With Labor Day weekend upon us, what better time is there to reflect on the state of unions and organized labor in America today? These days, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, the National Education Association, all seem to be at the center of political debates whose outcomes could have far-reaching consequences for all of us – as workers and consumers.

In the 19^th century, workers fought for things we take for granted today – decent and safe working conditions, workman’s compensation and fair wages. Today, we have laws that protect workers from unsafe or even hostile workplaces, Human Rights Departments at the state level looking out for employees that have been wronged and laws that that protects employees from having their wages docked unlawfully. These are just a few examples of the myriad protections we have in place.

Yet, a new Gallup poll shows that labor unions are more unpopular than ever. 51% of Americans believe that labor unions mostly hurt the economy. 6 in 10 Americans say that unions hurt non-union workers. After bailing out auto companies driven into bankruptcy by demanding, uncooperative unions, Americans understand what happens when companies are at the mercy of union bosses.

This is bad news for EFCA supporters. With the focus on health care, we stopped talking about the EFCA this summer – about the card check and mandatory arbitration provisions pushed by Democrats and their biggest benefactors, unions. But, as Jimmie Bise reminded us last week, the EFCA still lives.

Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka indicated that throwing out secret elections isn’t necessarily their biggest priority. The left may be willing to sacrifice card check in exchange for decreasing the time between petitioning to hold an election and the election itself. During this time, both unions and employers campaign for employees’ votes. The median in between time is currently 38 days. Unions want to change this to between 5 and 10 days.

Why is it necessary to waste our representatives’ time and our tax dollars debating how long the time between the petition and election should be? How is decreasing this amount of time, giving employees less time to learn about unions, a ‘concession’ that unions are making to get their favored legislation pushed through? And, why would unions want to speed the process up so significantly? If employers have the upper hand at lobbying employees, shouldn’t time help pro-union workers persuade their colleagues over to their side?

While the focus of the EFCA has been on its card check provisions, proposals to dramatically speed up the election process and the mandatory arbitration provisions in the bill are just as dangerous. In the case of the latter, it might be the most dangerous proposal in the bill. Once the election process is over, if a union is formed, and the employer cannot reach an agreement with the union within 90 days, a union-friendly federal arbitrator steps in to fill in the void and impose binding terms on the union and the employer. What incentive does this give to unions to compromise with their employers? Zero.

Today, the Heritage Foundation posited that with cap-and-trade, we’ll have laborless day from here on out. So it goes with the EFCA. One study found that for every 3% increase in union membership, the unemployment rate would increase by 1% the following year, and job creation would fall by 1.5 million jobs.

We honor our workers by providing them with choice, not depriving them of secret ballots or the time they need to educate themselves on the issues and decide how to vote. Luckily, unions’ bullying tactics are not working, and Americans have caught on to a basic economic principle – that unions are good for those who are in them and bad for everyone else. In honor of America’s workers, the hardest-working most resourceful workers in the world, let’s all remind ourselves what this debate is about and also remind our representatives in Washington that the Employee Free Choice Act does not support choice at all and should be permanently shelved.

*Originally published September 6, 2009 on The American Issues Project Blog, here.

Last week, when President Obama announced Chrysler’s impending bankruptcy, he lambasted “a group of investment firms and hedge funds that held out” by refusing to go along with the government’s proposal. The President could not have been clearer about his ire toward the group, stating that he “did not stand with them”.

Who are these holdouts? Well, by the time a bankruptcy judge ordered the disclosure of their identities this week, the list had shrunk to just five investment firms.

The revealing of the group’s identities still leaves many of us troubled by the fact that last week, we witnessed the executive branch use their bully pulpit to castigate a group of investors that refused to submit to the administration’s plans for them.

These investors represented none other than pension funds of all kinds of workers, teachers unions’ funds, mutual funds and endowments among others. In other words, the investors represented millions of Americans who have worked hard, played by the rules and invested their money for retirement.

To put it simply, the investors ‘held out’ because the proposed deal was not good enough for them. They held secured bonds in Chrysler which is a fancy way of saying they lent money to Chrysler under the agreement that if Chrysler entered bankruptcy, those lenders would be the first in line to be repaid from any funds available.

During the negotiations, the government offered them 29 cents for each dollar they were owed. In total, the government asked the 46 lenders, who were owed $6.9 billion in secured debt, to accept $2 billion and wipe out the remaining $4.9 billion owed to them.

In the same deal, the government offered the United Auto Workers (UAW), an unsecured lender, 50 cents on the dollar and a 55% stake in Chrysler.

Unhappy with the proposal, some investors rejected the government’s offer. Understandably, they rejected a proposal that would have sent them to the back of the line behind the UAW, despite their contractual agreement to the contrary. Also, as the keepers of other people’s money, investors have an obligation to act in the best interest of the parties they represent – in other words, to get the best deal for their clients. In legal terms, the investors have a fiduciary duty to act with the highest standard of care to minimize losses to their clients.

So there you have it. During this time of financial uncertainty when we have all watched our investments dwindling, this group of investors, knowing that they could certainly do no worse in bankruptcy, stood up for their clients and said no to the government. And for that, the President himself vilified them. Not surprisingly, he was able to do so without much of a backlash given the anti-Wall Street mood that has become so popular recently. And despite the rhetoric and emphasis on these supposedly greedy investors, in reality, the people who stood to lose the most are people like you and me.

With democrats quickly approaching that magic number 60 in the Senate, there’s been lots of talk about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or card check, particularly surrounding whether Sen. Specter will make good on his previous statements and vote against it. If passed, the EFCA would (1) eliminate the secret ballot, (2) give the government power to manage the relationship between unions and employers, and (3) increase membership in unions at the risk of increasing job losses in the US. Card check would have a profound effect on businesses in the US, so it’s important to understand it and its potential consequences.

Under the current system, there are two steps to forming a union: a petition process and a secret election. The petition phase requires 30% of employees to publicly sign a petition card in favor of unionizing. The cards are submitted to the National Labor Relations Board for review and approval, and upon approval, a secret election is scheduled. The employees vote privately, and if over 50% vote ‘yes’ to form a union, a union is formed. The two-step system operates under the assumption that voting privately allows employees to vote without facing pressure from co-workers or employers to vote a certain way.

If passed, the Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate the secret election if over 50% of employees sign the public petition cards. In other words, the petition would hold the same weight as the ‘yes’ votes if a secret election were to be held. So, the EFCA legislation essentially turns the secret election into a public one.

Card check opponents point out that employees might vote ‘no’ in private but may be less courageous if pressured in public. In fact, union organizers are aware of this trend, and accordingly, they delay calling for elections until they have 60% to 75% support for unionizing.

In addition to eliminating the right to secret ballots, the EFCA legislation would place a great deal of power in the hands of federal arbitrators. If unions and employers cannot reach agreement as to wages, benefits, etc., within 120 days of the vote, a federal arbitrator decides for them and binds both parties to those decisions for two years. This gives government great authority to step in and take on a managing role in business.

Finally, given the economic climate we face, an increase in union membership will certainly be at the cost of losing jobs. One study puts the potential job losses for 2010 alone at 600,000.

What is the intention behind eliminating the secret ballot — if not to put pressure on employees to unionize? After all, secret ballots are a basic political right in America, and the burden lies with card check supporters to provide a convincing argument as to why that presumption should be overturned. They have yet to do that.

*Originally published May 6, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.