Workers confront their boss at the Crystal City Sheraton to demand card check neutrality, March 2009 (Flickrr/Mar is sea Y)

A rabbi and lawyer with a large Union representing health care workers has written us explaining why the latest piece of Democrat feebleness will hurt workers; or to put it less emotively, he explains why the moderate Democrats who oppose “card-check” are wrong in arguing that it is undemocratic because, they say, it gives too much power to unions to “bully” workers and not enough to employers:

I was deeply disappointed to read in the Friday July 17, 2009 edition of the New York Times that the Democrats have decided to drop “card check” from their planned legislation removing barriers from workers exercising freedom of choice for their representatives for workplace governance. As a labor lawyer for the past 28 years I have extensive exposure to the barriers faced by workers in trying to gain the right of representation in workplace governance. As a candidate for public elected office I have seen first hand how the rules for other governance bodies are free of most of the barriers that are placed in the way of workers. As a Rabbi I am saddened that the religious community has not become active on this key question of social justice and that my coreligionists who are employers have not been willing to speak out in favor of basic worker rights.

The US constitution (and the Canadian one for that matter, I am a long term dual citizen residing and working in Canada) have somehow allowed corporations the human right of free speech. In a society giving highest protection to property rights, this means that corporations are better able to exercise such rights. This has resulted in Employers taking an active role in the debate amongst their workers on whether to unionize almost always pressuring workers to reject such actions. If there was similar external interference in any public election in the US there would be a terrible outcry. Witness the consternation that occurred last year when the Canadian Government made statements about then Candidate Obama’s musings on Free Trade. Certainly if an entity seen as hostile to the US tried to influence the Presidential election outcome, the reaction would have even been sterner.

Employers should have no right to intervene in the process of workers deciding whether to seek collective representation in workplace governance and if so with which union. Given that the law (and apparently the constitution) allow such interference, it is crucial that the law contain a process to enable workers to reach their decision with a minimum of employer interference. “Card check” is such a process. If a clear majority of employees at a workplace sign cards indicating they wish to join a particular Union, an election should not be necessary. Such a process is not only common in western democracies outside the US but it is one of the very ways that Congress persons, Senators and other elected officials get elected in the US.

When I ran for election to the provincial (state) legislature in 1990 I needed only a small percentage of voters to sign my nomination papers to get on the ballot, under 1%. Even the new progressive bill the Democrats are discussing will require 30% support for there to be a Union election. Given the current low voter turnout, the law will require the workers to basically win the election with card signings before they even get a vote.

When I needed to go door to door canvassing to ask people to sign my nomination papers, I didn’t have to make a “blind” approach. I went to the Election Clerk’s office and picked up a copy of the voter’s list with every one’s name and address. Worker’s cannot get a copy of the voter’s list until a proper application is submitted with the requisite number of cards. That means that the workers are denied this information during the basic stage of seeking worker support just to get the right to a vote. Workers won’t even find out the number of official employees working for the employer during this stage and therefore have to submit an application without really knowing if they have the appropriate percentage of cards signed. Often employers will have other segments of their operations segregated. Employees thing the workplace has only 200 workers may submit an application for a vote with 120 cards only to find out that the Labour Board rjects the request for a vote because the Employer had another branch of their operation with 100 other workers many of them temporary or casual with the union having no way in advance to know about their existence.

When I submitted my nomination papers no one alleged that I had engaged in misconduct by going to peoples houses and coercing them to support me. Yet that is the very employer criticism of “card check” that apparently many Democrat Congressmen have succumbed to. Furthermore there have been occasions when only one candidate was nominated and no one has objected to such person taking their seat in the legislative body without a secret ballot election.

I hope it is not too late to bring these points to the public debate and re-instate card check in the Bill. In any event, it is crucial for progressives to become active on this issue and fight for fairer rules for workplace elections. Workers should not lose their democratic rights when they enter the door of the workplace. Workers who are organized not only have the tools to look after their own economic wellbeing (Maimonides’ identification of the highest level of Tzdakah), they can then better participate in the public campaigns for improving social and economic justice for the broader society (such as on issues of health care). The Bill on workplace elections is not going to take away the free speech rights of employers. It should at least put workers and the Employer on a level playing field. Just as the Employer has a list of the names, addresses and phone numbers of all workers in the workplace, so too should this list be made available to any workers/unions seeking a workplace election. if the Employer communicates in any way with workers on the issue of whether to elect a Union, the law should require the Employer to extend an invitation to the Union to have the same access as the workers (if in person or by other communication) to witness what was said by the Employer and to have an equal right to respond, whether through “captive audience” meetings or otherwise. Only then can the US consider itself a 24/7 democracy. In the meantime the US continues its old policies of advocating for greater human rights in other countries than it legislates and enforces within its own borders.

Shalom Schachter

Rabbi – Beth Israel Congregation

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada