Corporate groups are expanding their attack on working people and the Employee Free Choice Act. The latest volley? Defending the status quo of ineffective penalties for when corporations break the law. Yeah, they went there.

In a Wall Street Journal editorial, John Irving, an adviser to the National Association of Manufacturers, advocates for the current toothless system that allows corporations to get off scot-free when they break the law. Irving helpfully explains just how toothless the current system is:

For example, employers who might sincerely assert to their employees that "unions cause plant shutdowns" or "could cause loss of customers" may or may not be exercising lawful free speech, depending on the views of the labor board at the time. If employers fall afoul of the law today, they face only nonpunitive "make-whole" and "cease and desist" sanctions. [...]

There is no provision in current law for punitive fines and treble damages. Nor is there any requirement, as there would be under EFCA, that nondiscretionary injunctions be sought against employers based solely upon the NLRB general counsel's determination of "reasonable cause."

What does that mean? Irving finds virtually no fault in intimidating threats, and is supportive of the fact that one of the most severe penalty employers face is to say they won't do it again. One of the most "severe" penalties corporations face when they break the law is to post a notice in the workplace saying they broke the law and promise to never do it again - presumably with their fingers crossed.

Irving then goes on to explain just what the Employee Free Choice Act would do for corporations that break the law:

But EFCA dramatically escalates these penalties. Under the new bill, the employer could be subject to a $20,000 fine for each questionable statement, and to near-automatic injunction proceedings based on union-filed unfair labor practice charges.

Hearing Irving complain about increased penalties for when corporations break the law is like hearing Bear Sterns complain about collapsing after its own actions led to its demise. Give me a break.

Besides, we need only look to the text of the Employee Free Choice Act to understand these proposed penalties:

"Any employer who willfully or repeatedly commits any unfair labor practice ... while employees of the employer are seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization has been recognized ... until the first collective bargaining contract ... shall, in addition to any make-whole remedy ordered, be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $20,000 for each violation.

In determining the amount of any penalty under this section, the Board shall consider the gravity of the unfair labor practice and the impact of the unfair labor practice on the charging party, on other persons seeking to exercise rights guaranteed by this Act, or on the public interest."

There you have it - these penalties are intended to punish corporations that WILLFULLY or REPEATEDLY break the law. Once again, we have corporations trying to say they're above the law and shouldn't be punished for breaking it.

This is the reality workers face when they try to join a union:

About 49 percent of employers openly threaten to close down a worksite when faced with a unionization drive. Untold more tell individual workers, in captive meetings, that jobs will be lost. 30 percent make good on the threat in real time, firing workers who engage in union activities. 82 percent hire unionbusting consulting firms which teach them how to most effectively shutter a union drive while either technically staying in the limits of the law, or breaking it in such a way that the gains will outweigh the eventual fines.

That is unacceptable, but it's what workers face every day in this country. If corporations break the law, they need to be held accountable. That's why it's so important to protect strong penalties in the Employee Free Choice Act. Don't let corporate groups talk their way out of this one - it's time corporations get the message that it's not OK to break the law.