It seems the corporate fellas over at the National Association of Manufacturers are a bit confused about the difference between free speech and breaking the law as it relates to the Employee Free Choice Act.

This week we criticized a NAM adviser who defended corporate lawlessness on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. The adviser found virtually no fault with intimidating threats, and complained that corporations wouldn't be able to stop employees from joining unions without punishment. NAM responded to our criticism, raising the false specter of corporations "who express their opinions [being] punished for that expression."

Except the Employee Free Choice Act says no such thing. Indeed, as we noted yesterday, the bill specifically sets out to punish corporations that WILLFULLY or REPEATEDLY break the law.

Let's take this difference for a simple exercise in which a boss talks to an employee about buying an apple.

Statement one: "I don't think you should buy that apple."

That's free speech!

Statement two: "If you think about buying that apple, I'll fire you from your job, you'll lose your health insurance, and we might move the apple overseas."

That would be breaking the law!

You see, there's a big difference between free speech and intimidation. One is OK. The other is against the law. The Employee Free Choice Act seeks to put teeth into the law so that when it's willfully or repeatedly broken, corporations can be punished for doing so - just like any other person who breaks any other law.

So, unless NAM is concerned its members will WILLFULLY or REPEATEDLY break the law, there's nothing to be worry about. Right, NAM?

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.

On legislation to help small biz, U.S. Chamber is "Chamber of No"

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims to defend the interests of small businesses, but even a quick examination of their legislative record shows them opposing bill after bill that may help small businesses--and consistently siding with big corporations. From legislation that would ease the burden of credit card terms for small businesses, to bills that would stop outsourcing, the U.S. Chamber has proven to be the "Chamber of No." Here's our list of the top five worst Chamber policies for small businesses.

1) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sided with Big Credit Card Companies over Small Business Owners. Small business owners are increasingly likely to rely on credit cards to finance their business operations, yet- like the rest of us- are increasingly finding the terms of their card agreements less favorable. The U.S. Chamber sided with big credit card companies over small business in the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008--legislation to provide common-sense regulations on credit.

Small Business Owners Rely On Credit Cards, Get Hurt By Credit Card Companies. A recent survey by the National Small Business Association found that 59 percent of all small businesses used credit cards to fund capital purchases and that 34 percent of small businesses held over one quarter of their business debt in credit cards. Moreover, 75 percent reported that the terms of their credit cards had become less favorable in the last six months.

2) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Sided with Big Oil Over Small Businesses on Bill to Stabilize Gas Prices. Despite the fact that gas prices were skyrocketing, the U.S. Chamber opposed the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, legislation designed to stabilize gas prices during a period of meteoric price increases. The bill-- which would have created a special supplemental 25 percent tax on the windfall profits of major oil and gas companies, suspended the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, punished price gouging, and limited oil market speculation-- would have gone a long way to help America's small businesses, who are disproportionately sensitive to fluctuations in energy prices and price gouging at the pump.

3) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Opposed Legislation to Help Steelworkers Keep and Create Jobs in the U.S. The Chamber showed its true colors when it opposed "American-made" provisions in the aptly named "American Steel First Act," which would require infrastructure projects receiving federal funds to use American-made steel. The requirement would help domestic steel producers enjoy the benefits of federal stimulus funds, keeping much-needed jobs and commerce in the United States. Although mammoth companies like GE and Caterpillar get half or more of their revenue from exports, the same is emphatically not true of many small, local businesses and steel producers who deserve to benefit from federal spending before foreign counterparts.

4) U.S. Chamber Opposed Legislation to Stop Outsourcing of Call Centers
The US Chamber has continually supported the out-sourcing of jobs, despite small business support for legislation like the Call Center Consumer's Right to Know Act, an anti-outsourcing bill that requires call centers to disclose their location during each call. The small companies associated with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Electronics Association (AEA) oppose outsourcing because it allows larger multinational companies to take advantage of cost-cutting mechanisms that are unavailable to smaller businesses, causing small businesses to close.

5) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Opposed Expanding Healthcare for, Low-Income Families and Children- Siding with Big Tobacco Over Small Businesses. By opposing the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 and the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, the Chamber again found itself on the wrong side of small business interests. The National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Business Roundtable both supported the SCHIP extension because they believe "small business owners and their employees are especially vulnerable to the weakness of the current system." The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to Senators Baucus and Grassley, called the bill "a broad-based entitlement program is grossly unfair" particularly for states with "tobacco-based agricultural and industrial activities."

[...] "We need a united labor movement to stand with us and show the positive results of collective action.

"The longer this fight goes on, the more it will be used against all of us by the Chamber of Commerce, NAM, the National Right to Work Committee, Richard Berman, and others who are determined to destroy everything we have fought for, together, in all our years as trade unionists."

On May 19th, over 50 religious leaders from a diverse range of faiths and denominations came to Washington, DC to lobby members of Congress on support of the Employee Free Choice Act. The newly-formed coalition of religious leaders and people of faith--Faith Leaders for Workplace Fairness--publicly announced their support for the labor reform bill on a conference call with press last week, calling the legislation a "moral imperative" and a civil and human right.

Watch our video of the day here:

Over the last few days, several conservative websites and corporate interests have decided that such a coalition is unacceptable, because they apparently own all the stock on religion.

Rather than actually debate the substantive aspects of the legislation (other than constantly repeating the lie that it eliminates "secret ballot elections," which, unfortunately for them, doesn't make it true) these groups have decided to, instead, mock these people of God.

The basic argument goes something along the lines of, "how dare clergy members and rabbis insinuate that God would believe in social justice!"

Right-wing blogger/commentator Michelle Malkin claims that these members of clergy are a new "front group." Apparently, she's decided to take it upon herself to declare that their strong beliefs in God and their dedication towards social justice are fake and just purely expedience at work.

Speaking of front groups, the National Association of Manufacturers, the big lobby group for some of the largest manufacturers in the world, have decided that it'd be fun to mock the fact that members of different faiths have joined together in agreement, calling it "kumbayaism.":

"Light a candle. Sing a song. Destroy a job."

We all remember the story of Chicken Little-and why wouldn't we? She was a one-trick chicken: "The sky is falling!" she would proclaim, in response to any situation, and to anyone who would listen.

Well, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) have adapted Chicken's strategy. When confronted with legislation to improve American workers' lives, the Chamber and NAM invariably threaten economic ruin and rampant government control.

The problem is, their predictions have never come true. Consider their records:

On fair pay for women: NAM opposes the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to strengthen women's ability to challenge pay discrimination.

On rights for people with disabilities: When the Americans with Disabilities Act was being debated back in 1989, the Chamber opposed it, saying, "Small businesses simply do not have the money in the bank"

On minimum wage increases: NAM opposed a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15/hour in 2000. In 2007, the Chamber also opposed increasing the minimum wage, claiming that "Even this modest increase will hurt free enterprise."

On guaranteed family medical leave: The Chamber opposed the FMLA back in 1991, claiming, "We think most Americans don't want the federal government to be their personnel administrators."

It's no surprise that corporate CEOs are resorting to these tactics. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott admitted the real reason the Chamber and their friends oppose the Employee Free Choice Act-"We like driving the car and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."

So next time you hear these Chicken Little claims, remember they seldom add up.