ABC spins out 'victory' for workers
All of a sudden, the Associated Builders and Contractors is interested in the welfare of workers?

The anti-union contractor group ABC, which opposed enhanced ergonomic standards to protect workers, which opposes any prevailing wage law at any level to uphold worker wage standards, which has notoriously lousy training programs, and has fought just about every pro-worker pay and safety regulation that has ever come up in its existence - wants the world to know it is interested in protecting workers' privacy.

Time to look under the hood at this one.

Responding to what it called "victory" for American workers after the Employee Free Choice Act went down to defeat (see article at right) ABC president and CEO Kirk Pickerel said in a press release "there is no justification in supporting this legislation in light of the tremendous negative impact it would have on the millions of workers stripped of their right to privacy in the workplace." He added the bill was "a slap in the face of democracy."

So in a transparent, jaw-dropping spin on the situation, the ABC sounds like they're bearing the cross of workers. But that would be a first. What they're doing is re-directing attention away from the fact that they didn't want this bill because it would make it easier for unions to organize their contractors.

Of course, Pickerel ignored the plight of employees who testified before Congress how pro-union workers are harangued, threatened and coerced by management - often during captive audience sessions - in the days leading up to union representation elections. He also conveniently ignored the fact that employees would have the option to have a simple card-signing arrangement to vote in a union, although they could also have a secret ballot election if they chose.

Rep George Miller, who sponsored the EFCA, laid out the true pro-worker position on the subject.

"Under the Employee Free Choice Act, if a majority of workers in a workplace sign cards authorizing a union, then the workers would get a union. By contrast, under current law, even when a majority of workers ask for union representation, their employers can force them to undergo an election process administered by the National Labor Relations Board.

"In NLRB elections, the deck is stacked heavily against pro-union workers. For example, while the employer can discuss the union with its employees anytime - on company property, and even in one-on-one meetings - union advocates are severely restricted in their ability to communicate with workers. Moreover, these elections are wide open to abuse by employers."

The Center for Economic and Policy Research recently estimated that employers fire one in five workers who actively advocate for a union. A December 2005 study by American Rights at Work found that 49 percent of employers studied had threatened to close or relocate all or part of the business if workers elected to form a union.

And Human Rights Watch has said, "freedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure, when workers in the United States try to exercise it."

That's a slap in the face of democracy, too, but don't look for an ABC press release on that subject.