Labor: Kane is Anti-Union

UFCW Local 1776 called Kathleen Kane on her opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act today.  John Meyerson of the UFCW and President of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Area Labor Federation released this statement following Kane’s assertion on PCN that ” I am not a supporter of Card Check.”

“For weeks, candidate Kathleen Kane has sought to distance herself from her company’s stridently anti-union practices and rhetoric, but her recent comments show that she is every bit as anti-worker as her company, Kane is Able. On Tuesday evening’s PCN Call-In, Kane echoed her company’s previous statements by voicing adamant opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Employee Free Choice Act is the best way to ensure workers are free to organize and collectively bargain, without fear of workplace intimidation or threats to their livelihood. EFCA would allow the employees of Kathleen’s company to decide for themselves if they want to join a union. It is no wonder she is opposed to the bill.

What’s worse, Kathleen insists that because she grew up in a union household, she is pro-union. It’s time to set the record straight. You can’t run an anti-union company, fund your campaign entirely with money from anti-union executives, oppose laws vital to working families, and still claim to be pro-union. Excuse the pun, but I’m tired of this anti-union trucking exec getting a free ride. It is time someone called this what it is – a deliberate attempt to deceive voters on one of the most important issues of this election.”

Kane’s most recent statement echoes the previous anti-worker statements made by her company, including those of Harry Drajpuch, Chief Operating Officer of Kane is Able, wrote in the official newsletter of Kane is Able, “The Employee Free Choice Act will make it easier for unions to ‘represent’ you, with all the corruption and associated union dues you’ll be forced to pay.” – [Kane is Able Cable, July 2009, Vol. 1]

In a related matter why is Kathleen Kane signing her emails as “Pennsylvania Attorney General?”  Linda Kelly is the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

 

Specter Called Out on Forum Response

During the Senate forum at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit John Meyerson of UFCW 1776 asked a question of Sen. Arlen Specter concerning the Employee Free Choice Act.  john challenged the Senator on his opposition to the card check provision due to the possibility of “union thuggery.’  Specter claimed he never said anything like that and challenged Mr. Meyerson’s veracity and asked him to prove it on the record.  The union man replied that he would and would apologize to the Senator if he was in error.  Like so much of what Arlen Specter said and claimed last evening he has been fact checked again and failed, again.  From John Meyerson:

Attached please find a copy of Senator Specter’s remarks on the floor of the United States senate, announcing his decision not to support the employee free choice act. While he did not call labor organizers thugs, he did accuse us of participating in widespread intimidation and using strong arm tactics.

Accordingly I will not be apologizing to the Senator. If there is an apology due it should come from the Senator to those that he miss informed on Saturday night. Please pass this on to others that you know who heard the exchange on Saturday night.

Thank you.

Specter Speaks on the Employee Free Choice Act/Card Check

Washington, D.C. (March 24, 2009) – U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) today spoke on the Senate floor concerning the Employee Free Choice Act/Card Check.

Senator Specter’s full floor statement, including the appendix, follows:

I have sought recognition to state my position on a bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as card check.  My vote on this bill is very difficult for many reasons. First, on the merits, it is a close call and has been the most heavily lobbied issue I can recall.  Second, it is a very emotional issue with Labor looking to this legislation to reverse the steep decline in union membership and business expressing great concern about added costs which would drive more companies out of business or overseas.  Perhaps, most of all, it is very hard to disappoint many friends who have supported me over the years, on either side, who are urging me to vote their way.

In voting for cloture – that, is to cut off debate – in June 2007, I emphasized in my floor statement and in a law review article that I was not supporting the bill on the merits, but only to take up the issue of labor law reform.  Hearings had shown that the NLRB was dysfunctional and badly politicized.  When Republicans controlled the Board, the decisions were for business.  With Democrats in control, the decisions were for labor.  Some cases took as long as eleven years to decide.  The remedies were ineffective.

Regrettably, there has been widespread intimidation on both sides.  Testimony shows union officials visit workers’ homes with strong-arm tactics and refuse to leave until cards are signed.  Similarly, employees have complained about being captives in employers’ meetings with threats of being fired and other strong-arm tactics.

On the merits, the issue which has emerged at the top of the list for me is the elimination of the secret ballot which is the cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic society. The bill’s requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot live with.  Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for collective bargaining which makes the employer liable only for a deal he or she agrees to.  The arbitration provision could be substantially improved by the last best offer procedure which would limit the arbitrator’s discretion and prompt the parties to move to more reasonable positions.

In seeking more union membership and negotiating leverage, Labor has a valid point that they have suffered greatly from outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and losses in pension and health benefits.  President Obama has pressed Labor’s argument that the middle class needs to be strengthened through more power to unions in their negotiations with business.  The better way to expand labor’s clout in collective bargaining is through amendments to the NLRA rather than on eliminating the secret ballot and mandatory arbitration.  Some of the possible provisions for such remedial legislation are set forth in an appendix to this statement.

In June 2007, the vote on the Employee Free Choice Act was virtually monolithic: 50 Senators, Democrats, voted for cloture and 48 Republicans against.  I was the only Republican to vote for cloture.  The prospects for the next cloture vote are virtually the same.  No Democratic Senator has spoken out against cloture.  Republican Senators are outspoken in favor of a filibuster.  With the prospects of a Democratic win in Minnesota, yet uncertain, it appears that 59 Democrats will vote to proceed with 40 Republicans in opposition.  If so, the decisive vote would be mine.  In a highly polarized Senate, many decisive votes are left to a small group who are willing to listen, reject ideological dogmatism, disagree with the party line and make an independent judgment. It is an anguishing position, but we play the cards we are dealt.

The emphasis on bipartisanship is, I think, misplaced.  There is no special virtue in having some Republicans and some Democrats take similar positions.  The desired value, really, is independent thought and an objective judgment.  It obviously can’t be that all Democrats come to one conclusion and all Republicans come to the opposite conclusion by expressing their individual objective judgments.  Senators’ sentiments expressed in the cloakroom frequently differ dramatically from their votes in the well of the Senate.  The nation would be better served, in my opinion, with public policy determined by independent, objective legislators’ judgments.

The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses.   If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.

I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind.  Knowing that I will not support cloture on this bill, Senators may choose to move on and amend the NRLA as I have suggested or otherwise. This announcement should end the rumor mill that I have made some deal for my political advantage.  I have not traded my vote in the past and I would not do so now.

John, of course he called you thugs.  Just because he didn’t use that exact word is immaterial.  It does seem to me an apology is in order but to you by the Senator for questioning your veracity and lying about his position on EFCA.