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."

The "first contract arbitration" portion of the Employee Free Choice Act seeks to stop employers from using endless foot-dragging against workers who have voted for a union, but have yet to secure a contract. The legislation says that if employers and workers can't reach an agreement in a reasonable amount of time--120 days--either side can bring in a neutral, private-sector arbitrator to settle the dispute.

In March of this year, the Chamber of Commerce called Consumer Arbitration, "Fair, Inexpensive, and Unbiased."
Many corporations--like the Chamber-- are happy to support arbitration when it's in their best interest, and put arbitration provisions into 75 percent of consumer contracts.

But when it comes to creating a contract that works for workers, companies often refuse to negotiate a first agreement, or use stall tactics and gimmicks to delay the process for years. They praise arbitration when it favors them, but oppose it in settling first contracts--and will use any tactic they can to avoid paying their employees better wages and benefits.

Under the NLRA, 44 percent of new unions still don't have contracts two years after they are certified because companies refuse to even negotiate in good faith. Our current labor system for workers trying to form a union has proven its inability to defend workers' rights in a timely manner time and time again. Supporters of the freedom to form unions are fed up with delays that favor employees, and American Rights at Work has launched a campaign to point out the hypocrisy of Big Business on arbitration.

American Rights at Work launched their first print ad last week demonstrating how corporations are attacking the idea of arbitration when it involves their employees--while supporting arbitration in a variety of areas where it benefits them. Today, the second print ad in their series is out. Here's a preview of the ad that is running in Politico, CQ, Roll Call & The Hill:

Ad text:

Big Business is happy to support arbitration when it's in their best interest. But when it comes to negotiating contracts with their workers, Big Business would rather use delay tactics to avoid paying better wages and benefits. It's only fair that corporations agree to arbitration for workers who are trying to negotiate a first contract after forming a union. Arbitration is a key part of the Employee Free Choice Act that will let both sides reach a fair agreement.

Last week hundreds of CEOs and other businesspeople flew to Washington, DC to pressure your senators. They want Senator Jim Webb to stand with the same greedy CEOs who wrecked our economy in the first place.

I need you to fight back. We just produced this ad making it clear that Senator Webb can't stand with CEOs. Send your message to Senator Webb now.

Some of the biggest corporations in America are lining up to fight Virginia's working people. They're spending millions of dollars - some of it your tax dollars from the bailouts! - to stop corporations from being held accountable.

They think that they can send in CEOs to make Senator Webb forget about working people. With your help, we can make sure that doesn't happen.

Tell Senator Webb to stand with working families and support the Employee Free Choice Act:

Last week hundreds of CEOs and other businesspeople flew to Washington, DC to pressure your senators. They want Senator David Vitter to stand with the same greedy CEOs who wrecked our economy in the first place.

I need you to fight back. We just produced this ad making it clear that Senator Vitter can't stand with CEOs. Send your message to Senator David Vitter now.

Some of the biggest corporations in America are lining up to fight Louisiana's working people. They're spending millions of dollars - some of it your tax dollars from the bailouts! - to stop corporations from being held accountable.

They think that they can send in CEOs to make Senator Vitter forget about working people. With your help, we can make sure that doesn't happen.

Tell Senator Vitter to stand with working families and support the Employee Free Choice Act.

In today's Washington Post, political columnist Harold Meyerson explains the importance of first contract arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, which is the second main plank of the legislation.

"But the kind of democratic choice that business favors is choice without consequence -- a position made clear by its opposition to the other key component of EFCA: binding arbitration between company and union if they've been unable to agree on a contract within 120 days of a union winning the election. A study of first-contract negotiations by John-Paul Ferguson and Thomas A. Kochan of MIT's Sloan School of Management makes clear why such arbitration is needed. After surveying 22,000 unionization campaigns between 1999 and 2004, the authors found that even after a majority of workers voted for a union, they actually reached a contractual agreement with management (which is currently under no legal obligation to come to an agreement) only 56 percent of the time.

"Heads, management wins. Tails, the employees lose."

It's ironic that businesses rely on arbitration all the time as a means of resolving differences; in this regard, arbitration is a tool for business success. Yet when it comes to giving workers recourse to an arbitrator as a means of getting a first contract between their newly-formed union and the employer, big business is suddenly opposed to arbitration. They praise arbitration when it favors them, but oppose it in settling first contracts.