In recent Wal-Mart news, a really disturbing precedent: A Canadian court overturned the UFCW certification granted to Wal-Mart workers in December 2008, keeping alive a five-year-old battle between Wal-Mart and the union.

Workers in Saskatchewan, Canada first voted for union representation over four years ago, and Wal-Mart stalled and threw up every road block they could to keep the workers from getting a fair deal. And now, a Canadian judge has essentially ruled that because labor laws have changed since the Weyburn Wal-Mart workers legally won union representation, these workers are no longer represented by a union. According to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the UFCW applied for union certification in 2004 after a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit signed union cards. A vote by secret ballot was not required under labor laws in effect at that time. Changes to provincial labor law implemented in May 2008 now require a vote by secret ballot to certify a union--and Justice Peter Foley ruled this past week that the labor relations board erred in certifying the union at the Wayburn Wal-Mart.

Kevin Groh, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, said workers now employed at the store "cheered" when they were told of the latest court ruling. This seems like an odd reaction, since Wal-Mart is not exactly known for offering generous salaries. Business Week reported in April, 2008, that Wal-Mart workers earn an average of $22,500 annually. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the threshold of poverty in 2006 for a family of four was $21,200.

In this dismal economy, low-wage workers are struggling more than ever to make ends meet. If they had a union, these Wal-Mart employees would be able to negotiate better health benefits, working conditions, and wages above the poverty line. This issue also speaks to the greater problem of the long and arduous process workers are forced to endure to gain union representation and a first contract. 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. Sadly enough, the 4+ years these Wal-Mart workers endured in their fight for a union is not uncommon. Two years after first voting to form a union, a whopping 37 percent of workers still have no contract.

What do you think of this ruling? Was the Canadian court's decision to overturn the UFCW certification justified?

Republicans pursue failed strategy attacking Dems on Employee Free Choice

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is planning on going after Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Michael Bennet (D-CO), according to a Roll Call article today. Yet the NRSC seems to have already forgotten the lessons of the 2008 campaigns, in which groups spent millions attacking Democrats on Employee Free Choice only to see those candidates go on to win--with voters approving Employee Free Choice by a considerable margin.

"We thought elephants never forgot, but Republicans have clearly forgotten the lessons of the 2008 elections: attacking Democrats on Employee Free Choice simply doesn't work," said SEIU Political Director Jon Youngdahl. "The fact is, voters see through these misinformation campaigns by wealthy corporate lobbyists. Working families know that when it comes to protecting their jobs and giving them a voice in the workplace, greedy CEOs just aren't on their side."

In 2008, Opponents Spent Millions Attacking Democratic Candidates, But the Democrats Still Won and the Voters Still Supported EFCA

In 2008, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and front groups like Americans for Job Security, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and the Employee Freedom Action Fund spent upwards of $20 million to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act. This includes more than $6.3 million on TV ads specifically targeting Democratic Senate candidates on the issue in battleground states.

These attacks were completely ineffective. Not only were six of the targeted Democratic candidates elected, but research shows that a majority of voters in these battleground states supported the Employee Free Choice Act by wide margins even after the millions spent by the bill's opponents. A Hart Research survey conducted in November in seven Senate battleground states where anti-Employee Free Choice ads ran found that voters supported the Employee Free Choice Act by a 27-point margin.

Sociology professor Daisy Rooks of the University of Montana put the Employee Free Choice Act in its proper perspective with her glowing endorsement atop the editorial page of The Missoulian.

Too often the forces against America's working families derail true debate by posing false -- but seemingly powerful and righteous -- concerns. Does Free Choice deprive workers of the secret ballot?

No. Under today's laws, the "secret ballot" requested by employers is a sham. It's a way for employers to intimidate and fire pro-union workers to rig the election.

SEIU members in Florida have helped beat an anti-union ballot initiative designed to undermine Employee Free Choice and deny workers their rights. Through a grassroots campaign, Florida members defeated the so-called "Save Our Secret Ballot" initiative, part of a national campaign led by big business and right-wing think tanks. This amendment (House Joint Resolution 1013) hides behind the false pretense of protecting democracy for workers by 'protecting the secret ballot,' while the real goal is to restrict workers' ability to have a voice in the workplace.

SEIU Florida members weren't fooled by this misleadingly-named amendment and were able to keep this initiative off the ballot--an initiative that was not only unconstitutional but would have also have had a particularly negative effect on Florida public sector workers. SEIU Florida members made over 2,600 calls and delivered more than 1,000 postcards to key legislators. Nearly 30 SEIU members lobbied in Tallahassee and 50 members held a march in front of Hasner's office in Delray Beach. Bravo!

In Washington, they may have questioned whether the Employee Free Choice Act battle was drawing to a close. Good thing no one told the rest of the country, where rallies and activities in favor of the bill are going strong. From Maine to North Dakota, activists gathered to tell their Senators, the time for the Employee Free Choice Act is now. Here are some highlights of our nationwide effort.

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

We're already hearing - and seeing - good things from Congress about their priorities for 2009.

On Monday, the Senate Democratic caucus announced support for ensuring workers can freely choose to form a union. Now Congress is taking up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure equal pay for equal work.

But it's not surprising that big business is ratcheting up attacks on this legislation and employee free choice since they have consistently lobbied against commonsense measures that help working families.

If we want to create an economy that works for everyone again instead of just those at the top then we have to act now. That's why yesterday, SEIU launched the Change That Works campaign--a massive, grassroots movement in 35 states to ensure working people win the change they voted for in November.

If you click on the links below, you'll find key information about the Change That Works campaign and how the Employee Free Choice Act will help rebuild the middle class--and facts that set the record straight on the opposition's misleading campaign to oppose employee free choice.

• SEIU Unveils Major National Campaign to Bring Economic Solutions to Main Street (January 7, 2009)
• New York Times: Employee Free Choice Act Is "Vital" (January 6, 2009)
• A New Year's Resolution for America's Working Families: Creating An Economy that Works for Everyone (December 19, 2008)
• Corporate Front Group Americans for Job Security Airs Misleading Ad on Employee Free Choice (December 16, 2008)
• Employee Free Choice Act Fast Facts Update: Spotlight on Mark McKinnon (December 15, 2008)
• Employee Free Choice Act Fast Facts Update: The Facts on the Secret Ballot (December 10, 2008)

P.S. Know someone else who should receive our updates on the Employee Free Choice Act? Tell your colleagues to sign up for these updates on this page: http://freechoice.seiu.org/page/s/freechoiceupdate

The corporate misinformation campaign is already running strong--spreading lies and distortions about the Employee Free Choice Act. One blatant mischaracterization suggests that this common sense proposal is somehow a "radical" change to federal labor law. In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act reflects long-standing American principles of balance, choice and fairness in the workplace and restores protections for workers that have been eroded over time.

Here's an update about the legislation (below), courtesy of Jon Youngdahl, SEIU Political Director, Change that Works Campaign.

P.S. Know someone else who should receive our updates on the Employee Free Choice Act? Tell your colleagues to sign up for these updates on this page: http://freechoice.seiu.org/page/s/freechoiceupdate