federal arbitrator set the terms of the next contract between management and a new union if they can’t come to terms within 90 days”

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “EFCA Still Stinks.”

“And worst of all, still contained in this putrid pandering to unions is binding arbitration. If both sides don’t reach agreement by a set time, a third-party government arbitrator would set salaries and benefits. Corporations might as well turn over the keys to their corporate offices.

What’s being retooled, and not rejected, in Congress makes this union-toadying legislation no less wretched.”

Steven J. Law at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce  via cbsnews.com: “Why Card Check “Lite” Is A Non-Starter.”

But the real “poison pill” of forced government arbitration is the way it would spread union pension fund financial problems to healthy companies and workers. Many union-run pension plans are headed toward insolvency because of risky real estate deals and politicized investing. The Card Check bill would empower government arbitrators to force newly-unionized employers into these pensions – putting them on the hook for huge funding shortfalls. Under pension law, a business owner could be stuck paying benefits to people who never worked for them.

And because pension liabilities are included on company balance sheets, a previously healthy firm could have its credit rating ruined overnight by being dumped into a collapsing union pension.

Randy Shaw continues to document the SEIU-UNITE HERE fight, blasting Andy Stern for alleging in a memo last week that the unions are “close to putting the dispute with UNITE HERE behind us.” According to Shaw, Stern’s “rosy assessment has no basis in reality”:

While he spoke of promoting labor peace, SEIU moved to de-certify a UNITE HERE bargaining unit in Puerto Rico, and up-ended a critical UNITE HERE election at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Antonio, Texas. In addition, the Workers United website accuses UNITE HERE President John Wilhelm of betraying workers, and charges UNITE HERE with giving “employers an excuse to mess with workers rights.” Unfortunately, Stern’s peace offensive has been merely rhetorical. Stern knows a settlement with UNITE HERE is not close, and appears to be simply buying time to reverse growing media, labor movement, and internal criticism of his union’s actions.

Stern has been finding himself increasingly isolated amongst the labor movement, finding himself the subject of blame in a New York Times article and condemnation by other labor leaders. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t look like he has any real interest in ending his battle with UNITE HERE. If EFCA (hopefully) finds itself dead in the water, Stern’s labor brethren will most likely look at him as the source of blame for their misfortunes.

In an amusing exchange, the judge in the legal dispute between the UNITE HERE factions over control of the union’s assets sounded like an exasperated parent lecturing his misbehaving child.  Judge George Daniels was particularly testy in his scathing remarks to Bruce Raynor’s lawyers:

“Let’s not play games with this anymore. I am not here to manage the internal disputes of the union here. You don’t like each other, fine. I am more concerned about some other issues. This is a lawsuit. I am not here to manage the union,” Judge George Daniels declared at one point to Raynor’s lawyer after suggestions that Raynor’s side was interfering in the management of the valuable building housing the union.”You tell [Raynor ally] Mr. Fleischman that I am running out of patience. You tell everybody that I am running out of patience. I am not going to issue orders; I am going to start issuing sanctions.”

Just another chapter in the UNITE HERE saga.

The Washington Times featured a scathing editorial highlighting a recent favorite topic of mine: the UNITE HERE civil war and grudge match between John Wilhelm and Bruce Raynor.

The editorial, appropriately titled “Labor Cannibalism” makes many of the same arguments I’ve made about why the union conflict is a good reason to not pass EFCA:

One of many good reasons to oppose the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” otherwise known as the “card check” bill, is because it would further empower union bosses not just against employers but at the expense of union members themselves. Anybody who doubts that labor chieftains often work against the interests of the rank and file need only consider recently ousted “general president” of the UNITE-HERE union, Bruce Raynor.

It’s a quick read and a good reminder about the pitfalls of union leadership, which unfortunately comes at the expense of hardworker union members.

The New York Times‘ Steven Greenhouse is reporting that at least “a half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop” card check from EFCA.

Although card check may be gone (for now), that doesn’t make EFCA any less of a hazard. Senate and union officials plan to replace card check with provisions to still make it easier to organize:

In its place, several Senate and labor officials said, the revised bill would require shorter unionization 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 unionizing. …

There are several other ideas that will likely find its way into EFCA to appease those disappointed with card check’s absence:

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 labor’s concerns that the election process is tilted in favor of employers, key senators are considering several measures. One would require employers to give union organizers access to company property. Another would bar employers from requiring workers to attend anti-union sessions that labor supporters deride as “captive audience meetings.

Requiring an election within five days of 30 percent of workers signing cards may seem innocuous, but it’s still an easy way for unions to intimidate and mislead workers. Proposals to allow organizers to access company (private) property and prevent employers from having the opportunity to explain their side of the case only makes it easier for unions to organize.

Even without card check, EFCA is still a dangerous proposition. Binding arbitration, perhaps the most damaging element of all, remains in the bill. The unions are a bit muted in their reaction. An AFL-CIO spokesman said:

“As School House Rock taught us this is the normal process of how a bill becomes a law. We are very optimistic about passing the strongest labor law reform since the Wagner Act — one that lets workers choose to join a union without intimidation or harassment, ensures that workers who join a union get a first contract, and has meaningful penalties for violations.”

And the SEIU’s Andy Stern still thinks card check will be part of EFCA:

“As we have said from day one, majority signup is the best way for workers to have the right to choose a voice at their workplace. The Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process, and we expect a vote on a majority signup provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress.”

Considering this is labor’s top priority, I wouldn’t rule anything out. They will not go down without a fight. And there’s nothing to say that card check won’t come back again, especially if this deal falls apart and Harkin fulfills his promise to force a floor vote on EFCA.

Marcus Winter at the City Journal has an out-of-the-box suggestion for tracking student performance and evaluating teachers: Compstat for Teachers.

Compstat, if you’re not familiar, changed the way police across the country fought crime:

This revolutionary data system tracked crime precisely, allowing the New York Police Department to focus its efforts on the most troubled neighborhoods—and to hold precinct captains accountable when things went wrong. Good information is a powerful tool not just in policing but in many policy areas.

Winters suggests that parents, school districts, and local governments utilize the equivalent of Compstat by following a student’s test scores over time. This would paint a better picture of students’ progress and what positive or negative impact a teacher may have:

As more and more states began administering their own tests to students, the scores needed to be collected and the data maintained. Some states and districts went the extra mile and created data systems capable of tracking the performance of individual students over time. And the most sophisticated systems also match students’ data to their teachers, enabling researchers—with the aid of powerful statistical tools—to identify the influence that each teacher has on student academic performance. To a layperson, there may be nothing less interesting than volumes of test-score data inside mainframe computers, but these systems have enormous potential to improve the way we evaluate the quality of our teachers.

Not surprisingly, a certain group of individuals oppose the use of such methods:

After all, who’s against having more information?

The teachers’ unions, that’s who. They’re fighting hard against the adoption of these systems precisely because the information they reveal is so useful. The unions insist, against all evidence and logic, that no meaningful variation exists in teacher quality. Further, in a clear case of making the perfect the enemy of the good, they argue that because test scores are a limited measure of student proficiency and statistical models for evaluating teacher quality are imperfect, the information that data-system analyses produce for individual teachers are not ready for prime time.

A Compstat-like program could be a game-changer in the way we evaluate how our students perform in the classroom. Through the power of statistical analysis, we could gain better insight into what factors affect a student’s performance in the classroom. Perhaps that’s the reason why the teachers’ unions are adamantly opposed to this idea. Accountability for those who need it most always comes as a bitter pill.