Warren Buffett Opposes EFCA (w/ video)
Ouch.
Just days after Barack Obama and Vice President Biden both offered one-line endorsements of the [Employee Free Choice Act] -- which would make it easier for unions to organize -- [Warren] Buffett, in an appearance on CNBC said the following of labor's legislative priority:
"I think the secret ballot's pretty important in the country," said the Oracle from Omaha. "I'm against card check to make a perfectly flat statement."
Apparently, Mr. Buffett is a little bit concerned that the EFCA might end the secret ballot. Uh, Mr. Buffett? Not so much.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that Pelosi and Reid support does not eliminate employees' rights to a secret ballot. As The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Moreover, supporters of the EFCA say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
The House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth" and stated on its website: "The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer."
Oh, and there's this:
The American Prospect: Why We Need EFCA
Contrary to business propaganda, unions are good for the economy. A recent study by the nonprofit Economic Roundtable found that union workers in Los Angeles County earn 27 percent more than nonunion workers in the same job. The increased wages for the 800,000 union workers -- 17 percent of the labor force -- adds $7.2 billion a year in pay. As these workers spend their wages on food, clothing, child care, car and home repairs, and other items, their additional buying power creates 64,800 jobs and $11 billion in economic output. Many economists argue that any strategy Obama and Congress use to revitalize the economy should make higher wages -- and stronger unions -- a centerpiece.
And as The American Prospect points out, pro-labor politicians (such as President Obama) are "typically the strongest advocates of tough environmental laws, funding for public schools and higher education, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, universal health insurance, affordable housing, and protection of Social Security."
It's funny how Mr. Buffett, a man who recently stated his support for a more progressive tax code, seemingly wants to make it more difficult for unions to organize and work for all of those progressive causes that he supposedly championed when he voted for President Obama. He might want to rethink that one.
Nowhere in the EFCA legislation does it mandate eliminating the secret ballot. You can read the EFCA here. I suggest Mr. Buffett do the same.
******************
Cross-posted at Daily Kos
I'm recommending the blog, because it does serve as another stake through the heart of that distortion about EFCA "eliminating" secret balloting.
However, the way I read Buffett's comments on CNBC at the time he made them was that he doesn't want the option of signup, or anything else that might force employees to declare openly their unionization preference.
By itself, this doesn't make him opposed to EFCA. The argument could be made, in fact, that the whole thing about "free choice" is directly related to being able to make said choice in private.
(NOTE: I prefer EFCA as it is currently written. I just wanted to point out that Buffett's CNBC clip seems, at least to me, to refer to the card-check aspect of EFCA, rather than the whole bill itself.)
March 9, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem, though, is that Buffett is using the same discredited talking point on the EFCA that the GOP uses on FOX News quite often.
I'm also bothered by the fact that he went on CNBC to make the comment. Because after all, CNBC has proven to be such a bastion of getting things right lately....
March 9, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the way it's phrased is a red flag. But I think Buffett is using the phrase more narrowly than the plankton at Fixed News are.
This is a guy who, as you point out in the blog, favors things (like a progressive tax code) that would seem to make this issue a natural for him. Buffett being against unionization in general is hard to reconcile with that.
And no argument here about CNBC...
March 9, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might be RIGHT to opposed EFCA as written.
As I understand the EFCA, it 'leaves to the employees' the choice about whether to ask for a secret ballot or an OPEN card check supporting unionization.
This would seem to open workers/employees up to potential harassment by fellow employees (either way I guess - pro or anti union) since card check has signature cards pro or anti union being done in the open- not in secret.
The point then, is if a true majority of workers didn't want the union, pro-union peers could intimidate them into signing cards in favor of a union. While I find it unlikely to happen - the possibility is unacceptable and if the EFCA as written allows this- it should be changed.
March 9, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink