September 15th marks the second anniversary of New Hampshire's majority sign-up law, which allows public sector workers to form collective bargaining units by signing petitions rather than through an election process. In NH, the State Employees Association (SEA) has welcomed employees of the State Board of Nursing, the Town of Meredith, and the NH Court System--all of whom have all joined the union through the majority sign-up process.

A comprehensive review of 1,004 union organizing campaigns by the Economic Policy Institute in May demonstrated a substantial increase in "coercive and retaliatory tactics" by private sector employers--these tactics include discipline, laying off workers and the surveillance of union supporters. More bad news revealed by the report: "If recent trends continue, then there will no longer be a functioning legal mechanism to effectively protect the right of private-sector workers to organize and collectively bargain." Enter: the Employee Free Choice Act.

Although Employee Free Choice opponents argue that unions will coerce employees to sign authorization cards or obtain a majority through fraud, a recent report "suggests that this claim is frivolous." A recent study of four states with laws allowing workers to form unions though majority sign-up--New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Oregon--"failed to turn up a single meritorious case of coercion or fraud in more than 1,000 majority sign-up campaigns involving 34,000 employees between 2003 and 2009."

In all, there were only five complaints alleging coercion [by union supporters], and not a single one was shown to have any merit." While not identical, the majority sign-up provisions in these four states is similar to the Employee Free Choice Act, proposed legislation that would finally put an end to the illegal, immoral and just plain unfair practices that working people face every day at the hands of their employers, purely for attempting to form a union.

Without workers' freedom to bargain, the economy can't be rebuilt in a way that guarantees the middle class will be rebuilt with it. The Employee Free Choice Act would put real money into the hands of working families without costing the government a dime--and we need your help to make it a reality. Click here to join our campaign.

September 15th marks the second anniversary of New Hampshire's majority sign-up law, which allows public sector workers to form collective bargaining units by signing petitions rather than through an election process. In NH, the State Employees Association (SEA) has welcomed employees of the State Board of Nursing, the Town of Meredith, and the NH Court System--all of whom have all joined the union through the majority sign-up process.

A comprehensive review of 1,004 union organizing campaigns by the Economic Policy Institute in May demonstrated a substantial increase in "coercive and retaliatory tactics" by private sector employers--these tactics include discipline, laying off workers and the surveillance of union supporters. More bad news revealed by the report: "If recent trends continue, then there will no longer be a functioning legal mechanism to effectively protect the right of private-sector workers to organize and collectively bargain." Enter: the Employee Free Choice Act.

Although Employee Free Choice opponents argue that unions will coerce employees to sign authorization cards or obtain a majority through fraud, a recent report "suggests that this claim is frivolous." A recent study of four states with laws allowing workers to form unions though majority sign-up--New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Oregon--"failed to turn up a single meritorious case of coercion or fraud in more than 1,000 majority sign-up campaigns involving 34,000 employees between 2003 and 2009."

In all, there were only five complaints alleging coercion [by union supporters], and not a single one was shown to have any merit." While not identical, the majority sign-up provisions in these four states is similar to the Employee Free Choice Act, proposed legislation that would finally put an end to the illegal, immoral and just plain unfair practices that working people face every day at the hands of their employers, purely for attempting to form a union.

Without workers' freedom to bargain, the economy can't be rebuilt in a way that guarantees the middle class will be rebuilt with it. The Employee Free Choice Act would put real money into the hands of working families without costing the government a dime--and we need your help to make it a reality. Click here to join our campaign.

With Labor Day right around the corner, we wanted to catch you up on what SEIU and our allies have been up to over the last few weeks. From opposition groups confusing their Congressmen to new studies and reports from the states, keep reading for a full recess round-up on Employee Free Choice.

Note to Michigan Anti-Free Choice Group: Next Time, Try Wikipedia? The Jackson Patriot, a local Michigan paper, reported in August about an interesting situation that the Michigan Manufacturers recently found themselves in. "Recently, a billboard went up along Boardman Road, visible from I-94, to urge Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act. Some smart guy realized that even though Peterson represents the 7th Congressional District, this is Michigan, and painted over the last two letters in his name. So now it urges U.S. Rep. Gary Peters to vote no. Right state this time, still the wrong Congressman. Eventually, I'm guessing the Michigan Manufacturers Association will want the billboard it paid for to urge U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer, who represents Michigan's 7th Congressional District, to vote against the union-backed legislation."

New York Times: Low Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says. A new study, "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers" based on a survey of workers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, shows that low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage. Furthermore, "One in five workers reported having lodged a complaint about wages to their employer or trying to form a union in the previous year, and 43 percent of them said they had experienced some form of illegal retaliation, like firing or suspension, the study said." Read the full article here.

Exposed: MT Hair Salons Denying Workers A Right To A Union Before They Are Formed. As reported in both the Great Falls Tribune and The New York Times, a former manager of a hair salon in Great Falls came forward with her story about Regis Corporation asking its employees to sign documents nullifying any union cards they may sign in a future organizing campaign. While Regis claims the cards are being circulated to protect workers' rights to a secret ballot election, the former manager, Keri Gorder said, "I thought it was taking our right away before we ever exercised that right." And a leading labor expert described this tactic as illegal. Read more about it here: and here.

Labor Day List: Partnerships That Work. This week, ARAW released their yearly showcase of employers who "walk the walk when it comes to respecting their own workers' rights, and now they are going a step further by standing up on behalf of all U.S. workers. Every business profiled herein has spoken out on the need for meaningful labor law reform to ensure men and women have decent opportunities and their rights protected." These businesses include: American Income Life Insurance Company, Ivory Leathers, Inc, McGuire Scenic, Morton Williams Supermarkets, Print and Copy Center, Raymond's Painting and Decorating, West Sheet Metal Company, and Wisconsin Vision, Inc. See the full list of employers that have a successful relationships with their employee's labor unions.

No Coercion in Majority Sign-up. In their "Economic Snapshot" for the week of August 19th, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) focused in on a lack of evidence of how majority sign-up or "card check" leads to coercion. Although Employee Free Choice opponents argue that unions will coerce employees to sign authorization cards or obtain a majority through fraud, a recent report, however, "suggests that this claim is frivolous." In fact, "a study of four states--Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and New York--that have had majority sign-up for public sector employees for many years failed to turn up a single meritorious case of coercion or fraud in more than 1,000 majority sign-up campaigns involving 34,000 employees between 2003 and 2009." More here.

Young Workers: A Lost Decade. In a new nationwide survey of young workers released earlier this week, the AFL-CIO found that more than one in three young workers say they are currently living at home with their parents, 31 percent of young workers reports being uninsured, up from 24 percent without health insurance coverage 10 years ago, and one-third of young workers cannot pay the bills and seven in 10 do not have enough saved to cover two months of living expenses. Full report here; read more about the survey here.

ARAW Employee Free Choice Lobby Day. Next week, over 200 progressive activists from 15 states--including small business owners, faith leaders, veterans, farmers and students will travel to Washington and meet with their members of Congress to discuss the reasons we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

If you would like more information about next week's lobby day, please let us know.

With Labor Day right around the corner, we wanted to catch you up on what SEIU and our allies have been up to over the last few weeks. From opposition groups confusing their Congressmen to new studies and reports from the states, keep reading for a full recess round-up on Employee Free Choice.

Note to Michigan Anti-Free Choice Group: Next Time, Try Wikipedia? The Jackson Patriot, a local Michigan paper, reported in August about an interesting situation that the Michigan Manufacturers recently found themselves in. "Recently, a billboard went up along Boardman Road, visible from I-94, to urge Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act. Some smart guy realized that even though Peterson represents the 7th Congressional District, this is Michigan, and painted over the last two letters in his name. So now it urges U.S. Rep. Gary Peters to vote no. Right state this time, still the wrong Congressman. Eventually, I'm guessing the Michigan Manufacturers Association will want the billboard it paid for to urge U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer, who represents Michigan's 7th Congressional District, to vote against the union-backed legislation."

New York Times: Low Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says. A new study, "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers" based on a survey of workers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, shows that low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage. Furthermore, "One in five workers reported having lodged a complaint about wages to their employer or trying to form a union in the previous year, and 43 percent of them said they had experienced some form of illegal retaliation, like firing or suspension, the study said." Read the full article here.

Exposed: MT Hair Salons Denying Workers A Right To A Union Before They Are Formed. As reported in both the Great Falls Tribune and The New York Times, a former manager of a hair salon in Great Falls came forward with her story about Regis Corporation asking its employees to sign documents nullifying any union cards they may sign in a future organizing campaign. While Regis claims the cards are being circulated to protect workers' rights to a secret ballot election, the former manager, Keri Gorder said, "I thought it was taking our right away before we ever exercised that right." And a leading labor expert described this tactic as illegal. Read more about it here: and here.

Labor Day List: Partnerships That Work. This week, ARAW released their yearly showcase of employers who "walk the walk when it comes to respecting their own workers' rights, and now they are going a step further by standing up on behalf of all U.S. workers. Every business profiled herein has spoken out on the need for meaningful labor law reform to ensure men and women have decent opportunities and their rights protected." These businesses include: American Income Life Insurance Company, Ivory Leathers, Inc, McGuire Scenic, Morton Williams Supermarkets, Print and Copy Center, Raymond's Painting and Decorating, West Sheet Metal Company, and Wisconsin Vision, Inc. See the full list of employers that have a successful relationships with their employee's labor unions.

No Coercion in Majority Sign-up. In their "Economic Snapshot" for the week of August 19th, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) focused in on a lack of evidence of how majority sign-up or "card check" leads to coercion. Although Employee Free Choice opponents argue that unions will coerce employees to sign authorization cards or obtain a majority through fraud, a recent report, however, "suggests that this claim is frivolous." In fact, "a study of four states--Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and New York--that have had majority sign-up for public sector employees for many years failed to turn up a single meritorious case of coercion or fraud in more than 1,000 majority sign-up campaigns involving 34,000 employees between 2003 and 2009." More here.

Young Workers: A Lost Decade. In a new nationwide survey of young workers released earlier this week, the AFL-CIO found that more than one in three young workers say they are currently living at home with their parents, 31 percent of young workers reports being uninsured, up from 24 percent without health insurance coverage 10 years ago, and one-third of young workers cannot pay the bills and seven in 10 do not have enough saved to cover two months of living expenses. Full report here; read more about the survey here.

ARAW Employee Free Choice Lobby Day. Next week, over 200 progressive activists from 15 states--including small business owners, faith leaders, veterans, farmers and students will travel to Washington and meet with their members of Congress to discuss the reasons we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

If you would like more information about next week's lobby day, please let us know.

The Economic Policy Institute posted yesterday a recent study that shows literally no coercion in majority sign-up. You can read the meat of the survey here, but the graph says it all.

That's 1,073 majority sign-up campaigns with 5 complaints, 0 of which were found to have any merit.

So when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tries its scare tactics, remember: it's corporations that coerce and intimidate workers who want to join unions. Anything else is just simply not true.

The Economic Policy Institute posted yesterday a recent study that shows literally no coercion in majority sign-up. You can read the meat of the survey here, but the graph says it all.

That's 1,073 majority sign-up campaigns with 5 complaints, 0 of which were found to have any merit.

So when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tries its scare tactics, remember: it's corporations that coerce and intimidate workers who want to join unions. Anything else is just simply not true.

Paul Begala has an incredibly powerful and persuasive op-ed in Politico today making the case for the Employee Free Choice Act. After introducing nightmare hypothetical scenarios of workers getting fired for trying to organize, Begala pulls back the curtain and reveals the stories are about real workers who were fighting for better jobs.

All of these stories are absolutely true. The stories of Trish Miechur, the CNA, and Corey Kresse, the metalworker, are replicated in boardrooms and factories across America. The story of Ken Lewis, Bank of America's CEO? Well, that's a familiar one, too. So here's the question: Why are their experiences so different? Whom do we want our economic policies to benefit?

For eight years under the GOP, economic policy gave CEOs such as Ken Lewis the gold mine, while giving hardworking, middle-class Americans such as Trish and Corey the shaft. President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were elected to change that, and protecting employees from corporate abuses is part of the change we need. That's what the Employee Free Choice Act will do.

Corporate lobbyists say the phrase "Employee Free Choice Act" as though it were a curse. But for Trish and Corey, it's a blessing. The point of the Employee Free Choice Act is to say that we've had enough of an economy that works for Ken Lewis -- and Bernie Madoff, for that matter. We want an economy that works for Trish Miechur and Corey Kresse.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers an opportunity to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and health care at a time of astounding corporate greed. The legislation has three main parts: 1) It says that when a majority of workers want to form a union, a real path is provided for them to do so -- a path chosen by workers, not corporate special interests; 2) it penalizes employers who try to fire or harass workers for attempting to form a union; and 3) it says that once workers have voted for a union, employers have to come to agreement with workers on a contract. Simple stuff, right?

So why are corporate interests squealing like a pig stuck under a gate? Maybe because they're the only ones who prospered under the Bush-Lewis-Madoff policies.

But legislative delays don't diminish the moral and economic imperative for sweeping labor reform and as a result, we must continue to call on Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act with majority sign-up. As Begala notes, this popular piece of legislation will get America's economy moving again, so we have no time to lose.

Paul Begala has an incredibly powerful and persuasive op-ed in Politico today making the case for the Employee Free Choice Act. After introducing nightmare hypothetical scenarios of workers getting fired for trying to organize, Begala pulls back the curtain and reveals the stories are about real workers who were fighting for better jobs.

All of these stories are absolutely true. The stories of Trish Miechur, the CNA, and Corey Kresse, the metalworker, are replicated in boardrooms and factories across America. The story of Ken Lewis, Bank of America's CEO? Well, that's a familiar one, too. So here's the question: Why are their experiences so different? Whom do we want our economic policies to benefit?

For eight years under the GOP, economic policy gave CEOs such as Ken Lewis the gold mine, while giving hardworking, middle-class Americans such as Trish and Corey the shaft. President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were elected to change that, and protecting employees from corporate abuses is part of the change we need. That's what the Employee Free Choice Act will do.

Corporate lobbyists say the phrase "Employee Free Choice Act" as though it were a curse. But for Trish and Corey, it's a blessing. The point of the Employee Free Choice Act is to say that we've had enough of an economy that works for Ken Lewis -- and Bernie Madoff, for that matter. We want an economy that works for Trish Miechur and Corey Kresse.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers an opportunity to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and health care at a time of astounding corporate greed. The legislation has three main parts: 1) It says that when a majority of workers want to form a union, a real path is provided for them to do so -- a path chosen by workers, not corporate special interests; 2) it penalizes employers who try to fire or harass workers for attempting to form a union; and 3) it says that once workers have voted for a union, employers have to come to agreement with workers on a contract. Simple stuff, right?

So why are corporate interests squealing like a pig stuck under a gate? Maybe because they're the only ones who prospered under the Bush-Lewis-Madoff policies.

But legislative delays don't diminish the moral and economic imperative for sweeping labor reform and as a result, we must continue to call on Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act with majority sign-up. As Begala notes, this popular piece of legislation will get America's economy moving again, so we have no time to lose.

Yesterday we delivered a petition in support of majority sign-up and the Employee Free Choice Act to the Senate. A grand total of 18,836 people signed our petition in just a week! That's really amazing.

SEIU members Theo Jackson, a social worker from California, and Athena Jones, a home health care worker from Virginia, delivered our petition to the office of Senator Tom Harkin, the lead champion in the senate for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Watch this video of Theo and Athena delivering the petition to the Senate yesterday:

Congratulations on this success. With your continued support, we'll make sure our economy can work for everyone again with the Employee Free Choice Act.

In response to New York Times reports that Senate Democrats were dropping the "majority sign-up" provision of the Employee Free Choice Act, over 17,000 people signed petitions for Congress showing their support of the provision. The petitions will be hand-delivered to Congressional offices next week by SEIU members.

Just yesterday I wrote that about 10,000 people had signed our petition, and asked for your help to reach 15,000. Not only did you meet the goal ahead of schedule, you blew right past it. Our current count shows 17,701 people have signed our petition! Thanks so much for your support.

Don't worry if you haven't signed yet - you can add your name here.

SEIU International President Andy Stern had this to say about the news:

"Reports of the death of majority sign-up, to paraphrase Mark Twain, have been greatly exaggerated. SEIU and the thousands of people who have already taken action know that majority sign-up is still, bar none, the fairest way for workers to negotiate for better job security and wages, given the intensity of employer harassment and intimidation.

"We desperately need legislation to level the playing field for working people against record-setting corporate greed and intimidation, at a time when millions are losing jobs, benefits and retirement security."

Stern wrote activists on Tuesday, asking them to sign the petitions and noting,

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. It's the best way to make sure workers have a free and fair choice to join a union without intimidation or harassment.

It's important that both the House and Senate consider majority signup. Working people want to see where Congress stands on this common-sense idea to level the playing field against corporate greed.

The petition can be found at http://action.seiu.org/page/s/majoritysignup.

Since Andy Stern kicked off our campaign this week, more than 10,000 people signed our petition in support of majority signup - but we still need to hear from you.

Next week SEIU members will deliver our petition to the senators working on the Employee Free Choice Act. We want at least 15,000 people to show support for majority signup before we go to Congress.

Can you help us reach 15,000 signatures and add your name to the petition? Click here to sign.

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. It's the best way to make sure workers have a free and fair choice to join a union without intimidation or harassment.

Thank you for your support. We'll be in touch again when our members deliver the petition.

On the on the heels of recent news that reports a bill version of the Employee Free Choice Act in the Senate may not include majority sign-up provisions, we thought we'd revisit why we need this provision included in legislation to restore giving workers the actual choice of whether they want union representation.

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. And the public agrees: three-quarters (75%) of adults favor allowing workers to have a union once a majority of the employees in a workplace sign authorization cards indicating that they want to form a union, including 44% who strongly support the idea. [Hart Research Associates, 1/8/09 ]

One of the most common scare tactics corporate special interests continue to use to try and stop the Employee Free Choice Act is the charge that majority signup is baaaaad for workers because it makes them feel pressured or coerced into signing cards. To those opponents we say: check your facts. Academic studies show that workers who organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-workers to support the union than workers who organize under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election process.

During NLRB elections, 46 percent of workers complained of pressure from management. In contrast, during majority signup campaigns, only 4.6 percent of workers who signed a card with a union organizer reported that the presence of the organizer made them feel pressured to sign the card. [Adrienne Eaton, Ph.D. of Rutgers University, and Jill Kriesky of Wheeling Jesuit University, Fact Over Fiction: Opposition to Card Check Doesn't Add Up, 9/06]

So, where's the controversy? "As negotiations on the Employee Free Choice Act continue in Congress, members need only look at public opinion to realize the only controversy over majority signup is being fabricated by a vocal, well financed, factually-challenged minority led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporate powerhouses like Wal-Mart," said Tom McMahon, Executive Director of Americans United for Change in a statement today.

There's no debate among working people in this country that the system is badly broken for the 60 million workers who would form a union tomorrow if they could. The current labor system is no longer effectively protecting and enforcing workers' rights in the election process. It has become a system that allows big business and corporate special interests to routinely harass, intimidate and even fire workers who try to form a union and bargain for better pay and benefits and a voice on the job. "These Corporate special interests will continue to say or do anything to keep the system broken, but when three-quarters of the American people agree majority signup is central to labor reform and building a strong economic foundation for our disappearing middle-class, Congress really doesn't have to listen," says McMahon. We couldn't agree more.

Majority signup is a democratic, proven approach that allows workers to have a fair, direct path to join unions--and it's important that both the House and Senate consider this common-sense idea to level the playing field against corporate greed.

Please add your name to the petition to Congress in support of majority signup and the Employee Free Choice Act.

On the on the heels of recent news that reports a bill version of the Employee Free Choice Act in the Senate may not include majority sign-up provisions, we thought we'd revisit why we need this provision included in legislation to restore giving workers the actual choice of whether they want union representation.

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. And the public agrees: three-quarters (75%) of adults favor allowing workers to have a union once a majority of the employees in a workplace sign authorization cards indicating that they want to form a union, including 44% who strongly support the idea. [Hart Research Associates, 1/8/09 ]

One of the most common scare tactics corporate special interests continue to use to try and stop the Employee Free Choice Act is the charge that majority signup is baaaaad for workers because it makes them feel pressured or coerced into signing cards. To those opponents we say: check your facts. Academic studies show that workers who organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-workers to support the union than workers who organize under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election process.

During NLRB elections, 46 percent of workers complained of pressure from management. In contrast, during majority signup campaigns, only 4.6 percent of workers who signed a card with a union organizer reported that the presence of the organizer made them feel pressured to sign the card. [Adrienne Eaton, Ph.D. of Rutgers University, and Jill Kriesky of Wheeling Jesuit University, Fact Over Fiction: Opposition to Card Check Doesn't Add Up, 9/06]

So, where's the controversy? "As negotiations on the Employee Free Choice Act continue in Congress, members need only look at public opinion to realize the only controversy over majority signup is being fabricated by a vocal, well financed, factually-challenged minority led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporate powerhouses like Wal-Mart," said Tom McMahon, Executive Director of Americans United for Change in a statement today.

There's no debate among working people in this country that the system is badly broken for the 60 million workers who would form a union tomorrow if they could. The current labor system is no longer effectively protecting and enforcing workers' rights in the election process. It has become a system that allows big business and corporate special interests to routinely harass, intimidate and even fire workers who try to form a union and bargain for better pay and benefits and a voice on the job. "These Corporate special interests will continue to say or do anything to keep the system broken, but when three-quarters of the American people agree majority signup is central to labor reform and building a strong economic foundation for our disappearing middle-class, Congress really doesn't have to listen," says McMahon. We couldn't agree more.

Majority signup is a democratic, proven approach that allows workers to have a fair, direct path to join unions--and it's important that both the House and Senate consider this common-sense idea to level the playing field against corporate greed.

Please add your name to the petition to Congress in support of majority signup and the Employee Free Choice Act.

This is Andy Stern, President of SEIU.

I wanted to write you about the recent news about the Employee Free Choice Act. The New York Times reported on Friday that the Senate is considering dropping majority signup from the Employee Free Choice Act.

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. It's the best way to make sure workers have a free and fair choice to join a union without intimidation or harassment.

It's important that both the House and Senate consider majority signup. Working people want to see where Congress stands on this common-sense idea to level the playing field against corporate greed.

I created a petition to Congress for you to show support for majority signup. Can you please add you name?

In the last week, we've seen that Wall Street is back to business as usual. Bank of America and Citigroup posted billions in profits. Goldman Sachs made $38 million a day in the last three months and is set to pay out record bonuses.

Corporate greed alive and well, despite billions in bailouts. Meanwhile, unemployment is still rising, and many working people are still struggling to get by in the rough economy.

That's why we need the Employee Free Choice Act. At its core, the Employee Free Choice Act is about fairness. By giving employees the free choice to join unions - and not their bosses - majority signup allows workers to have a voice on the job.

Congress needs to hear about your support for majority signup. Sign my petition to Congress in support of majority signup and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Thanks for all you do.

This is Andy Stern, President of SEIU.

I wanted to write you about the recent news about the Employee Free Choice Act. The New York Times reported on Friday that the Senate is considering dropping majority signup from the Employee Free Choice Act.

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. It's the best way to make sure workers have a free and fair choice to join a union without intimidation or harassment.

It's important that both the House and Senate consider majority signup. Working people want to see where Congress stands on this common-sense idea to level the playing field against corporate greed.

I created a petition to Congress for you to show support for majority signup. Can you please add you name?

In the last week, we've seen that Wall Street is back to business as usual. Bank of America and Citigroup posted billions in profits. Goldman Sachs made $38 million a day in the last three months and is set to pay out record bonuses.

Corporate greed alive and well, despite billions in bailouts. Meanwhile, unemployment is still rising, and many working people are still struggling to get by in the rough economy.

That's why we need the Employee Free Choice Act. At its core, the Employee Free Choice Act is about fairness. By giving employees the free choice to join unions - and not their bosses - majority signup allows workers to have a voice on the job.

Congress needs to hear about your support for majority signup. Sign my petition to Congress in support of majority signup and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Thanks for all you do.

In response to today's New York Times piece on the Employee Free Choice Act, SEIU President Andy Stern issued the following statement:

With corporate interest groups going on the attack around the Employee Free Choice Act, workers are now speaking out about why they want to join a union and sharing stories about the employer resistance, intimidation and threat of termination they've encountered when trying to organize their workplace. "We are only asking for the right to make the decision about whether or not we want a union," says personal care attendant Paulette Ducre-Howard.

Under the Employee Free Choice Act, the choice of how to form a union, whether by majority sign-up or an election, would be put into the hands of workers--not corporations. With Employee Free Choice, we can rebuild this economy from the bottom up and give workers back the power to negotiate for better wages, benefits and working conditions.

Watch CNAs Trish Mishner and Regina Simmons, security guard Nick Old, and RN Mike Kingsbury sat down to share their stories about why the Employee Free Choice Act matters to them.

Meet the new Right-to-Work-for-Less laws: state ballot initiatives to mandate "secret ballot" elections for union votes, trying to preempt the Employee Free Choice Act. On December 30, 2008, a new coalition calling itself the "Save Our Secret Ballot" (SOSB) coalition emerged onto the scene, announcing an under-the-radar state-level campaign to amend the state constitutions of Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada and Utah to require a secret-ballot election for union representation.

What we really have here is yet another misleadingly-named corporate front group, whose real goal is to prevent workers from having a voice in an economy that works for everybody, not just for the wealthy. In Nevada and Utah, the legislature would place the proposed amendment on the ballot, while the coalition has begun to gather signatures in Arizona, Arkansas, and Missouri. SOSB hopes to expand its efforts to put initiatives on the ballot to prevent workers from opting in to form unions through majority sign-up to additional states.

Save Our Secret Ballot (SOSB) is a coalition of right-wing think tanks whose ideas have led us into the current economic crisis, working with individuals with ties to the Jack Abramoff scandal and a recent high-profile financial scandal.

Proposed State Constitutional Amendment

The 47-word amendment reads:

"The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."

The proposed language would require a secret ballot for any election required by state or federal law for:

(1) public office
(2) public initiatives or referenda
(3) employee representation

SOSB suggests that elections for homeowner associations and corporate boards may also be impacted by amendment language in some states.

Who is SOSB?

SOSB appears to be a project of the Goldwater Institute (which wrote the language) and the Heritage Foundation (whose representative chairs the SOSB national advisory board). The SOSB coalition itself has a national advisory board and a number of local supporters who have also been named in the press surrounding the public campaign kickoff.

The SOSB coalition refuses to disclose donors.

Advisory Board members

• Former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), national advisory board chairman, Heritage Foundation. The Congressman received donations from Jack Abramoff (which were later returned), his office used an Abramoff company skybox, and his former chief of staff John Albaugh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the House in connection to gifts from Abramoff clients. Istook ran for Oklahoma Governor in 2006, but lost in a 66-34 landslide to the Democratic nominee.
• Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute, author of initiative. Bolick previously worked on defending school voucher programs and opposing affirmative action.
• Jonathan E. Johnson III, President, Overstock.com. Overstock.com was under SEC investigation in early 2008, and Johnson was accused on financial blogs of lying about the company's accounting practices and engaging in improper sales of stock.
• Gilbert Baker, Arkansas State Senator. Baker stepped down as Senate Majority Leader to focus on his own re-election campaign. U.S. Senator Pryor raised funds for Baker's opponent.
• Adam Hasner, Florida State House Majority Leader. Hasner has promoted alternative energy and sponsored a law requiring Florida's pension funds to divest from Iran.
• John Loudon, Missouri State Senator
• Mark Meierhenry, former South Dakota Attorney General
• Brian M. Johnson, executive director of the Alliance for Worker Freedom, a project of Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform
• Paul Jacob, President, Citizens in Charge, a right-wing think tank.

Other SOSB Supporters

• Tim Mooney, Scottsdale (AZ) political consultant. Mooney was previously involved in an effort to require schools to spend 65% of all funding on direct classroom expenses.
• Audrey Mullen, SOSB spokesperson who previously worked for Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.
• Sydney Hay, President, Arizona Mining Association. Hay registered the Arizona initiative. Hay recently failed in her bid to represent Arizona's first Congressional District.
• Pat Lilly, former city manager, St. Joseph (MO). Lilly says the period between filing for a union election and the election itself was critical to "educating" workers when he himself defeated a union drive among city workers in the mid-1990s.
• Bill Vickery, Arkansas political consultant, co-chair of Arkansas SOSB.
• Carl Wimmer, Utah state representative. Wimmer apparently plans to sponsor the amendment in the Utah legislature.
• Tibi Ellis, Nevada state chair of SOSB
• Dave Rouchka, owner of Medallion Electric (Sedalia, MO), co-chair of Missouri SOSB
• Glenn Hamer, President, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
• Jeff Roe, Kansas City political consultant

You and I know that the same people and corporations who have destroyed our economy, shipped jobs overseas and created the largest gap in pay between workers and CEOs oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. See below for some of their erroneous claims and the facts that you need in order to refute them.

Claim 1: The current process for workers to organize unions and gain recognition is carefully designed and tested by time.

Corporate interest groups would have us believe that supporters of majority sign-up recognition are seeking to upend a stable, sacrosanct and long-established system for recognizing workers desire to form a union. However, a detailed and unbiased look at the history of union recognition paints a very different picture. Majority sign-up has established roots in labor law as a vehicle for achieving representation - indeed it is still used in situations where the employer agrees to voluntary recognition--and corporate interests have fought against it since its inception in a contentious debate that continues today. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that majority-sign up is a legitimate way to determine majority support.¹

Majority sign-up was a legitimate union recognition option under the original representation process codified in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. Even after the statute was revised by the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments, the National Labor Relations Board still recognized majority sign-up unless the employer could show a good faith doubt about the majority status.² Gradually, the burden shifted onto unions to prove that an employer was acting in bad faith, but only since a pair of Supreme Court cases in 1969 and 1974 have employers had the unilateral ability to reject majority sign-up procedures and require an NLRB-supervised election.³

Claim 2: The current process for workers to organize unions and gain recognition is fair and quick.

Corporate interest group-funded research points to general NLRB statistics concerning isolated aspects of the organizing process over narrow periods of time to support their argument that the union election process is quick and fair.

In fact, reliance on statistics about time frames for elections misrepresents the reality of what it really takes for workers' to unionize under current law. A comprehensive study of union-organizing drives across several stages of the process by two MIT Professors at the Sloan School of Management refutes these claims handily.⁴ After looking at 22,000 petitions for an election filed with the NLRB between 1999 and 2004, they conclude that:

• In only 20 percent of the cases where, after showing substantial support by workers for union representation, a petition was filed with the NLRB for an election, did the workers ever reach a first contract with their employer. Examining the process, from the filing of a petition to the end of the bargaining process, shows that the current system is structured for delay, obstruction and ultimate failure. Only 65 percent of petitions filed with the NLRB actually resulted in elections and workers won only 56 percent of these elections. Of the workers who won NLRB elections, only 56 percent reached a first contract with their employers.
• Unfair Labor Practices committed by employers after the petition for an election was filed made it less likely that an election would be held - reducing the probability by 25 percent. The largest effect of unfair labor practices was to keep employees who had indicated they wanted union representation from having access to a fair election.

The Employee Free Choice Act ensures that when a majority of workers sign cards saying that they want to form a union, they aren't subject to a lengthy and obstruction-filled process.

Claim 3: Union elections work just like a regular election for public office - supporters of majority sign-up are attacking democratic values.

If one looks closely at the current union election process, you would see that it does not resemble anything that would be considered fair or democratic. Simply labeling some process as a "secret ballot election" doesn't make it fair or democratic. The NLRB election process looks more like a lopsided and unfair election process set up by an authoritarian regime with anti-union employers playing the part of foreign dictator. Under current rules, management is allowed to spread its anti-union propaganda throughout the workplace , while pro-union employees are prohibited from doing the same. Employers are free to stage anti-union campaign rallies and meetings on work time in the work place with workers required to attend. Employers can also subject workers to mandatory one on one anti-union sessions with the very supervisors who have the power to fire them, give them work assignments, recommend them for promotion or discipline, grant overtime and authorize time off for family emergencies. In contrast, union organizers, who have no power to punish or reward workers or to compel their attention, are barred from the workplace - or even publicly-used, company-owned areas like parking lots.⁵

Studies by social scientists show that employer threats are a widespread part of election campaigns under the current process. A study by Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University (funded by the United States Trade Deficit Review Commission, not a big corporation) of 400 NLRB certification election campaigns found that more than half of all employers made threats to close all or part of the plant during a union organizing drive.⁶

These threats proved effective - the election win rate at plants where employers made these threats was 38 percent, compared to 51 percent where they did not. The study found no correlation between a company's financial condition and the likelihood that a threat would be made, instead it identifies anti-union animus as the principle cause of these threats. The Employee Free Choice Act includes meaningful penalties on companies that fire or intimidate workers, which the evidence suggests is widespread.

1. See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co. 395 U.S. 575


2. See Joy Silk Mills, Inc. (85 NLRB 1263)


3. See NLRB v.. Gissel Packing Co. 395 U.S. 575 and Linden Lumber Co. v. NLRB419 U.S. 301


4. John-Paul Ferugson, "The Eyes of the Needles: A Sequential Model of Union Organizing Drives, 1999-2004." MIT Institute for Work and Employment Research, March 15, 2008.


5. Gordon Lafer, Neither Free Nor Fair: The Subversion of Democracy Under National Labor Relation Elections. American Rights at Work Project, July 2007.


6. Kate Bronfenbreener, Uneasy Terrain: The Impact of Capital Mobility on Workers, Wages, and Union Organizing. Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations, September 2000.