As noted at the right, a recent study (proudly supported by Associated Builders and Contractors and the Alliance to Save Mains Street Jobs) details the unemployment ramifications if Congress passed EFCA. Ed Morrissey today interviewed the study’s author. Watch for yourself!
UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation has a memo out that adds to the concern about job-loss and EFCA’s effects:
The AFL-CIO estimates that passing EFCA would increase union membership rates by at least 5.0 percentage points.[1] Under EFCA at least 7.1 million Americans would be pressured into unions.[2] This would do wonders for union finances, but it would also further devastate labor markets.
The March 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics “Employment Situation Summary” shows that 651,000 Americans lost their job in the month of February. This brings the total number of unemployed to 12.5 million and the unemployment rate to 8.1 percent. This is the highest rate in over 25 years.
Ironically, there is an ad running on national cable television from one of the Employee Free Choice Act’s (card check) biggest supporters. The ad closes with the line “Because everyone should have the right to work.”
All of this on the heels of an economic impact study released yesterday called “An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications” by the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs. This study finds that if the Employee Free Choice Act were signed into law, meaning workers are stripped of their right to a private ballot and small businesses are forced into mandatory binding arbitration, the result would be “a one percentage point increase in the unemployment rate for every three percentage point increase in workers organized.” One could conclude that if the Employee Free Choice Act results in a 10 percent increase in unionization, the unemployment rate would increase by more than three percent.
Hypothetically, if the EFCA had been passed in 2007 the unemployment rate could now be over 11.5 percent. This means that 5 million more Americans could be looking for their next paycheck because of the Employee Free Choice Act.
The Employee Free Choice Act will not put people “right to work,” but instead the facts clearly state it will put them right out of the job.
Vice President Biden spoke to the AFL-CIO Executive Council today in Miami, FL. Biden was garnering support for the “Employee Free Choice Act” among one of the largest union groups, and the bills biggest backers.
In a video statement delivered to the conference, President Obama told the attendees that passage of the “Employee Free Choice Act” was among his priorities. He stated:
“I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, and to my administration, labor unions are a big part of the solution. We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests—because we cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement.”
By “level the playing field” did he mean taking a worker’s right to a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to join a union? That doesn’t seem very level to me…
Trying to figure out when EFCA’s congressional sponsors will actually introduce their bill in the 111th Congress can make you dizzy.
Last month, several organized labor blogs and other sources reported that EFCA would be introduced in concert with a rally being held on Capitol Hill on February 4.However, that event came and went without EFCA ever being introduced in the House or the Senate.
Earlier this week those same blogs began reporting yet again that EFCA would be introduced next week (on March 9 to be exact) presumably in anticipation of a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on 3/10 which in part would discuss EFCA.Now we are hearing that EFCA’s sponsors have once again gotten cold feet and the bill may not be introduced until later this month.
The bill was drafted years ago, so…what’s the hold up?
Rumor has it that the number of members of the House and Senate that have signed on as cosponsors of the bill has dropped off drastically.So drastically, in fact, that EFCA’s sponsors are embarrassed to introduce the bill.In the 110th Congress, 230 (out of a possible 233) House Democrats cosponsored EFCA.Rumor has it that this year, with 21 more Democrats in the House than last year, the bill is struggling to get even 200 House cosponsors. And, similar problems are being experienced in the Senate.
Apparently, absent the backstop of a Presidential veto, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have now realized what so many others already knew– that EFCA is job killing legislation that will only serve to further damage our economy.
Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act could have serious unintended consequences, according to a new study from Dr. Anne Layne Farrar. The paper, undertaken for the Alliance To Save Main Street Jobs (of which Associated Builders and Contractors is a member) specifically finds that the increased unionization that comes with EFCA’s effective elimination of private ballot elections will harm the economy and cost millions of jobs.
Specifically, the report finds:
If an additional 3.9 million workers are organized under EFCA (a 3 percentage point increase over 2008), another 1.6 million workers will either lose their jobs or not be able to find new employment (a 1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate)
If EFCA results in a 10 percentage point increase in organized workers, up to 5.4 million Americans will become unemployed — a 3.5 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate over current levels
“The costs [of EFCA] should be carefully weighed against any purported benefits of passing the Act, all of which appear to benefit some groups at the expense of others. There is no coherent theoretical argument that explains how the higher costs, greater legal uncertainty, and expanded government intervention entailed in EFCA will improve overall social welfare.”
We agree. And editorial pages agree. The Tribune-Democrat in Pennsylvania has just published an editorial urging their own Sen. Arlen Specter to oppose EFCA. While the senator currently does not have a stated position, the paper argued:
Specter and others on the card-check bubble may be feeling pressure from union lobbyists who say that making such efforts easier would help balance a weak economy that is shedding jobs.
However, the more likely result is that broader unionization could force some small businesses out of the marketplace, and would force large companies – especially retailers – to reduce their employment numbers to offset added costs.
ABC continues to work to educate Members of Congress, reporters, and the general public about this job-killing legislation. But we need your help. Share the truth about EFCA.
Somewhere between feigning confidence and exuding confidence is where organized labor’s spokespeople reside these days on the likelihood of passing the Employee Free Choice Act. Here is the latest chatter:
SEIU president Andy Stern recently told Twitter readers he’s feeling “no lack of political Support”
SEIU has released a piece of YouTube propaganda mocking warnings from the business community. The union attempted to paint critics of the bill as Big Business, even though it will be thousands of small and medium-sized businesses — along with tens of millions of employees — who will suffer from EFCA.
Today in West Virginia the AFL-CIO will hold a rally at the Capitol to pass EFCA and “Turn America Around.”
The AFL-CIO, American Rights At Work, and Center for Economic and Policy Research will release further “evidence” of the need for EFCA during a conference call.
Rumors continue to swirl that the bill will be introduced Monday, March 9.
UPDATE: Yesterday President Obama promised in a videotaped speech to the AFL-CIO executive council to “pass the Employee Free Choice Act” and said, “I want you to know that you will always have a seat at the table.”
It’s clear EFCA’s proponents will continue to make their case publicly, even as the bill threatens to further weaken our economy, cost jobs, and threaten the right to a private ballot for working Americans. Which is a good reason to pass along this information from the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (in a release from yesterday):
In polling conducted for CDW in January by McLaughlin & Associates, nearly three-quarters (74%) of union households were opposed to the card check provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act. An overwhelming 88% of union households believed that a worker’s vote should be kept private during a union organizing election, and 85% of union households believed that a secret ballot election is the best way to protect the individual rights of workers when they are deciding whether to join a union.
The twitter world is experiencing a minor tweetfest on the effort to convince Americans that EFCA would actually be a net positive for the economy. Union groups are crowing that they’ve scratched together 40 economists saying as much (40 economists and a five-dollar bill will get you a cup of coffee in New York City). We have a pretty strong hunch that there’s plenty of academic research out there — published and not as yet — proving otherwise.
These changes would tilt the balance of power in favor of unions, and come at the expense of workers, employers and the overall economy. We know from a substantial body of research that the key to a prosperous labor market is adaptability, both on the part of employers and employees. Indeed, a growing body of research confirms such flexibility in labor markets results in better job creation, investment and prosperity compared to more heavily regulated labor markets.
For example, Harvard professor Rafael Di Tella, along with his Princeton counterpart Robert MacCulloch, looked at 21 industrialized countries from 1984 to 1990 to ascertain the influence of labor market flexibility. They found that flexible labor markets enjoyed lower rates of unemployment, and in particular lower rates of longer-term unemployment.
What does that mean in plain English? Simple: EFCA will cost jobs.
This morning’s Investors Business Daily carries a letter responding to a recent article by top SEIU official Mike Fishman, who urged passage of the EFCA to help employees and the economy. Today’s letter reads:
Limits On Workers’ Choices
“Card Check Bill Helps Workers And Economy” (On the Left: Counterpoint, Feb. 25) by Mike Fishman is so filled with nonsense, it is difficult to know where to begin.
I have firsthand knowledge of how unions operate and intimidate workers from working at three union positions. I was also involved in two union organization efforts. In all cases, the National Labor Relations Board placed more rules and pressure on the company than on the union organizers. The unions were free in every instance to exert coercion and threaten their members and voters.
This bill is a farce in substance and in name that will strip rights away from workers to make a free choice.
Curt Griggs, Sedona, Ariz.
Following the recent effort to bolster support for the Employee Free Choice Act, in which a union group recently ran an ad in the Washington Post saying that 40 economists actually think EFCA would help — yes, help — the economy, the H.R. Policy Association weighed in.
The group released an analysis (click here) that looked at government data and concluded:
Few would disagree that a strong middle class is a key public policy objective. However, government statistics confirm that changing the nation’s labor laws to increase union power is unlikely to have a positive impact on achieving that objective and may, in fact, negatively effect workers as illustrated by the collapse of the American steel industry in the 1980s and the challenges facing the U.S. auto industry today.
The public continues to weigh in against the Employee Free Choice Act — from editorial page editors and their readers alike.
The Lynchburg, Virginia News & Advance asks the state’s top politicians to stop evading the issue and take a stand against the issue. The editors write to Sen. Jim Webb, Sen. Mark Warner, and Rep. Tom Perriello:
It’s not a hard choice, gentlemen: Do you support the right of an American worker to decide, in secret and in private, whether he wants to be represented by a labor union on the job? Yes or no? And no dodging the question.
Across the continent, the editors of the Pasadena Star-News argue:
This is not a fight that the bipartisan-minded president should invite at this time. That’s one reason why it would be beneficial for Obama and Solis to hold off on card check. Besides, we’re not convinced the need for easier union access is on the front burner, not in today’s difficult economic climate and when jobs are disappearing at alarming rates.
Somewhere in the middle — both geographically and ideologically — come letters to the editors of the Denver Post, which recently ran a pro/con section on EFCA. One reader is sympathetic to working people but finds EFCA the wrong way to go:
After reading your pro and con articles, I am definitely anti-EFCA. I think both were right: Richard Trumka (“America’s workers deserve right to unionize”) is certainly right that the American rank-and-file is in dire straits. But it is the right problem and the wrong solution, as Tony Gagliardi (“America’s workers deserve right to choose”) makes clear.
Secret ballots have been the foundation of our democracy since its inception; why does Big Labor want to subvert that right for its own ends? Ultimately it’s going to be what government does for the working class, not the unions, that really matters.
Another citizen has harsher words for the bill and its proponent:
Richard Trumka demonstrates that a lie by omission is no less vicious than a lie by commission. Trumka manages to expend 766 words without once telling a simple truth that could be said in 16.
In fact, The Post itself tells that truth in 16 words, when it explains that if EFCA becomes law, “workers would have to publicly sign cards, which, employers fear, could lead to intimidation by unions.”
