binding arbitraiton

Feinstein Withdraws Support for EFCA (for now)

by Ivan Osorio on June 3, 2009

in Economy, Labor

California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is withdrawing her support for the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), organized labor’s top legislative priority, reports a California news station. She joins two Democratic colleagues, Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and party switcher Arlen Specter (Penn.), in opposing the bill. (Log-in required to view KHTS news story.)

While this is a serious blow to EFCA in its current form, Democratic leaders are working on devising a “compromise” that would likely not include the current bill’s card-check provision, which would effectively do away with secret ballots in union orgaizing elections, while keeping EFCA’s other harmful features.

Chief among these is EFCA’s binding arbitration provision, which would enjoin a federally appointed arbitrator  to impose a contract on newly unionized companies if the company’s management and the union do not reach an agreement after 120 days. Needless to say, the arbitrator is unlikely to have any knowledge of the company’s operations.

Thus, a newly unionized company could find itself burdened with millions in new liabilities in the form of obligations to pay into union a pension fund, as required in the new arbitrator-imposed contract. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute found, many such funds are severely underfunded, especially in comparison to private company funds. It is for this reason that the Teamsters are currently threatening to shut down the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Sen. Feinstein’s switch is very good news, but it is not the end of this fight. Card check may have receded, but binding arbitration still looms on the horizon as a threat to economic recovery.

UPDATE: Indeed, the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein quotes a “confidant of the senator” as saying: “She is looking for a compromise. And anyone who says otherwise is engaging in some wishful thinking.”

I’d call this strategic fence-sitting.

For more on EFCA, see here.

George McGovern on Binding Arbitration

by Ivan Osorio on May 7, 2009

in Economy, Employment, Labor

With Democrats just shy of the 60 votes they need to end a filibuster, the fate of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act remains in the balance in the Senate. While the current version of the bill seems unlikely to pass, EFCA supporters are likely to try alternative versions. One such option is EFCA without its controversial card check provision, which would allow unions to circumvent the secret ballot in organizing elections, and has been the bill’s most controversial provision to date.

However, EFCA-minus-card check would still be economically toxic. Specifically, its binding arbitration provision would put businesses at the mercy of the federal government. In today’s Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, who recently has spoken out against EFCA’s card check provision, explains binding arbitration’s danger:

Currently, labor law maintains a careful balance between the rights of businesses, unions and individual employees. While bargaining power differs depending on individual circumstances, the rights of the parties are well balanced. When a union and a business enter negotiations, current law requires that both sides bargain “in good faith.”

In a contract negotiation, each party typically perceives the other as too demanding. But no one loses their right to contract willingly or suffers being forced to agree to anything. Employees can strike if they feel that they have been dealt with unfairly, but it is a costly option. Employers are free to reject labor demands they find to be too difficult to accept, but running a business without experienced employees is itself difficult. Both sides have an incentive to press their demands, but they also have compelling reasons not to press their demands too far. EFCA would disrupt that balance by enabling government-appointed lawyers to decide what they believe is fair or reasonable.

A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case. Yet fundamental decisions on wages and benefit costs, rules for promotions, or even rules for exiting an unprofitable line of business could fall to federal arbitrators under EFCA.

For more on EFCA, see here, here, and here.