One Beltway businessman frequently asks, “how can you compromise with people who thought stealing ballots and imposing government arbitrators was a good idea in the first place?” It’s a good question with only one answer: You can’t, really, unless you change who defines the terms of compromise.
Having finally embraced both the policy and political reality that the Employee Free Choice Act (aka Card Check) is not going to be a winner, Senate Democrats have begun floating “compromise” options and editorial boards are weighing in. So far, however, all the ideas have been one-sided concepts that appease organized labor.
Consider the two primary concepts circling Capitol hallways. The first is to mandate hasty elections (rather than outright card check), but this hardly qualifies as a compromise, as it comes at the expense of the employee’s ability to make an informed decision.
The second so-called “concession” follows a similar suit. Former Card Check advocates are hoping to impose government arbitrators to settle disputes between union executives and firms. The cost of this “compromise” would be borne almost entirely by employers. Even less-stringent versions of this proposal would severely impair the bargaining process.
The political reality is simple. Since unions have spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars to pass Card Check – their get-rich-quick scheme – they are determined to be the ones to define the terms of compromise.
Though current law is better than any options discussed so far, some feel pressure to be “for something.” If so, Card Check opponents have to take the initiative in this battle and redefine what real compromise looks like.
The scope of reform would have to be expanded to include the entire laundry list of reforms that have waited six decades. There are a number of reasonable demands real labor reformers can insist upon:
- Get rid of card check altogether. If all elections can be held in a short period of time, there’s simply no compelling rationale for using a card check system at all.
- Disclose the “fine print. Regulators already require credit card offers to carry relatively simple, standardized information on the true costs of that service. In contrast, unions can induce U.S. workers to sign a legally binding union authorization card without any disclosure of all costs of membership.
- A national “right to work” law. Any legitimate re-examination of our tired labor laws will closely scrutinize the ability of unions to compel employees to pay for union representation that they may not wish.
- Actual transparency. Codify the sea-saw rules on what financial information unions have to disclose to their members.
- Crack down on extortion. Currently, union officials are exempt from certain federal extortion laws.
The political reality ought to be apparent quite quickly: Each vote against fully considered workplace elections, full disclosure, transparency, a worker’s right to be free from forced association, extortion — is another nail in a political coffin. Each is another line in a campaign mailer or another sentence in a 30-second spot.
Currently, Card Check supporters are portraying their opponents as “obstructionists.” They have even threatened to kick business leaders out of negotiations for failing to be sufficiently willing to compromise. Oh, the irony: Democrats can rail against obstructionist business, but there’s nothing else standing between them and a litany of unpleasant, unforgiving votes.
In truth, the law already works for employees and it should be left alone. But if Democrats open the can of worms that is our long-tested labor law, business and Republicans can open a can of something else.
Bret Jacobson is founder and president of Maverick Strategies LLC, a research and communications firm serving business and free-market think tanks.
