I don't usually chime in this way, but: Amen, Brother.

Absolutely striking, no pun intended. The correlation between the party controlling the NLRB and percentage of union recognition campaigns with illegal firings is well, to my eye, something like 99%.

This is the kind of stuff that should be in play when it comes to talking about the EFCA. Messaging can be as simple as positing the question of whether or not the recipient of the message thinks its ok to fire a worker for organizing (percentages thinking its not ok should be in the 80s or 90s if messaged right), then you move to present this data that "hard working americans" get fired more often under republican administrations for trying to improve their workplace situations. And then you move to assert that the EFCA aims to effectively eliminate the partisan bias in illegal firings of 'hard working americans.'

Boom. Message won. Day saved. Unions win.

I confess, I don't see what you're talking about. It looks to me like a upward trend in the early 1980s followed by a long downward trend, interrupted briefly in the early 1990s, followed by an upward trend in the early 2000s. It looks to me that if you are look for a correlation, it's recessions, not politics.

The political story doesn't make much sense to me: this is about wrongdoing as determined by NLRB, right? So what does tolerance for wrongdoing have to do with it?

I have news for you. They not only fire union organizers, they harass and fire union representatives, and anyone who shows an interest in workers' rights.

Thomas:

Look at the way the numbers spike up 79-84, and then stabilize at a level way above the 70s average; then look at the drop from the mid 20% range down into the teens during Clinton's reign. Given that we had recessions in 1980-82, and then 90-91, the data shows the number going up in a recession, going even higher in a recovery, and then staying up through economic growth and another recession, then coming down in a recovery, and then up in a recession and staying there in a recovery.

And "tolerance for wrongdoing" comes into it because it's the NLRB that does the deciding as to what qualifies as wrongdoing, how strenuously they'll pursue wrongdoing, and how heavily they'll punish the guilty. And the NLRB tracks presidents, not recessions.

As someone who lives in a card-check jurisdiction (Ontario), let me chime in before somebody comes running reciting talking points ("union intimidation!!").

We've had card-check here for a long time. Number of adjudicated complaints finding union intimidation into signing union cards?

Zero.

Here's a Ma href="http://www.noevalleyvoice.com/2008/October/Real.html">sordid tale of unionization in San Francisco:

In October 2003, the Noe Valley Voice first reported on the abrupt closure of the Real Food Company store on 24th Street. Five years later, hundreds of Noe newcomers and countless school-age children born in the intervening years can't even remember that a popular natural food grocery once occupied the heart of the neighborhood commercial strip.

As readers will recall, Real Food's Utah-based parent company, Nutraceutical Corporation, shuttered the store and terminated 30 workers over Labor Day weekend in 2003, stating that it planned to remodel and reopen within several months. Some of the former employees disputed this claim, arguing that they were fired for attempting to organize a union.

As for the labor lawsuit, an NLRB judge ruled in favor of the former employees on nearly all counts in November 2005. A three-member panel upheld most aspects of that decision in July 2007, ordering that the terminated workers be awarded back pay and offered jobs at the company's other local stores, but Nutraceutical filed an appeal that is still pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The clickable link to the sordid tale of unionization in San Francisco:

The political story doesn't make much sense to me: this is about wrongdoing as determined by NLRB, right? So what does tolerance for wrongdoing have to do with it?

Ummm...non-enforcement of labor law during Repug administrations (anyone remember the air-traffic controllers?) represents a *causal* relationship on that graph, not a "correlation". Get a clue Thomas.

And your unwillingness or inability to see that is exactly the kind of "blind cop" BS we expect from so-called conservatives.

...companies routinely violate labor law to disrupt workplace unionization.

So, if you've idenified the problem, then make stiffer penalties and enforce. Instead, you wish to use this as an excuse to change the system to one that doesn't include anonymity. If that happens the intimidation will not go away, but will be done by the other side.

We've had card-check here for a long time. Number of adjudicated complaints finding union intimidation into signing union cards?

Zero

Yeah, well we've had race laws for some time but they, too, only are prosecuted one way as well.

The sad thing about this graph is that even under democrats the NLRB has not been particularly pro-worker. It's rather that under republicans (particularly the most recent administration) the level of anti-labor hackery ascends to mind-boggling levels.

Excellent summary, Ezra, but 2 quibbles:

Crime should not be tolerated. Not even when it's against labor unions.

First, it's very, very important to note that firing workers isn't a crime in any sense at all. No boss gets prosecuted for violating the National Labor Relations Act, no matter how abusive and disgusting the violations might be.

These are, legally speaking, "unfair labor practices" (ULPs). Nothing at all happens to the manager who fires a worker or threatens his/her job (in fact, union busters often threaten to get low-level managers fired if those managers don't break the law), and as you say, virtually nothing happens to the company.

The Employee Free Choice Act will, for the first time, introduce some actual penalties against the company when its managers commit ULPs. Again, no punishment for the managers themselves, but at least it's something.

Second, these aren't wrongs committed "against unions". They're wrongs committed against workers. There are some ULPs that legally apply only to the union as an organization -- say, when a boss refuses to provide information that a certified union requests for bargaining -- but the ULPs in this study aren't that kind of ULP. You don't need to be in a union to file this kind of ULP. You can just do it yourself, as an individual.

This isn't about how much corporate American abuses unions. It's about how much corporate American abuses their own employees.

How do the AFL-CIOs recent complaints about Andy Stern factor into all of this? They said he was interfering with their democratic process.
It seems unions don't play well with each other, or even amongst themselves.

"So, if you've idenified the problem, then make stiffer penalties and enforce"

No, no, you're missing the exact point Ezra and then Mark are making! -Indeed, you refer to it in your little race-based comment.

(Aside: It's not clear to me that the EFCA would cause a major increase in employee-on-employee intimidation (after all, as folks like McKingford point out, plenty of places have card check, etc. without any obvious spike in Sopranos-style union goons beating on people. Nor do companies here that voluntary go for such things show this kind of problem. Now, you can argue, well, that's because of factors within those workplaces - that's fine, you just admitted that EFCA, etc. isn't the problem. But anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say that it might.)

Again, El Viajero, the point here is that whatever penalties are in place, even if they're stiffer than a senior citizen hopped up on little blue pills, it doesn't matter, because business (correctly) realizes that these laws aren't really going to be enforced under a GOP administration, and respond accordingly, by going to town on illegal firings of employees trying to unionize, as a way to suppress unionization. (If you support stiffer penalties and enforcement, presumably you're not against unionization per se, or you're just legislative-concern trolling).

This is certainly regrettable, not least (one might imagine) for genuine law and order conservatives. But it's what happens. It's as if there were laws against breaking into rich people's homes, taking all their stuff, and causing them serious injury or even death - but looting mobs could reasonably expect that doing so under a Democratic administration probably would only result in a $50 fine, a suspended sentence, and maybe a couple hours of community work. Obviously that would be an offense to fairness, justice, and order, right? Ok, and the same applies if we're talking about workers being illegally screwed by business thanks to GOP leniency and permissiveness.*

So what to do? Well, in the world of hypothetical scenario, you'd want to find ways to create a slightly more level playing field, so that the wealthy could protect their homes and possessions from rampaging rabble - even in a political environment marked by blatant indulgence of such criminal elements. Obviously you'll want to minimize harm, including looking to other jurisdictions with low rates both of terrorized rich folks and of slaughtered mobs, but there's always going to be a risk of some mess - you'd just have to try for the best tradeoff possible.

Back in the real world, something like EFCA seems like a pretty good (if still not perfect) tradeoff indeed. After all, there's little evidence that it would cause massive (or even significant) rises in employee-on-employee intimidation. But even so, if we assume that it might (for the purposes of argument) . . . well, anything short of levels not seen since the most violent periods of labor organizing** , as unacceptable and bad as that'd be, would still be a decrease in intimidation and harm. To wander back into explanatory-hypothetical-land, it would be a really bad situation if local GOP committee folks were stopping by right before elections to mention what a shame it would be if your kid lost his hard-won private school scholarship, but that would still be preferable to a Democratic administration sending in the military to bulldoze gated communities in retribution for pro-Republican campaigning, or imprisoning opposing candidates, etc.

And of course (back in the real world), besides the lack of evidence stuff, there's also (obviously) rather strong incentives for business to do everything it can to minimize employee-on-employee intimidation. And indeed, while they can reasonably expect that Republican administrations will bend over backwards to help them in this, the assent of pro-business liberalism means they can count on significant aid from Democratic administrations too.

Which is not to say that EFCA is perfect (as opposed to every other legislative initiative in history?), and if you have a better suggestion that seems actually, realistically workable, I'm sure everyone would be happy to hear it. Otherwise - well, it's not just that EFCA-style reform would decrease violence and intimidation, even if it caused a significant increase in employee-on-employee intimidation; it's that EFCA-style reform would decrease violence and intimidation almost certainly without a significant increase in employee-on-employee intimidation. ***

* Of course, for the neofeudalists, switching this around simply makes no sense, since while wealthy people actually matter, others, well, don't.

** Granted, when we're talking about companies that could hire what were, in essence, private armies . . . Now, to be fair, the anti-labor folks aren't entirely making up stuff out of whole cloth, but they've come very close for a very, very long time. Back 'round the turn of the 20th C., sweatshop owners would insist that they needed to use heavily-armed goons to protect 'loyal' workers from the brutal violence that would otherwise be inflicted upon them by . . . well, other young immigrant women.***

*** And given that the forefront of modern organizing would seem to be less very large, burly men in rather muscular industrial trades, but service workers in industries with a relatively high percentage of women . . .

More unions means more votes and plenty more donations for the Democratic party.

The *real* attraction of EFCA for the Democrats is the opportunity to secure more power, and little else.

Ummm...non-enforcement of labor law...

Are you also concerned about the non-enforcement of the federal drug laws concerning California?

Yeah, well we've had race laws for some time but they, too, only are prosecuted one way as well.

El Viajero/Fred Jones/whatever is, what a surprise, lying.

An analysis of available race data for the 7,330 known hate crime offenders revealed that:

58.6 percent were white.
20.6 percent were black.
Aren't conservatives funny?

El Viajero, are you able to respond to my comment? After all, one could just say that the *real* attraction to opposing EFCA for the GOP is the opportunity to secure more (or at least maintain) power, and little else. In fact, I don't think that's "the *real* attraction for either side (although politicians being politicians, they're certainly attracted). But when you get down to it, the motives are fairly irrelevant; what's important here are the results. So - want to try to reply, or no?

After all, there's little evidence that it would cause massive (or even significant) rises in employee-on-employee intimidation. But even so, if we assume that it might (for the purposes of argument) . . . well, anything short of levels not seen since the most violent periods of labor organizing...

Dan,

I appreciate your rant. However, what you try to do is engineer the outcome with no principles involved.

I just can't get past the fact that cardcheck would quash the secret ballot.

It's undemocratic.

Now, if you still think this is a good idea, then may I assume that local and national elections can dispense with the secret ballot as well?

Are you really willing to erode the democratic process for one group or the other?

El V, changing the topic when he's losing. Again.

First, the Employee Free Choice Act wouldn't get rid of the secret ballot. Employees would have the choice of whether to use it or majority sign up.

The principle here is that the workers should have the right to decide whether to organize a union on their own, without any interference by the employer. The empirical record demonstrates that majority sign-up will allow workers to do that much more effectively than the NLRB election system.

Second, elections for political office are different from union elections. I've explained this a number of times on this blog, in discussions with you and others, but in case you weren't paying any attention...

...in a political office election, there's a pre-existing seat that will be filled on a specific day. The only question is, who's going to fill it? In a union election, the whole question is whether the seat will exist in the first place. And if the seat does come into being, the employer will lose lots and lots of power, so they have every incentive to abuse their disproportionate power over their employees. And the track record of NLRA elections is that businesses engage in massive abuse of their employees.

I've asked this of El Viajero in previous threads multiple times, with no response.

Why don't you guys who are suddenly so much in favor of NLRB elections start getting out there calling for automatic annual NLRB elections for any businesses where a worker requests one?

"I appreciate your rant"

I'm touched!

"I just can't get past the fact that cardcheck would quash the secret ballot. It's undemocratic."

It's striking how many folks who never showed a shred of concern for workers' rights, democratic access or etc. suddenly found them to be of paramount importance once EFCA came up. (Whether you fit in this group, El Viajero, I dunno.)

". However, what you try to do is engineer the outcome with no principles involved."

No, you just don't notice them. Secret ballots are important, but their importance comes from what they're intended to facilitate (what outcome they're meant to engineer, if you like) - that is, giving people the ability to have a say in the government with a minimum of possible coercion. But in this case, the way the system works means that they're not able to fulfill this function; hence this imperfect but better practical solution. It's like flagburning. The American flag has value, but this value stems from what it represents, including American values such as, ie, freedom of speech. To ban flagburning, however unpleasant, is to elevate the symbol above that which it represents. Same deal.

Anon at 9:32 is me.

Are you kidding??

I love the democratic process. If my side loses through a fair process...then so be it. I don't whine and change my arguments to try to do an endrun.

Example: Homosexuals had a fair process in CA, but now wish to whine to the courts for no other reason than they lost. And they have vowed that if the courts deny them, they will not accept their answer.

How is this honoring democracy?