Natalie Hamilton Kelly and SLAP | Promoting workers' rights

On March 30, 2009, Colin Kavanaugh wrote a column praising Sen. Arlen Specter for his recently declared opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. We wish to respond to his piece and explain why we, and many others, view Specter's decision as a gross betrayal of the working people in this state who have so long supported him.

Few pieces of legislation have faced opposition as emotional and aggressive as confronts EFCA. The strong reaction of opponents is not a surprise; the bill could dramatically increase the rates of unionization in this country, meaning that more employers would have to provide employment that actually sustains the local community and provides necessary benefits to its employees.

Additionally, few political-attack ads are as outrageous as those aired by anti-EFCA groups. They tend to display almost comically dramatic situations, hoping to garner support through fostering fear. In one airing this past summer, an anti-EFCA group even hired the actor who plays mob boss Johnny Sack on the HBO show Sopranos. He appears as a union thug, attempting to "intimidate" workers into signing union cards. As students who have actually done organizing, we can speak directly about the process of asking workers to sign cards or support a union - if they do not want to do it, there is little any pro-union worker can do but talk and organize.

Claiming that the card-check system allows for intimidation is laughable when one considers the intimidation that happens under a secret ballot - the intimidation of employers threatening the livelihood of their workers. For example, Penn is invested in the company HEI Hotels and Resorts, which is currently denying its workers the right to organize in the manner they choose. In their anti-card check campaign, the company has used scare tactics against employees that have publicly shared their opinions. One such worker, Elizabeth Martinez from Long Beach, traveled to college campuses last fall and spoke to students about her working conditions. The company responded by interrogating her for two hours upon her return, leading her to fear for her job, and denouncing her statements as "mistruths." Other pro-union workers have been fired, laid off or seen their hours drastically reduced. These are just some of the tactics employers have access to when exercising their "free speech" during an election.

Regardless, claiming that EFCA would strip away workers' rights to a secret ballot is a gross mischaracterization. The legislation simply adds another option, and leaves it to the workers to decide how to go about determining union representation. A common claim of many businesses, including HEI Hotels and Resorts, is that they support the rights of their workers to unionize . as long as the workers do so in the process the employers choose for them. Most companies can rest easy with this position, as only 20 percent of election petitions result in an actual union contract.

These companies, including HEI, know that by relying on the anti-worker election process, they can avoid a union and maintain their sky-high profits at the expense of workers' well-being. As the workers are the ones exercising their freedom to assembly, it is just common sense that they should be the ones who determine which process they will operate under.

Sadly, but unsurprisingly, Penn's administrators have publicly declared their support for the anti-worker election process over card-check/neutrality agreements. Despite seeing hard facts about the low wages and harmful policies of companies like HEI, Executive Vice President Craig Carnaroli supports the "rights" of employers to "communicate" during the union recognition process, failing to address the fact that this communication frequently can be coercive and abusive.

Many opponents of the bill cite the recession as a reason to oppose EFCA. As Colin Kavanaugh wrote in his March 30 column, "[I]n a tough economy, this is just more pressure that could make recovery more difficult." Specter himself used similar reasoning. This rationale is deeply disturbing. The recession is an inconvenient time to make sure workers can ensure access to health care and living wages? When unemployment is gradually crawling towards the double digits, it's a bad time to uphold the importance of job security and worker freedom?

In an environment where business leaders have fallen short of their responsibilities to the community and the nation, it makes sense to shift the power of decision making to a more democratic group: the workers who actually provide the services and create the products that generate profits for each business, and ultimately serve as the foundation for any real economic growth.

Natalie Hamilton Kelly writes on behalf of Penn's branch of the Student Labor Action Project, or SLAP, which seeks to promote economic justice through workers' rights.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.