Unions seem determined to undermine job growth

When you're fighting a political battle, you want to be aligned with "truth, justice and the American way." This year, organized labor has proved it's no slouch when it comes to invoking virtuous motives for self-serving ends.

Lawmakers were told last week that workers here are "forced to forego their First Amendment rights" on the jobsite. Union leaders testified that employers use mandatory meetings to "stifle the freedom of employees," exercising "a powerful and illegitimate form of compulsion" to impose their political and religious beliefs on unwilling workers. Workers "should not be required to check (their freedom of speech) at the door when they arrive at work."

They make the American workplace sound like a Mao-era re-education camp. Certainly this is not the first time that a powerful group has wrapped special pleadings in fine constitutional ribbon to make the tacky seem transcendent.

All of this scarifying rhetoric serves to support something unions call the Worker Privacy Act. Business dubs it the Employer Gag Rule.

What's it do? Essentially, it prohibits an employer from requiring workers to attend meetings or participate in communications regarding "political or religious matters." The key to unwrapping the rhetoric is in the definition of "political," which includes labor issues. The whole point of this legislation is to sideline employers in order to make it easier for union organizers to influence workers.

The union-backed bill has attracted 47 sponsors in the 98-member House and 21 in the 49-member Senate. A lot of Democrats are poised to give labor its top priority legislation. They should think again.

Consider first the smoke screen.

Although testimony last week featured a grocery worker who had been hassled by his evangelizing supervisor, religion is not the point. The law protects workers from religious discrimination. The worker has recourse.

State and national labor law also protect political speech. Employees cannot be fired or penalized for supporting or opposing a given candidate or ballot issue. Nor can they be forced to contribute to campaigns.

Sure, we've all heard "bad boss" stories. Sometimes stupid things happen at the workplace. But when it comes to politics and religion, the law already protects workers. No new legislation is required.

Now consider organizing campaigns. Under federal law, employers have the right to hold mandatory meetings about union organizing efforts. That makes sense. The employer is paying the wages of the workers attending, on company time and in company-owned facilities. If the union wanted to pay folks $25 an hour to attend a meeting, they could fill a hall, too.

The National Labor Relations Act permits employers to require attendance at meetings during a union organizing campaign. Employers cannot use coercive speech, promise benefits or threaten retaliation. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down California's similar gag rule last year, saying federal law pre-empted state regulation. Although the AFL-CIO has pushed this stuff across the country (they call it the Worker Freedom Act), no other state has bought it.

Proponents claim nothing in the legislation prevents an employer from holding a meeting. The employer can speak, they say, just not compel the worker to listen.

Here's what's at stake. The mandatory meetings protect workers from being singled out for unwanted special attention by union organizers. These campaigns can be messy and emotional. If the meetings are voluntary, those who attend become targets.

Although it's unnecessary and unconstitutional, the gag rule is not inconsequential. If they pass this bill, lawmakers send a resounding anti-business message to companies considering locating or expanding in Washington. Skewing public policy in favor of union organizers will not stimulate economic development.

Labor relations here already put us at a competitive disadvantage, as Sir Richard Branson, the head of Virgin Airlines, reminded us as he picked up a new 777 here last week.

"If union leaders and management can't get their act together to avoid a strike, we're not going to come back here again," he said. "We're already thinking, 'Would we ever risk putting another order with Boeing?'"

Following the Machinists' strike, industrial recruiters from right-to-work states in the Southeast stepped up their efforts here. Now, our Legislature stands ready to give them another argument to use against us. Unbelievable.



Richard S. Davis writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is richardsdavis@gmail.com.