MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act played a role in Tuesday's elections.

Corporate lobbyist-backed groups like the Workforce Fairness Institute and other conservatives made the fact-free claim that Tuesday's elections were a referendum on the Employee Free Choice Act. Wrote WFI in an email to supporters:

National issues played heavily in The Old Dominion and no issue played more of a role in the debate than the Employee 'Forced' Choice Act or EFCA.

The Truth? Exit polls showed 71% of voters named health care or the economy as their number one issue Tuesday. And despite the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others' millions in spending to make Employee Free Choice an issue in last November's elections, they failed to have an impact there as well: a majority of voters stated that they supported the legislation, and that it was not a significant factor in their vote.

FACT: Workers who want to form a union routinely face harassment from their employers.

Lowe's employee breakroom signs against Employee Free Choice

After Lowe's Home Improvement settled last month (for nearly $30 million) a class action suit for requiring workers to work "off the clock," workers were greeted with the sign to the right in their workplace breakroom--a not-so-subtle reminder of the company's position on giving workers a voice on the job.

Employer intimidation continues to be a problem, and it's nothing new: according to a study by Cornell labor expert Kate Bronfenbrenner, 34 percent of the time workers try to form a union, their employers fire union supporters. Sixty three percent of the time companies interrogate workers, 54 percent of the time they threaten union supporters, and 47 percent of the time they threaten to cut workers' wages and benefits.

Editors and fact checkers at several major news outlets were having a seriously bad case of "the Mondays" yesterday, as The Washington Post, CNBC, NY Times, Fox News and other major newspapers were duped by a Chamber of Commerce hoax perpetrated by the Yes Men at the National Press Club. An email with a fake press release was picked up by several outlets who wanted to be first on the scene to report the Chamber's position reversal on climate change.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce suffered the latest in a string of PR embarrassments yesterday. The AM news cycle kicked off with Senior White House advisor Valerie Jarrett calling the Chamber's positions "old school" and their $100 million campaign for free enterprise "wasteful" in a harsh interview to Huffington Post. The Chamber claims that this campaign is a way to create jobs, but their underlying motives for the initiative (mainly to defeat regulatory reform) are being questioned by the White House and other powerful corporations more and more.

Hours later,  the Chamber got "punked" by the Yes Men, whose fake news conference in which the "Chamber" supposedly changed their position in favor of climate change legislation, also got covered by major news outlets. The events that unfolded at the faux press conference were hilarious. High profile corporate prankster Andy Bichlbaum (half of The Yes Men duo), who was posing as a 'special assistant' to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Thomas J. Donohue. Reporters were engaged in a serious Q&A with U.S. Chamber "representative" when Chamber rep Eric Wohlschlegel stormed into the Press Club, yelling that the press conference is a hoax and demanding to see everyone's business cards. Because how else can you legitimize anyone as a credible source in Washington, DC without the exchange of business cards, right?

The real Chamber rep and the fake Chamber rep then proceed to have a ridiculous stand-off, with escalating demands from Wohlschlegel to see Bichlbaum's business card and accusations of fraud coming from both sides. The confrontation ended with Wohlschlegel dispensing his business card to various reporters in the room, and doing his best to evade pointed questions about the Chamber's real stance on climate legislation currently in Congress, which the (real) Chamber opposes. As the finale, the Chamber rep grabbed the woman managing the sign-in sheet and demanded she turn it over.

This description doesn't do this event justice though, so please watch the video--as my coworker says, it truly is "comedy gold." And here's Rachel Maddow's interview with Mother Jones reporter Kate Sheppard, who was present at the yesterday's press conference stunt:

The Chamber's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad days seem to be increasing in recent weeks. First there's the fallout from groups like Nike and Apple over their climate change policies and opposition to curbing greenhouse gases. Then they announce their sham of a plan to create 20 million jobs by relying on the same failed economic practices of the past that put big corporate interests ahead of ordinary Americans. MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan grills Tom Donohue shortly after, calling him out on his "nonsense."

Until the Chamber of Commerce changes their extreme views on issues like climate change, health care reform, financial regulations, and labor law reform, we foresee many more terrible, horrible, no good very bad days in their future.

The extremist views of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce leave it far outside the mainstream.  Your senators need to hear from you: don't listen to the greedy CEOs at the U.S. Chamber. Click here to sign the petition.

The last one to leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, please turn off the lights.

In the last week, three major energy companies have quit the U.S. Chamber. And just today, Nike left its role on the U.S. Chamber's Board.

The exodus from the corporate front group is taking place because of its extreme views on issues like climate change, health care reform, financial regulations, and labor law reform. We must use this opportunity to further isolate the U.S. Chamber as an out-of-touch outfit that only serves the interest of a handful of greedy CEOs.

Sign the petition to your senators: listen to working people, not the greedy CEOs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

From health care and financial reform, to Employee Free Choice and climate change, the U.S. Chamber's extremism leaves it far outside the mainstream.

Want to know just how wacko the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is? Here's just a couple examples:

• An official from the U.S. Chamber called for a "21st century version of the Scopes Monkey Trial" to determine if global warming was real - equating climate change with creationism.
  
• The U.S. Chamber admitted to using money from bailed out companies to fund its campaigns against working people and the Employee Free Choice Act. This is billions that came from your tax dollars.
  
• Declaring pregnancy to be a "voluntary condition," the U.S. Chamber opposed a 1978 law that prohibited discrimination against pregnant women.

The U.S. Chamber can't be taken seriously. While it purports to represent Main Street businesses, the U.S. Chamber's true interests lie with Wall Street and greedy CEOs.

Your senators need to know this - the corporate front group is in Congress every day, lobbying for its extremist positions. They need to be immediately discredited.

Sign the petition to the Senate now: don't listen to the extremist U.S. Chamber of Commerce on any issue.

Thanks for doing your part to tell the truth about the U.S. Chamber. With your help, we'll make sure they're the loneliest front group in Washington.

South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson is really embracing his newfound stardom as Heckler-in-Chief.

So what's Wilson's latest outburst? Slamming the Employee Free Choice Act to a corporate group fighting the bill.

Here's what Wilson said:

I am opposed to the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act because it all but eliminates an employee's right to a secret ballot and would require the government to step in between an employer and their employees to impose binding arbitration. It would be a clear detriment to job creation and a roadblock to reform.

I believe this legislation is bad for employers and employees alike and should be put aside altogether.

I have heard from individuals in the Second Congressional District who believe we need to protect the rights of our employees and that includes the right to a secret ballot. They understand how this legislation would damage job creation and hurt an economic recovery.

To his credit, the transcript appears to reflect Wilson's ability to keep his cool and not shout during the interviewer's questioning. That said, Wilson couldn't be more wrong on the issues (not that you're surprised about that).

First, even the Wall Street Journal knows the Employee Free Choice Act doesn't take away the secret ballot. It's a thoroughly debunked falsehood to which Wilson desperately clings, much like his incorrect, inappropriate initial outburst in Congress.

Second, South Carolina stands to greatly benefit from the Employee Free Choice Act: in just one year, $130 million would flow into the state's economy to benefit more than 50,000 working men and women.

But just as Wilson stands in the way of health insurance reform, he's opposed to leveling the playing field for South Carolinians struggling in our economy against corporate greed.

When will Joe Wilson wake up and realize it'll be best for South Carolina and the rest of the country if he returns to his back bench seat and just stays quiet? The stakes are big in Congress, and Wilson's wrongheaded deceptions have no place.

Anne Layne-Farrar is a consultant at LEGC, an expert services and consulting firm. Layne-Farrar specializes in intellectual property and antitrust issues. In March 2009, Layne-Farrar released a report titled "An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications." The report's key claim is that the Employee Free Choice Act will increase unemployment by increasing union density. This finding's implausibility is apparent when the model is applied to the historic trends in the U.S. labor market. Additionally, independent studies contradict Layne-Farrar's conclusions. The report was funded by the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs, an organization of leading opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act including the HR Policy Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

LAYNE-FARRAR'S CONCLUSIONS

Layne-Farrar Predicts Increased Unemployment as Union Density Increases. Layne-Farrar states, "In particular, my quantitative analysis indicates that passing EFCA would likely increase the US unemployment rate and decrease US job creation substantially. The precise effect on unemployment will depend on the degree to which EFCA increases union density, but for every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration, the following year's unemployment rate is predicted to increase by 1 percentage point and job creation is predicted to fall by around 1.5 million jobs."

FACTS CONTRADICT LAYNE-FARRAR'S FINDINGS

Numerous Countries Combine High Union Density And Low Unemployment Rates. The United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Ireland are among the many advanced nations to enjoy high rates of union density alongside comparable or lower rates of unemployment.

Layne-Farrar's Model Would Project A 2008 Negative Unemployment Figure. From 1950-59, U.S. union density averaged 32.7% and the U.S. unemployment averaged 4.51%. In 2008, union density dropped to 12.4%. Layne-Farrar's model suggests that the more than 20% drop in union density between the two periods would correlate with a drop in unemployment of 6.8 percentage points, resulting in a current unemployment rate of -2.26%. The 2008 U.S. unemployment was 5.8%.

OBJECTIVE STUDIES FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES HAVE COME TO THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS

OECD Employment Outlook: Union Density Impact on Unemployment "Statistically Insignificant." The 2006 Employment Outlook from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states, "By contrast, the impact of EPL and union density on unemployment are statistically insignificant. These findings are not inconsistent with recent theoretical developments that predict that: i) lay-off regulations tend to affect more the distribution of unemployment rather than its level; and ii) the bargaining power of unions has more to do with the way rents are distributed rather than the level of labour demand."

Top Harvard Labor Market Economist Richard B. Freeman: Change In Union Density "Has No Noticeable Effect On Economic Performance." In his 1988 paper in the European Economic Review, Professor Freeman concludes, "With the sole exception of non-agricultural employment, where density is estimated to raise employment, none of the estimated parameters are significant, implying that variation in union density around its mean within a state has non noticeable effect on economic performance."

Lawrence Mishel: Layne-Farrar Study "Crackpot Economics." Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, said the study amounted to "crackpot economics." "I don't find it credible at all," Mishel said. He said that using the study's logic, the US would have "negative unemployment" as a result of the decrease in union membership over the past 30 years. He said many other countries, including England, Switzerland, Denmark, and Norway, have higher unionization and lower unemployment than the United States.

OPPONENTS OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS INTERESTS FUNDED LAYNE-FARRAR STUDY

An Alliance Of Employee Free Choice Act Foes Funded The Layne-Farrar Report. The Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs, a group that included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the HR Policy Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors and the American Hotel and Lodging Association provided funding for the Layne-Farrar report.

From William Whitman Jr., Vice President, Communications, McDonald's USA:

The statement below should help provide further clarification regarding McDonald's recent communication with our franchisees about the Employee Free Choice Act. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

McDonald's Statement:

"We regret our internal effort to keep our franchisees informed on all aspects regarding this legislation has been leaked to the press and mischaracterized as an anti-union campaign. This was not our intent.

McDonald's is not engaged in an anti-union campaign.

In fact, we pride ourselves on being the restaurant organization for all people -- especially during tough economic times like these.

As such, we try to not take sides in political issues, because we know our customers come from all walks of life, and represent diverse opinions and backgrounds.

Regarding this legislation, as a restaurant organization with 3,100 independent small businesses, we have a responsibility to inform and educate our system about legislation that could impact their business. This was the intent of the communication in question.

Unfortunately, the message was leaked to the media and excerpts were used to create the impression that McDonald's is engaged in anti-union activities. Again, this was not our intent.

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify McDonald's position -- and again, we regret any misrepresentation of the facts."

William Whitman Jr.
Vice President, Communications
McDonald's USA