crossposted from unbossed
Nothing was more predictable than that the Right would respond to an effort to amend the National Labor Relations Act by offering their own amendments - either to kill the bill or for horse trading.
Here is the first of those bills I will examine - the RAISE Act, introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), the Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees Act AKA the "RAISE Act" H.R. 2732/ S. 1184.
Part 1 posted on Daily Kos may be found here, and on unbossed may be found here. It lists the bills to amend the National Labor Relations Act that had been introduced as of Sunday.
The so-called "Raise Act" could be used for either purpose - horse trading or killing the EFCA. It otherwise serves no useful purpose.
Merit pay is already available in unionized workplaces.
All you have to do is negotiate it with the union.
What this bill does is give the employer the unilateral right to give some employees higher pay. It allows employers to play employees off against one another and thereby destroy the solidarity necessary to have a strong union.
So the real question is:
Why do employers need this bill when they can already pay merit pay. All they have to do is discuss the issue with the union and reach an agreement. What's the problem this would fix?
Its proposed amendments would drive a stake through the heart of unionization and solidarity. It is being billed as giving union workers a pay increase.
This bill was introduced as allowing employers to pay workers higher wages. H.R.2732 : To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay higher wages to their employees. Sponsor: Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] (introduced 6/4/2009) Cosponsors (16)
S.1184 : A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay higher wages to their employees. Sponsor: Sen Vitter, David [LA] (introduced 6/4/2009) Cosponsors (9)
If by your fruits you will know them, know that this bill is supported by the Alliance for Worker Freedom, a group that defines freedom as de-nationalization, aka privatization and more items on the rightwing hit parade.
The group behind the Alliance for Worker Freedom is the Americans for Tax Reform.
According to SourceWatch, the
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is ostensibly a group that pushes for lower taxes. It has close ties to the Republican Party and has frequently allied itself with the tobacco industry.
It is also related to the infamous K Street lobbying project, and it is led by Grover Norquist.
ATR is headed by Grover Norquist, one of the most connected members of the new right-wing movement. He has close ties to the Republican Party, large U.S. business interests, and both the subsidized and regular U.S. media. Norquist helped the Heritage Foundation write the Republican's 1994 Contract With America.
Shortly thereafter, Norquist led a right wing charge to "de-fund" the left, declaring that "We will hunt [these liberal groups] down one by one and extinguish their funding sources." Norquist has also worked as a lobbyist for clients including Microsoft, American Business for Legal Immigration, Distilled Spirits Council, Edison Electric Institute, Interactive Gaming Council, and British Petroleum.
Its support for this bill fits with all those goals. As discussed below, the Heritage Foundation supports this bill and has done some of the "research" for it.
Let’s take a look at the bill. It is mercifully short but hard to understand if you don’t know the National Labor Relations Act or how it and unions operate. Here is the language:
RAISE Act (Introduced in House)
111th CONGRESS 1st Session, H. R. 2732
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay higher wages to their employees.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 4, 2009
Mr. MCCLINTOCK (for himself, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. BILBRAY, and Mr. ROONEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor
A BILL
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay higher wages to their employees.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees Act' or the `RAISE Act'.
SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.
Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(1)' after `(a)'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, nothing in either--
`(1) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or
`(2) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such contract or agreement.'.
In other words, an employer would have discretion to pay specific workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement amounts in addition to the wages set out in a collective bargaining agreement. That is the big selling point, with the suggestion that
- it is unions that are keeping employers from paying as much as they would like to and
- that since we all know we are above average we would get a raise under this amendment.
You can see that this issue is being pushed hard by the Heritage Foundation. Here is what it argues:
June 4, 2009 RAISE Act Lifts Pay Cap on 8 Million American Workers
Federal law caps the wages of over 8 million middle class workers. Union contracts set both a wage floor and a wage ceiling--unionized employers may not give productive workers pay raises outside the collectively bargained contract. Unions usually insist on seniority-based pay and rarely allow employers to reward hard-working individuals. No matter how hard most union members work, they cannot earn higher wages than specified by their contracts.
The RAISE (Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees) Act, introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA), would lift the "seniority ceiling" on workers' wages by allowing employers to pay individual workers more--but not less--than the union contract specifies. By offering workers the opportunity to earn higher wages, the RAISE Act provides an incentive for increased productivity. Should Congress pass the RAISE Act, the typical union member could earn between $2,600 and $4,300 more a year. RAISE restores union members' freedom to earn individual raises through their own efforts – a freedom that federal labor law currently denies. With many American families struggling to get ahead financially in the recession, Congress should lift the seniority ceiling on workers' wages.
It concludes by claiming that enormous raises would be given if this bill became law.
If Congress passed the RAISE Act to amend the NLRA, many unionized employers would offer performance pay to inspire hard work. The workers at these companies would earn between $2,600 and $4,300 per year more than if Congress left the union wage ceiling in place.[13]
And what does that all-important footnote 13 say?
Heritage Foundation calculations based on data from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics on the median earnings of private-sector workers covered by collective bargaining agreements in 2008 and assuming a 6 to 10 percent rise in median annual earnings due to merit raises.
In other words, the dollar figures in the text, which might sound very attractive, are based on assumptions about how much a merit raise would be. In other words, pure fantasy. It assumes that an employer would want to give a merit raise. It assumes the amounts would be that high. If assumes that ":merit" really means merit and not prejudice or favoritism.
So-called merit pay is often used to divide and conquer, to destroy solidarity and the strength workers get by combining their forces and acting to support one another. In fact, the NLRA’s preamble makes exactly that point when it states that it is the policy of the United States to promote mutual aid or support.
When workers are not engaged in solidarity, they are weak and powerless . . . and underpaid. Without health benefits. And subject to favoritism with no one to fight on their side.
The proponents of this bill must be just licking their chops at this one. They would just love to see unions fight this one.
You can more or less picture the discussion they envision. Unions would have to explain how this would play out and how the American dream of rugged individualism can be used to trick workers into being underpaid and weak. And easily missed is the fact that so many of us are so underpaid and poor compared to the wealth of those who make the decisions about what each of us is paid and how we are treated. This chart, from the Atlantic Monthly, provides the visuals behind wealth in America.
<%image(20080901-Wealth_inequality.jpg|500|200|null)%>
Each worker is in a parade in order of their wealth, from lowest to highest. Notice on the far right, the shoe whose sole alone is higher than the people on the left.
Fortunately, the AFL-CIO does have statistics that show the union difference in wages and benefits between union and nonunion workers. If you look at this chart, you will see that union representation, especially for lower waged workers, can make a difference of more than 50% in pay.
The chart also shows that in certain jobs, especially professions, it can have a negative impact. These are found in business and financial operations and in mathematics and computers. My guess is that what causes the difference is that the unionized workers in these positions are public sector workers. Those workers are both more likely to be unionized and unionized in these sorts of positions than those in the private sector. But that’s just my guess.
It would be interesting to see the difference in these and the other jobs if benefits were included. Since unionized workers are far more likely to have health insurance, my guess is that we would see even more positive figures for union workers.
A number of other links on wages and benefits can be found here.
The bottom line is that even workers who are educated, trained, and good workers can benefit from the power that comes from being together in a union and to have a union and a contract with the power to fight on the workers’ behalf. All workers are in a precarious position when their welfare depends solely on their employer’s whim. If you don’t believe this, consider how badly employers treat whistleblowers.