On the face of it, all three leading Democratic candidates for president represent great news for unions and working people.

Unions in the US have been in a state of steady decline for years now, and have fallen far below 10% in the private sector. Yet polls continue to indicate that the vast majority of unorganized workers would join unions if only they were allowed to do so. Unfortunately, decades of Republican rule have ensured that labor laws guaranteeing the right to join and form unions are no longer enforced. The National Labor Relations Board is pro-employer, and workers regularly face intimidation (including sackings) if they dare to join a union.
The government can change this by passing new labor laws — and on the top of every trade unionist’s agenda is the “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA).
In a nutshell, this is what the Act would do:
* Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.
* Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.
* Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.
In other words, it would move a few steps forward toward implementing the promise made by the Roosevelt administration back in the 1930s when the first national labor relations act was passed. And it would move the US closer towards recognizing the basic rights of working people as enshrined in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core conventions of the International Labor Organization. The former declares quite clearly that “everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests”.
Hillary Clinton is clear on where she stands. She says she will help “empower our workers and . . . ensure that unions, which have played an important role in forming and sustaining the middle class, are strong . . . Hillary will pass the Employee Free Choice Act so that unions can organize for fair wages and safe working conditions.”
Barack Obama agrees. In his “Blueprint for Change” he says that “workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act . . . He will continue to fight for EFCA’s passage and sign it into law.” Obama also says that “he will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.”
The candidate most closely identified with the unions is John Edwards. In his “Plan to Build One America” Edwards says much the same thing as Clinton and Obama, except with a more personal touch. Edwards writes that “Unions made manufacturing jobs the foundation of our middle class, and they can do the same for our service economy.” He remindes us that he’s “helped more than 20 national unions organize thousands of workers over the last few years” and that “union membership can be the difference between a poverty-wage job and middle-class security.” This is one of the reasons why unions like Edwards — because he is so clear about his support for what they represent. Edwards has walked the picket line many times in recent years.
Like Clinton and Obama, Edwards too backs the EFCA in order “to give workers a real choice in whether to form a union, and making penalties for breaking labor laws tougher and faster, so unions can compete on a level playing field and the right to join a union means something. Edwards also supports banning the permanent replacement of strikers so unions can negotiate fairly.”
If all three candidates support the EFCA, and two out of the three have explicitly called for the banning of permanent replacement of strikers, it seems like there really isn’t much choice for the unions. Any one of them would seem to be alright. And all of them are vastly superior to the Republic candidates, not one of whom is a friend of the labor movement.
And yet there are differences, some subtle, some not.
It’s great that Senator Clinton backs the EFCA (like Obama, she’s a cosponsor) and is committed to passing it once in the White House. (Of course she’ll need a strongly Democratic congress to do so.) But one has to wonder — why didn’t the Clinton administration do this in the 1990s? Why wasn’t labor law reform a priority then? Why did unions in the US decline precipitiously while Clinton was in the White House? And if Senator Clinton is such a strong supporter of unions, why does she keep on board as her chief strategist — her very own Karl Rove — the professional union-buster Mark Penn? And this despite a public lashing from union leaders, including Teamsters’ head James Hoffa and Unite Here’s Bruce Raynor, back in June.
Obama doesn’t have to explain why he didn’t do much for passing labor law reform in the 1990s as he wasn’t in Washington then. But his behavior in recent weeks has caused some concern in unions. In Iowa, Obama publicly denounced John Edwards for allowing unions — and in particular the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — to support his campaign. Obama seemed to be saying that unions, like pharmaceutical companies or oil companies, are “special interests”. He was roundly condemned for this, not least by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who asked if it makes sense “in the current political and economic environment for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?” Krugman didn’t think so, but Obama did.
So yes, on the surface of it, all three leading Democratic candidates support the EFCA and say nice things about unions. That’s what you’d expect in an election year. But the Clinton record in the 1990s, and Obama’s own recent statements, indicate that maybe all is not as it seems.
Indeed, I’m reminded of the arguments made by Thomas Frank is his delightful book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”. He discovered that while Republicans would promise the world to their right-wing religious base — banning abortions, restoring school prayer and so on — once in power, they didn’t actually do all that much. Some Democratic politicians behave the same way. They court the unions when they need their votes, but once elected, they do very little to change the laws and create a more union-friendly environment.
Of the three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination, only one has demonstrated in practice, over years, a continuing commitment to the trade union movement and that is John Edwards. If Obama or Clinton win the nomination and then the Presidency, they may fulfill their promises to the unions to pass the EFCA and to ban (in Obama’s case) permanent strike replacements.
If John Edwards makes is to the White House, however, the passage of labor law reform is much more likely. That’s why unions should back him — and that means local unions, and individual activists — regardless of what the polls and the pundits say.