Workers join together and unionize to improve their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Yet a full year after voting to form a union, 52 percent of new unions still haven't been able to secure any improvements because their employers have used delay tactics to avoid signing a first contract.

It stands to reason that if a majority of workers vote to form a union in their workplace, then a union they shall have! Yet the sad reality is that all too often, employers do not respect the outcomes of union elections. The current labor law is grossly slanted in favor of employers and anti-union corporations who engage in unproductive "bad faith bargaining" or delay tactics to keep workers from getting a fair deal. The resistance to collective bargaining has only gotten worse in recent years. Even in cases when workers do successfully win their union election, over half of of new unions still have no contract one full year later after they are certified because companies refuse to negotiate in good faith. And two years later, 37 percent of workers still have no contract.

Congress needs to stand up for the workers who deserve the chance to gain fair first contracts. As a new ad by American Rights at Work points out, any legislation to reform our current labor system must include an arbitration option to push management to complete negotiations in a fair, timely manner---and stop anti-union corporations from gaming the system.

This is the third ad in the series by ARAW making the case for arbitration as a critical part of the Employee Free Choice Act. The ad will run in Roll Call, The Hill, Politico and CQ. Read more about ARAW's ad campaign and view their first two ads here.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce just released a letter to the Senate, detailing the corporate group's hypocrisy in opposing first contract arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act. The U.S. Chamber was apparently reeling from recent newspaper ads highlighting their two-faced approach to the issue, and wanted to explain itself to the Senate.

The Chamber's R. Bruce Josten writes:

To justify these provisions, or perhaps to support some type of alleged compromise, the unions have deliberately tried to muddy the waters by arguing that the business community's support for dispute arbitration is somehow inconsistent with its opposition to interest arbitration as envisioned by the Employee Free Choice Act. This is a desperate attempt at smoke and mirrors because the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

That's correct - for the U.S. Chamber, the situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. That's because the U.S. Chamber only prefers arbitration when they can stack the deck in corporations' favor. Otherwise, forget about it.

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.

Hollywood actor Danny Glover has always used his celebrity to support unions and organizing drives, pro-worker political candidates and the Employee Free Choice Act. Today on the Huffington Post, Glover urges binding arbitration as a path to end to the conflict around the dissolution of the UNITE HERE merger.

Glover, who has lobbied with union members on Employee Free Choice and stood with workers on picket lines in Niagara Falls, first spoke about the failure of the 2004 UNITE HERE merger at the Workers United organizing conference in March 2009. Today, Glover calls for President Wilhelm to accept Workers' United President Bruce Raynor and SEIU President Andy Stern's offer to enter into binding arbitration.

"I will always be a union activist, and I am proud of that," says Glover. Read more on the Huffington Post here.

From the moment they flew people to Washington, DC to lobby against the Employee Free Choice Act, things were just not going the Chamber of Commerce's way...

From bringing a major labor law violator to lobby on behalf of (wait for it...) labor law reform, to getting caught in a lie by Sen. Feinstein, this can't be how the Chamber wanted their lobbying week to go.

TERRIBLE: As one of their main lobbyists on labor law reform, the Chamber of Commerce brings to Washington... a major labor law violator.

One of the Arkansas business leaders that the Chamber flew in was Michael Keck of St. Vincent Health System, where multiple unfair labor practices have been filed against management. (As an executive, Michael is "management.") It took St. Vincent nurses more than 3 years to get a union contract, during which time the National Labor Relations Board had to step in at least twice.  Read the full TPM piece here.

HORRIBLE: The Chamber claims that Sen. Dianne Feinstein no longer supports Employee Free Choice, and is promptly smacked down...by Sen. Feinstein. After a local California Chamber group met with Sen. Feinstein, they put out the word that she was changing her position; she did not support the bill. The only problem? It was flatly untrue. In response, Sen. Feinstein issued this clarifying statement:

"A statement has been put out mischaracterizing my position on this bill. The truth is that I am working to find common ground between the needs of both business and labor in order to reach a bipartisan solution. I believe we must find a way to protect the privacy of individual workers so that they may elect whether to form a union free of intimidation."

The same day, Sen. Johnson came out in favor of Employee Free Choice.

According to Wednesday's Argus Leader, Sen. Tim Johnson told a delegation of South Dakota business leaders Wednesday that he would vote to bring a controversial labor bill to the Senate floor for debate. "His decision to vote to consider the Employee Free Choice Act is a blow to local and national business groups, which have lobbied strenuously against the measure," wrote the Leader. It's "very significant," acknowledges the state Chamber president.

NO GOOD:  According to a Maine small business owner: The US Chamber of Commerce doesn't speak for small businesses any more than Burger King speaks for cows.  In response to a statement by the US Chamber of Commerce that Small Business owners oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, Mainer Ben Wootten said: "The US Chamber of Commerce doesn't speak for small businesses any more than Burger King speaks for cows. While the Chamber works overtime to represent the narrow interests of bloated, wealthy corporations, our nation's small businesses are struggling simply to keep their doors open.  We need common-sense measures like health care reform and the Employee Free Choice Act to help small business owners control costs and ensure that their employees feel truly invested in the long-term future of their workplace."

VERY BAD: Backed into a corner, they're now making misleading claims about the Employee Free Choice Act in a new ad. Many people saw the misleading and hypocritical ad the Chamber of Commerce placed in Roll Call and Politico yesterday. The fact is that -- when it suits them -- companies use binding arbitration all the time. In March of this year, the Chamber called Consumer Arbitration, "Fair, Inexpensive, and Unbiased."  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.  Sixty-two percent of workers who form a union lack an agreement one year later and companies refuse to even negotiate in good faith in over 28% of cases.

The goal of workers seeking to form a union is to sit at the table with the employer
and bargain an agreement on their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Gaining
union representation can be a long and arduous process for workers. Even when workers
are able to form a union, the NLRA fails them because so many are denied the right to
collectively bargain with their employer.

A recent study document that only 38% of new unions are able to negotiate a first
contract within one year of NLRB certification and only 56% are able to achieve a
contract after two years. That means that under the NLRA, 44% of new unions still don't
have contracts two years after they are certified, and many newly-unionized workers
never achieve a first contract.

We broke down what these delays mean for several states. Download the individual reports here.

• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Indiana
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Montana
• Nebraska
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Virginia

The goal of workers seeking to form a union is to sit at the table with the employer
and bargain an agreement on their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Gaining
union representation can be a long and arduous process for workers. Even when workers
are able to form a union, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) fails them because so many are denied the right to collectively bargain with their employer.

A recent study document that only 38% of new unions are able to negotiate a first contract within one year of NLRB certification and only 56% are able to achieve a contract after two years. That means that under the NLRA, 44% of new unions still don't have contracts two years after they are certified, and many newly-unionized workers never achieve a first contract.

We broke down what these delays mean for several states. Download the individual reports here.

• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Indiana
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Montana
• Nebraska
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Virginia

In an opinion piece published by the Washington Post this morning, industrial and labor relations scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner writes about the obstacles facing workers today.

Over a five year period, Bronfenbrenner studied more than 1,000 union elections and the behavior employers exhibited during the process.

Here's what she found:

• In 34% of the elections, companies fired employees for union activity.
• In 57% of the elections, employers threatened to shut down their facilities
• In 47% of the elections, employers threatened to cut wages and benefits
• In 63% of elections, supervisors interrogated workers in one-on-one meetings, and in 54% of elections supervisors threatened individual workers in those meetings.

The system itself, she states, is failing "to defend workers' rights in a timely manner" and creates "delays that favor employers." That, in itself, is a large reason to support the Employee Free Choice's "first contract arbitration" section. Bronfenbrenner found that 52% of workers "who form a union are still without a contract a year after they win an election," and 37% "remain without a contract two years after the election." For employers, she notes, "labor law provides yet another means to indefinitely delay unionization."

Bronfenbrenner concludes that "if recent trends continue, there will no longer be a functioning legal mechanism to effectively protect the right of private-sector workers to organize and collectively bargain."

Read the full opinion piece here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060202967.html

Today, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial piece, titled "Blinding Arbitration," in which you can witness the screaming of "injustice" in regards to the arbitration process proposed in the Employee Free Choice Act.

Fundamentally, it's backwards. Reading it, I began to wonder what reality these people live in.

The editorial paints the current contract negotiation process as something that "works." Ask anyone who's been through the process, and they'll tell you that it works - but only for corporations. The employees, instead, tend to get the shaft. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of workers who form a union still don't have a contract after one year, and companies refuse to negotiate in good faith in over 28 percent of cases.

To big business, it's a process that works because they have all of the control. As Former Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott once said, "we like driving the car, and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."

Now, to keep the steering wheel in their hands, they're desperately beginning to make stuff up again. Remember how they told you that Employee Free Choice would "take away the secret ballot?," but it wasn't true, at all? (Even the Wall St. Journal admitted the Employee Free Choice Act doesn't take away secret ballots.)

Here's one of the arguments we're starting to see as it appears in the today's Wall Street Journal:

"Unions in particular will be inclined to ask for the moon (during first contract negotiation), knowing they will do well even if an arbitrator merely splits the difference...This would put (an arbitrator), with no real stake in a company's future, in charge of divining the perfect wage and work rules for that company."

The "shoot for the moon" language is also laughable for anyone who's been through the arbitration process. "Shooting for the moon" only makes an arbitrator think you're less reasonable, and thus, the arbitrator is far less inclined to side with your demands. Historically, it's the side that's seen as most fair, most willing to compromise, and most reasonable that generally is more convincing to the arbitrator. Once again, this goes along with the notion that arbitrators must be seen as fair and neutral in order to maintain their viability as an arbitrator.

It's also important to see what we're talking about here. Reading the editorial, you almost get the picture that an arbitrator comes in, reinvents the wheel, dictates everything a company can do, and has no accountability to anyone.

But, in reality, arbitration would only used in situations where it's desperately needed. First contract arbitration is a safety net only if the parties' negotiations are unsuccessful, and only on the sticking points that would otherwise prevent workers from getting a contract. Most of all, this is only a process that would be used in the first contract only - and thus, only valid for the duration of that one particular contract.

Yet, this information is carefully omitted from this editorial, and quite frankly, from any argument we've seen.

Sure, there's "blindness" here. But it's our firm belief that the blindness here is caused by greed and the coercive power of the need for the "steering wheel." For once, if the "safety net" protection of first contract arbitration is in place, neither a company nor a union would be able to control the process unfairly. That, to the opponents of first contract arbitration, is the scariest thing they've had to contend with in decades.

Union members in California and across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers.

Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in California were on average 12.7 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, California workers that join a union will earn 12.7 percent more--or $2.87 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Unions are Good for California's Economy, 2/18/09]

Latino Union Workers Earn More & Have Better Benefits. The most recent data suggest that even after controlling for differences between union and non- union workers --including such factors as age and education level -- unionization substantially improves the pay and benefits received by Latino workers. After controlling for workers' characteristics, the union wage premium for all Latino workers is 17.6 percent or about $2.60 per hour. The union advantage for Latino workers is even larger with respect to health insurance and pension coverage. Unionized Latino workers were about 26 percentage points more likely to have health insurance and about 27 percentage points more likely to have a pension than their non-union counterparts. [CEPR Report: Unions and Upward Mobility for Latino Workers, 9/08]

• The Janitors for Justice campaign in California produced wage increases of 22 to 26 percent for mostly Latino workers. In April 2000, "some 8,500 janitors represented by the SEIU won raises of 22 percent to 26 percent after a highly publicized three-week strike." The janitors were "mostly immigrant Latinos making less than $ 7 per hour." [The Daily News of Los Angeles, 11/5/00]

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.

Corporate lobbyists and executives are gearing up for their next round of attacks on the Employee Free Choice Act. But the next battle is bound to show them for who they are: greedy people who will do anything to hold onto their power.

In recent weeks, corporate groups have waged war to prevent workers from enjoying what CEOs take for granted: a contract.

Watch our "coming attraction" trailer for the new battle:

Anti-worker groups are now attacking the "first contract arbitration" portion of the Employee Free Choice Act. It seeks to stop employers from using endless foot-dragging against workers who have voted for a union, but have yet to secure a contract.

Their new line of attack is entirely hypocritical. Corporations use arbitration all the time, because for years, they've said it's a fast, inexpensive way to settle disputes.

It doesn't have to be a battle, but CEOs are doing all they can to stop the Employee Free Choice Act. To them, this is "Armageddon" and "the demise of a civilization." It's an epic battle that must be fought to preserve the status quo, and of course, their lavish lifestyles.

Tell your members of Congress that they need to support the Employee Free Choice Act. Tell them that they need to choose their constituents over the corrosive power of greed. We're counting on them to help level the playing field to improve the lives of the American people that they represent.

Watch the video and write to your members of Congress here: http://action.seiu.org/epicbattle

In a post on the US Chamber of Commerce's blog, Brad Peck attempts to argue against our point that corporate lobby groups - such as the Chamber itself - were long for arbitration before they started assailing the process as a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad thing.

One problem about his argument: it has no argument.

Anti-worker groups have attacked the "first contract arbitration" portion of the Employee Free Choice Act. That provision 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 Chamber's Peck throws some names out against us, calling us "moronic." There's even a reference to the cartoon character Fat Albert, for reasons unclear as of the time of this blog post. But, nope, no actual argument.

Perhaps it's because they actually have no argument other than "we like arbitration - but only when we get to set the rules."

In a new round of attacks against the Employee Free Choice Act, corporate lobbyists and executives are showing their true, greedy selves.

In recent weeks, corporate lobbyist groups such as the Center for Union Facts, the Chamber of Commerce, and conservatives like Newt Gingrich, have waged war to prevent workers from enjoying what CEOs take for granted: a contract.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, and in a Politico op-ed from Newt Gingrich last month, anti-worker groups have attacked the "first contract arbitration" portion of the Employee Free Choice Act. That provision 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.

Besides the foot-dragging, this assault on first contract arbitration is particularly disturbing for another reason: Corporations use arbitration all the time, because they say it's a fast, inexpensive way to settle disputes.

Here are just some of the quotes that opponents of Employee Free Choice have said about arbitration in the past:

"For more than 80 years, arbitration has helped Americans settle disputes fairly, quickly and inexpensively, without having to file a lawsuit or navigate the court system." - Lisa Rickard, president of the US Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform (4/2/08)

"Arbitration is mutually beneficial, which is what we have always thought." - Arne Wagner, assistant general counsel for Bank of America [ABA Journal, December 1994]

"[F]ederal policy... favors the use of arbitration as an efficient, effective, and less expensive means of resolving disputes...Arbitration, has served as an essential valve for the nation's overburdened civil justice system." - Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee signed by US Chamber of Commerce, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Retail Federation, National Association of Manufacturers, Jackson Lewis, et al (2/7/08)

There's one position that CEOs have been fairly consistent on, however: if it allows them to hold on to their corporate power against working families, then they're all for it. Even if it means being a little "flexible" in their public stances.