Legislation that would facilitate unionization passed the
House of Representatives on Thursday, March 1. But that may be the measure’s
high point,
with uncertain Senate prospects and a veto threat from President Bush looming
ahead.
The House approved the bill 241-185, with 13 Republicans
joining 228 Democrats in supporting the measure, which would permit a union to
be formed if a majority of workers sign authorization cards.
Under current law, a company can accept a so-called
card-check election or force a secret ballot vote supervised by the National
Labor Relations Board.
In addition, the bill would allow a company or a union to
refer a first contract dispute to mediation after 90 days and to binding
arbitration after 30 days of mediation. It would impose fines up to $20,000 on
companies that discriminate against workers during organizing campaigns and
force them to pay treble back wages.
The House defeated GOP amendments to allow employees to put
themselves on union “do not call” lists and to mandate that elections occur only
through secret balloting.
Advocates for the bill argue that it would allow employees to
freely form unions without coercion from employers.
“It’s ending intimidation of hardworking Americans … when
they simply say, ‘I want a union,’ ” Rep. George Miller, D-California and
chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said in a press briefing
after the vote.
Opponents assert that the measure would subject workers to
pressure from unions, who they say have championed the bill as a means to boost
their declining numbers.
Earlier in the week, the Bush administration formally
announced that the president would veto the bill if it reached his desk.
“The administration opposes any effort to circumvent
supervised elections and private balloting,” a policy statement says. “It is a
fundamental tenet of democracy that individuals are able to vote their
conscience, free from the threat of reprisal.”
Before getting to the president, the bill has to survive the
Senate, where it needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. A similar bill garnered
45 Senate co-sponsors in the last Congress.
On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
R-Kentucky, made ominous overtures about the House bill. “I can assure you that
it will meet a different fate when it gets to the Senate,” he said in a
speech.
Miller says that the bill is building momentum that will help
it in the Senate because proponents are tasting victory that was impossible
during Republican control of Congress.
He and other Democrats cite the unionization measure, along
with an increase in the minimum wage, as evidence of their support for the
middle class, which has seen pensions disappear and health care costs escalate
despite big corporate profits.
“We’re here to make the economy fairer,” House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, D-California, said in the post-vote press conference.
Republicans, however, say Democrats are motivated by
politics. They accuse them of promoting the bill as a payback to unions for
their support during the 2006 election, when Democrats took control of the House
and Senate. Labor contributed $56.7 million to Democratic candidates, according
to the Center for Responsive Politics.
“It’s almost beyond my imagination that this bill is on the
floor of the House of Representatives taking away the secret ballot election,”
said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, during the floor debate. “It’s
about upsetting the balance between workers and management. This is an effort to
help [unions] get more members.”
The business lobby is putting up a fierce fight against the
bill. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce grass-roots campaign has resulted in 40,000
individual contacts with Capitol Hill offices and involves targeted radio ads in
many congressional districts.
Some companies, however, have allowed their employees to form
unions through the card-check process. Cingular says that doing so has helped it
increase employee engagement and improve customer relations.
Miller says that easing unionization establishes a
cooperative atmosphere in the workplace “rather than two armed camps.”
“This has exciting potential for forward-thinking,
forward-leaning companies,” he says.
—Mark Schoeff Jr.
Tell us what you think. Discuss this article in the
Workforce Management Community
Center or e-mail your comments to
editors@workforce.com.