Shortly after our last newsletter went out, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said that he is pushing to bring up the bill for a vote this fall. Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana), responding to an interviewer about his discussions with the business community, believes that businesses would accept a compromise that preserved the secret ballot, contained reasonably prompt elections, and included meaningful penalties for bad actors on both sides. He thought binding arbitration may not find a place in the compromise bill, but would be replaced by some other form of penalty for bad faith negotiation.

Two powerful South Dakota state lawmakers have promised to put a bill before the state legislature aimed at protecting the secret ballot for union elections. State Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson acknowledged that if the bill passes, the state would probably wind up in federal court to defend it. Patrick Garry, who teaches constitutional law at the University of South Dakota School of Law, said states generally cannot supersede federal law.

North of the border, the Montreal Economic Institute conducted a poll of Quebec citizens, finding that 7 out of 10 would like to see their “card check” laws amended to protect the secret ballot. Among unionized respondents, 80% wanted to see the secret ballot as a part of the union election process. According to Rep. John Kline (R – Minnesota), some Canadians wish card check upon the U.S., so that the we will lose some of our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

The banking community has been warned that the corporate campaigns they have experienced over executive compensation and other issues are a signal that these top-down campaigns will be reinforced by bottom-up union organizing efforts, especially after the EFCA becomes a reality. Banks appear to have much to lose, according to a recent report from Griffin Financial Group in Pennsylvania. “Citing data from an unnamed unionized bank, the report estimates that the bank pays 7 to 8.5 percent more in salaries and benefits than its peers, and typically pays $50,000 to $100,000 more in legal expenses, which can double during years with contract talks. The report notes that another unionized bank, Ameriserv Financial in Johnstown, Pa., has suffered lower market valuation despite having a higher tangible common equity ratio, more regulatory capital and a better net interest margin than its peer group. Ameriserv's price-to-earnings ratio is only 7.36 percent, compared to a peer group average of 11.27 percent; and its price-to-tangible book value is less than half that of similar banks.”

Reprinted from Labor Relations Insight by Phil Wilson.