Writes Hamsher:

"Michelle Bernard and Pat Buchannan were on Hardball talking about EFCA this week. Republican Bernard gave some advice to Obama, saying "I think card check would be the worst thing he could possibly do now or ever." Republican Buchanan agreed with her.

"The unions turned out big for Obama precisely because he was the Senate sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, and promised to sign it as President."

What is EFCA?

The Employee Free Choice Act strengthens labor laws, and makes it easier to organize.

The key part of the law that scares these pundits is the "card check", which would allow workers to form a union by getting signatures on cards for over 50% of the workers at a workplace.

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/whatis.cfm

Why is Card Check a big deal? Isn't the secret ballot better?

RIght now, corporations use the secret ballot process to slow down unionization. In the time leading up to the ballot, they hire union busters and spread negative propaganda about unions. They have full-time access to the workers, while organizers can communicate only during breaks and after work.

On top of that, the National Labor Relations Board is stacked with bureaucrats who are anti-worker. So they follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit. The board is more interested in decertifying unions (decertification is the process of voting the union out of the workplace).

After the election, the company will file an appeal, or demand a recount. These things stall the unionization process, and can be drawn out for years, while workers keep working.

The fastest way around this SNAFU is card check - workers who want to join up sign a card. The signature is counted as a "vote".

This simplifies the voting process, and more importantly, makes it easier for unions to organize workplaces. This is especially true of smaller unions that have fewer resources to spend on organizing lower-waged workers.

What Are the Right-Wing Media Doing?

The assholes are going after EFCA in a big way, to cast doubt on its popularity, its feasibility, or its economic impacts.

They say it isn't poplar.

It is popular. Every survey that asks if people at unorganized workplaces want to join a union finds that the majority want a union.

They say it isn't feasible.

It absolutely is. It lowers the cost of electing a union into a shop. Normal people think an election is simple - put ballots in a box, and that's it. The NLRB process is complex, and it shouldn't be that way.

By simplifying voting, they make it more likely that unions will try to organize lower-paid workers. Why they don't do it now, is simple economics. They think they won't get a return on their investment - they know the dues the workers pay won't cover the cost of the organizing.

They say it'll harm the economy.

This is simply untrue. Since the 1980s, the rich have gotten richer. In the last 8 years, it's estimated that $600 billion has been transferred from the lower 80% of workers to the top 1%, every year. The rich have gotten $4.8 trillion richer, while the poor have gotten that much poorer.

Thus, we can estimate that a unionized workforce can negotiate a few trillion dollars in wage increases over a decade. This will revitalize the economy.

These pundits must be countered, and EFCA must be passed.