August 8, 2005

Coffee Clash: Where Does Ford Stand on Workers' Rights?

U.S. Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. is hosting a "coffee" for supporters in the Nashville area this coming Saturday (Aug. 13) at the SEIU union hall in East Nashville. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is one of three large labor unions that recently withdrew from the AFL-CIO. Will Ford's appearance at the SEIU's union hall sit well with the local AFL-CIO?

A bigger question is this: Does Ford's appearance at the SEIU hall indicate support for the SEIU's desire for ever-more coercive powers to force workers to join unions and corporations to accept unionization of their workforce?

Stefan Gleason of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation looks at what the SEIU and other left-leaning labor unions have in mind for increasing their power at the expense of workers' freedom.

In announcing their unions’ departures from the AFL-CIO conglomerate, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chief Andrew Stern and Teamsters boss James Hoffa argued that even more resources should be diverted to corporate campaigns and coercive top-down organizing. These militant tactics involve attacking companies until they agree to herd their employees into forced unionism without even so much as a workers’ vote.

In just the past few years, so-called “card check” schemes and other forms of top-down organizing have triggered numerous legal cases documenting everything from bribes to threats to stalking aimed at workers who resist unionization. Under these schemes, union operatives browbeat workers into signing union-authorization cards that are counted as "votes" in favor of unionization. Many of the employees who brought unfair labor practice charges with help from the National Right to Work Foundation are waiting for decisions by the National Labor Relations Board, which is tasked with prosecuting such abuses.

On the other side of the rift, AFL-CIO chieftain John Sweeney has vowed to funnel even more forced-dues dollars into partisan politics with the goal of passing new laws that grant union officials greater coercive organizing privileges. Since Big Labor loses nearly half of all secret-ballot representation elections (and only after canceling many they anticipate they are likely to lose), union bosses believe that passage of new legislation to eliminate these pesky elections will turn things around for them.

The so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) and Rep. George Miller (D., Calif.), would ban secret-ballot representation elections unless union officials consent to them, and it would eliminate workers' ability to make their decisions in the privacy of a voting booth. While the issue has generated a lot of heat, the fact is that coercive organizing and left-wing politics are two sides of the same coin. At the end of the day, both sides of the controversy are working toward the goal of expanding their power and forcing more workers to join unions.

Indeed, experience suggests that the budding rivalry may actually make each side more effective as they shake off the lethargy that comes from being part of a giant confederation. Unfortunately, this improved efficiency will only make them better at crushing worker freedom, intimidating entrepreneurs, and bullying public officials into handing them favors.

Ironically, as Stern and Hoffa exercise their right not to associate with the AFL-CIO, they hypocritically seek to deny rank-and-file workers similar freedoms. In fact, in the 28 states without Right to Work laws, workers can be fired for refusing to join or pay dues to a union. So while union brass can exercise a right to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO, millions of workers across America are being barred from — or even fired for — leaving unions.

Do you, Rep. Ford, support legislation to increase the powers of unions to coerce workers into joining, and to take away their right to vote on whether to unionize their workplace?

A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have established that employees may not be compelled to pay more than a union’s proven collective bargaining costs, and they can refuse forced payment for activities such as lobbying or politics. But, notes Gleason, union officials routinely block workers from exercising these rights.

Ford's coziness with the SEIU begs the question, does he believe workers should be blocked from excercising those rights? Even more fundamental, does it bother Ford that in "The Land of the Free," there even has to be a legal defense foundation dedicated to protecting "the right to work"?