The Politics of Card Check: a Historic Analogy

January 23, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Interestingly, the Obama White House website is silent on organized labor's No. 1 wish-list item, card check. The aim of the bill is to effectively abolish secret ballot unionization elections and to make unions bargaining agents once a majority of employees can be persuaded—or bludgeoned—into signing cards. There's dueling polling evidence on whether this will be popular (Marc Ambinder has the numbers and the wording of the pollsters' questions). I thought it might be worthwhile to look back in history to see what the partisan reaction was to one wave of unionization, that which followed the sit-in strikes of 1937. The sit-ins were illegal, but Democratic governors in Michigan and Ohio refused to enforce court orders that workers vacate plants, and so auto and steel companies caved in and recognized the new CIO autoworkers and steelworkers unions as bargaining agents.

The 1938 off-year elections were the first chance voters had to respond to this. And they responded quite negatively: Democrats lost 81 House seats, though given the huge margins they had won in 1936 and the fact that Democrats held almost every Southern seat, the House remained in Democratic control.

Where did the Democrats lose seats? Mainly in the industrial states where unionization was concentrated. To wit: Pennsylvania (12 seats), West Virginia (one), Ohio (13), Indiana (six), Illinois (four), Michigan (three), Wisconsin (eight, five of which had been held by Progressives), and Minnesota (four). That's 51 of the 81 seats. In the East, Democrats also lost seats in Rhode Island (two), Connecticut (four), New York (four), New Jersey (four), and Delaware (one). In the Midwest, they also lost seats in Iowa (three), Kansas (one), Nebraska (two), South Dakota (one). In the West, they lost seats in California (four), Oregon (three), Idaho (one), Montana (one), and Wyoming (one). In a map of congressional districts in the industrial states, I plotted the percentage loss for Democrats in each district. Basically, the Democratic percentage declined by about 10 percent in a geographic swath starting in New Jersey, heading west through Pennsylvania (and including the western end of New York State), through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The evidence suggests that the unionization was not popular. The district that includes Flint, Mich., site of the first sit-in, went from Democratic to Republican.

In 1940, 20 of the 81 seats shifted back to Democrats. Most of those were in the East: Rhode Island (two), Connecticut (four), New York (one), and Pennsylvania (four). Others were West Virginia (one), Ohio (four), Michigan (one), Wisconsin (two, one to the Progressives), Wyoming (one). In other words, most of the Republican gains in the industrial belt held.

Tags:
democratic party,
politics,
unions

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

MCP Press Agency anticipated

the victory of the American leader.

Congratulations to the new President of USA, Barack Obama!

The brilliant result of the democrat Barack Obama, finalized through occupation of the Oval Chamber, brings to light also this time the power of the democracy which was predictable, not only a simple political slogan.

This model of democracy vitality proved clearly that Luther King's dream should had become a reality and that nothing is random.

So, the first Afro-American president, Barack Obama, declared in an impressive gathering that:

“I never had this much hope that we will win”.

For the representatives of the Organization which I represent, “MASS COMMUNCIATION POWER”, the motto: “With better peoples, the hope becomes reality!” can be surely confirmed also in Romania.

I recommend you to read also the Press Release of MCP Press Agency, from 15 of January 2007, called “In Memoriam of Dr. MARTIN LUTHER KING”.

A conclusive paragraph of the present press release, state the fact that: “the idea of civil society, cannot exist outside the civil rights in a democracy, and those have as central point, the personality of Dr. KING, with his life and activity”.

The material is displayed on the website “Curaj.Net – Exprima-te!”.

The same article is posted also on my blog – Blogger: User Profile: MIHAIL GEORGEVICI

Yours,

President of “MASS COMMUNICATION POWER” (WWW.mcppress.ro)

Ec. MIHAIL GEORGEVICI

MIHAIL GEORGEVICI of WA 2:23AM January 24, 2009

The article by Ambinder says: "In effect, EFCA switches the choice to the workers; they can choose whether to hold a card check election or whether they want a regular secret ballot election." My question to him, and to you, Mr. Barone, is how do the workers determine which kind of election to have, by secret ballot, or by card check?

Eric Ivers of CA 3:49PM January 23, 2009

This is farcical argument. The law says that a secret ballot election can be chosen after at least 30% of the workers in a unit sign a card INDICATING THAT THEY WANT AN ELECTION. The cards that they sign, however, DO NOT SAY THAT. Sorry for yelling but this getting ridiculous. The cards say that the signer agrees to allow the union that presented the card to represent them in all matters pertaining to wages, benefits, etc. there is no option on the card to petition for a secret ballot election.

Furthermore, why would anyone, in any scenario, ever choose to have an election without knowing that you have at least 51% support? Didn't the House Leadership just re-learn that lesson, on both sides of the aisle, during the auto bailout debate?!

Finally, the secret ballot loss is only one of the incredible changes contemplated by the bill. Forcing employers and workers to submit to federally managed Interest Arbitration for a first contract is unheard of in US history. Interest Arbitration is actually the exact opposite of collective bargaining. Interest Arbitration is a a settlement that is imposed upon both sides. In fact, there is nothing in the law that requires the arbitrator to consider any offers made by either side during the initial rounds of bargaining. They can simply impose the terms and conditions of employment on both sides for two years.

Interest Arbitration is extremely rare. It is most commonly used in a situation where public safety is at risk, i. e. firefighters versus a state government type situations.

It is the most stunning encroachment on US businesses ever contemplated. Period.

John in DC of DC 3:02PM January 23, 2009

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

'Transcripters' Make Birthers Look Smart

Now the fringe right wants the president's university grades to prove he wasn't a good student.

Obama Must Do More to Protect the Intellectual Property Industry

The Obama administration needs to protect the industry's creativity and innovation.

Is Congress Getting Dumber?

That Congress is speaking at a lower grade level than it was seven years ago may be due to the unfortunate tendency to equate education with elitism.

Obama's Remarkable Silence on Latin American Press Abuses

President Obama's silence on press freedom in Latin America is troubling.

Why the Media Is Giving Romney a Pass on Trump's Birtherism

Why the media hasn't pressed Mitt Romney about Donald Trump's birther fantasies.

Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Why Is Mitt Romney Embracing Birther Donald Trump?

Maybe Trump is Romney's idea of a rich guy that common people can relate to?

Does Barack Obama Actually Want to Be Re-Elected?

The president's lack of enthusiasm jeopardizes his campaign.