Sen. John McCain wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent; Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t. Obama wants to increase the minimum wage; McCain doesn’t.
It’s hard to mix up the economic proposals of the two presidential candidates. Likewise, when it comes to workplace issues, they tend to lean in predictable ways – Obama toward the employee, McCain toward the employer .
Yet regardless of who’s elected, employment lawyers and Washington-area lobbyists say labor laws could get reshuffled in areas as varied as union organizing and gay rights.
“Some people are saying this could be the most active 'workplace Congress’ in the last 20 to 25 years,” said Mike Aitken, director of government affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management, based in Alexandria.
The Democrats have control of the legislative side in Washington, with 51 of 100 senators, including McCain supporter Sen. Joe
Lieberman of Connecticut, who last ran as an independent. Analysts predict they’ll make big gains in the Senate in November’s election.
It probably won’t be enough to get to two magic numbers: 60 – the number of votes that can kill a filibuster – or 67 – the number needed to override a presidential veto. But with a band of Republican moderates and other defectors, Democrats could push through some bills even under a President McCain.
“There is so much pent-up demand for workplace legislation,” said David Burton, an employment lawyer with the law firm of Williams Mullen in Virginia Beach. “Republicans normally are pretty conservative, but I think they are going to have a lot of pressure on them to support some of these bills.”
Among the bills most closely watched is the Employee Free Choice Act. It would require employers to permit a card-check method outside the workplace as an alternative to a secret ballot to determine worker support for union representation.
It would be the first major change in workplace law since the Family and Medical Leave Act was approved in 1993, then-President Clinton’s first year in office.
Obama, who has won widespread support from unions, co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act last year and has continued to voice support for it, both on his Web site and in speeches.
Obama believes that “workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers,” his Web site says.
Louis Scinaldi, president of Local 2202 of the Communications Workers of America in Virginia Beach, said he’s been stymied in organizing campaigns by companies that have threatened job security if a worker votes for a union. The bill, Scinaldi said, “would give everybody an equal playing field. It’s going to give workers the right to form a union without the fear and the coercion and those meetings that they force everybody to go to.”
Opponents, however, call the Employee Free Choice Act a last-ditch effort to reverse years of drooping union membership. The bill would “freeze out the employer’s right to free speech,” said Marc Freedman, labor law policy director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
C. Larry Pope, president and chief executive officer of Smithfield Foods Inc., told shareholders at the company’s annual meeting last month: “Our Founding Fathers thought the secret ballot was good enough to elect the first president of the United States. … I think it’s good enough to elect unions.”
Last year, McCain voted to block a Senate vote on the bill. In his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination this month, he criticized Obama for wanting “our schools to answer to unions.”
Yet if McCain has not supported unions, on other workplace issues he has either not taken a stand or might be open-minded, observers say.
Take, for instance, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit workplace discrimination against people who are gay . Obama has supported the bill.
McCain said during a campaign stop last year that the measure would “open the door to endless litigation,” The Washington Post reported. However, some analysts say he might sign it if Congress approves it.
“I don’t think McCain is going to die in a ditch over that piece of legislation,” said John Phillips , an Atlanta lawyer who writes the blog The Word on Employment Law.
Quentin Kidd, a political science professor at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, said: “It depends on which John McCain we’re talking about. If it’s the libertarian-minded John McCain, who thinks government should do very little and what it does should be helpful to people, I could see a John McCain supporting this. If it’s the John McCain who bowed deeply to the right side of his party (during the convention), I could see him vetoing it.”
The two candidates agree on at least a few things: Both co-sponsored a bill, approved by a voice vote in the Senate this month, that would restore protections in the Americans With Disabilities Act that were pared away by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The bill also won widespread support in the House and is expected to be signed by President Bush.
McCain and Obama also want to encourage telecommuting and other ways to make work schedules more flexible.
But on major economic issues, many observers see both hewing to their party lines.
To Freedman, from the Chamber of Commerce, Obama is “an absolutely orthodox Democrat.” To Kidd, from Christopher Newport, McCain typifies the “free-market kind of person, a small-government Republican.”
Here’s a roundup of nine workplace issues likely to get another look under the next president and Congress:
Union organizing
Most employment experts see the Employee Free Choice Act as the bill with potentially the largest impact. It would allow employees to demonstrate support for a union by signing cards outside the workplace.
“It doesn’t abolish secret-ballot elections,” said John Bredehoft of Kaufman & Canoles in Norfolk, “but it makes them unnecessary.”
If approved, analysts say, the bill would intensify organizing efforts. Another clause would refer deadlocked contract negotiations between an employer and a union to binding arbitration after four months . Businesses say that would take away their right to craft a contract, but unions say it would guard against delaying tactics.
Anti-gay bias
The U.S. Civil Rights Act bans discrimination in the workplace in categories such as race, religion and gender, but it does not cover sexual orientation. Lawyers disagree on how much effect a gay-rights amendment would have.
Burton, from Williams Mullen, said it could open another avenue for “frivolous litigation. It’s just another category an employer could be sued for.”
Others, such as Phillips and Bredehoft, say many states, cities and companies now ban discrimination against people who are gay .
“I don’t think this would cause a marked uptick in employment law litigation,” Bredehoft said.
Said Norfolk lawyer Lisa Bertini, who represents employees who sue businesses: “I think it speaks volumes to the tolerance issue. While employers say, 'We have this, we have that,’ they don’t necessarily enforce anything, and this would make them. I’ve dealt with too many employers who do the minimum they have to and don’t necessarily honor what’s in their handbook.”
Family and Medical Leave Act
The law provides many workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year to tend to a newborn or an ill relative or recover from a “serious health condition.” On his Web site, McCain notes that he supported passage of the law in 1993 but does not suggest any changes.
Obama, on his Web site, proposes expanding it, among other ways, to include businesses with 25 to 49 people, to cover elder care and domestic violence, and to allow parents 24 hours a year to attend school activities. Only businesses with at least 50 employees are covered now.
Paid sick leave
Obama last year co-sponsored the Healthy Families Act, which would require employers to grant seven days of paid sick leave a year. Supporters say three-quarters of low-income workers have no paid sick days.
Obama continues to support the benefit, according to his Web site. McCain has not mentioned the subject, and Kidd doubts he would support it.
“The extent to which legislation would regulate more than he thought was appropriate – he would be opposed to something like that,” Kidd said. “Expanding medical leave, requiring paid leave – I think he would oppose that on economic grounds, not social grounds.”
Civil rights lawsuit caps
McCain has not taken a position on the Equal Remedies Act, which would abolish caps on damages in racial and gender discrimination suits. Those caps range from $50,000 to $300,000, based on the size of the company. Obama co-sponsored the act and reiterates support on his Web site.
Equal pay for women
Obama has stressed his support for “equal pay,” both in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention and in campaign ads. In April, he voted for the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would extend the statute of limitations for pay-equity suits, reversing limits imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
McCain did not attend the vote but told reporters he was against the bill: “This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.” The bill did not survive a Republican filibuster but is expected to be reintroduced. The impact, Bredehoft said, would be more symbolic than practical; he doesn’t think it will fuel a surge of lawsuits.
Layoff warnings
McCain has not articulated a position on the Forewarn Act, which would revise the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification law governing notice of layoffs and plant closings. It would require 90-day written notice to workers, up from the current 60 days, and double the penalties for employers who violate the law. In May, Obama voiced his support.
Reclassifying bosses
Obama has co-sponsored the Respect bill, or Re-empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradesworkers Act. It would amend the National Labor Relations Act to make it more difficult to classify someone as a “supervisor,” expanding the pool of potential union members. McCain has not voiced an opinion.
Philip Walzer, (757) 222-3864,phil.walzer@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Public funding vs Individual donations
Senator Obama's idea to broadcast all negotiations with the health care industry live on C-Span to expose lobbyists for what they are stems from broken promises from the last 16 years while his sick mother worried about health care bills. McCain has a big pot of money at the RNC. Rather than accusing his opponent of breaking "promises" on public funding, Senator McCain should explain his PAC money and all these lobbyists running his campaign, no different than his campaign in 2000. Rather than voting for the recent GI Bill sponsored by Hagel, John Warner, and Webb, McCain was at a fundraiser in California. I respect McCain's military service like I did Kerry's, I had plenty of reasons not to vote for either one. Someone should send a tow truck since the Straight Talk express has lost its wheels a long time ago.
Hmm
Speaking of receiving private contributions... Didn't Obama promise to run a publicly-funded campaign? Guess that went out the window with his ethics ... legislation.
Obama receives the most donations from military employees too
www.fec.gov: Obama accepted $0.00 from PACs during this campaign as of 08/31/2008 vs McCain's 1,270,685. Obama raised $426,826,550 (52% less than $200 each) vs $210,647,051 for McCain. Obama and Paul received the most donations from military employees, Obama still is. Reps Hagel and Warner voted for Obama's latest ethics reform bill, McCain voted against, Obama's 4th ethics reform bill in the US Senate which includes more transparency on bundling of donations. Obama asked the DNC to stop accepting lobbyist money upon his nomination. I have not heard Senator McCain make a similar request to the RNC, which is not surprising since his own campaign manager Rick Davis served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that worked to cripple regulatory initiatives in Congress.
len and am
Len, I appreciate my conversations w/ you. My intention was to see if AM would take off when presented with a topic that offered more than his polarized point of view. He did. What he and a few others who pursue me do is that they attack my reasoning and run away when boxed in a corner. This or they change the converation or bird walk. I didn't really want to 'win' the debate more than I was able to show their lack of substance.
As I have said before, you and I are close in thought. I could see actually having a productive conversation in person. You may not agree. Most real politics I believe are centrist. The 'left' and 'right' seem like cartoon characters at times.
AM, where did you go buddy?
Ira, I think there are a lot of people who do
work hard and try to do the right thing. What we need are the leaders, both business and political, to also do the right thing. Folks will work hard and act responsibly for leaders who treat them as hard working, responsible citizens who will share in the success of any enterprise they are dealing with. That does not mean socialism, it does mean recognizing the value of what people, from the bottom up. In large corporations, I'll be doggoned if the CEO is worth 1000 engineers making 100K each, or 2000 machinists making 50K each. His value is as a savvy administrator whose contacts and leadership capabilities should bring his company to the competitive edge with the rest of the world, country or community. He is another employee, not a king. Our productivity has gone way up in the last decade, but worker wages have stagnated. Why are these folks working so hard and getting so little?
I agree
We taught them how to play our game and are being whupped at it. What happened to our sppirit? Working hard and being personally responsible?
Ira, wrong rebuttal: the SUV comment was from cs.
Sorry for the confusion. To answer your question, the article at Bloomberg chastised the Dems, and, if true, they should bear blame for not passing that legislation. But, if as you say, Fannie and Freddie failed on their own, which I agree with, then probably any effort to curtail losses a couple of years ago would probably not have avoided this mess. Our entire economy, mortgage, credit cards, business loans, student loans, etc., has been built on a house of cards. 70% of our economy is retail. And a big chunk of retail is financed. Throw in health care and service sector (restaurants, etc) and we have an economy in which we are borrowing money from each other and shuffling foreign goods around, while being treated for various ailments and buying pills.
A century ago, the barons of business got Europe to invest in our RR's and steel companies and we made money. Now we are buying Perrier.a
Confusing
SUV's?
You too want to blame the goverment for a failing within an organzaton meant for profit? You are willing to overlook legislation to curb it(if you believe it would help, I don't)? A company and individual fails because it failed. Nothing more. Keep It Simple Silly.
Nevermind who made FM & FM as a politcal tool. Then guaranteed the funds. Now we are paying the price.
Who was that again?
Ira, before you gloat too much
Yes, the bill to put some checks in Fannie Mae was voted down, and probably for more political reasons than sound fiscal policy. But, by that time, most of the damage was done and the subprime problem was systemic affecting not only mortgages, but just about every other credit vehicle you can think of.
Perhaps, and this is a big perhaps, the Fannie Mae deal would have tempered the issue somewhat. Hedge fund, derivatives and all the other esoteric financial chicanery was too well entrenched. As far as SUV's, the reason Americans were buying them was because of the very effective advertising and marketing. Most folks have no idea how effective that is and how it doesn't really sell a product…it creates a desire for one, a subtle difference that takes decision making out of the hands of you, the consumer. Detroit decided that SUV's were extremely profitable (a pickup truck with an elaborate camper top), so it decided what you will buy through sexy advertising. Sorry, but that is how it works. I am a participant in that business (advertising) and it works very, very well.
reeling you in
I knew you would bite at my bait am. Are you saying the facts as offered are not true? Did democrats beat down legislation that would have helped avoid some of the mess(following your false assumption the goverment calls the shots for businesses)?
"Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess"
TRUE OR FALSE?
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
TRUE OR FALSE?
Okay,
What about the governments under Reagan and Bush? They contributed to the crisis as well...You can't just single out Carter and Clinton and call it a day.
McCain's lobbyists and Keating Five connections
McCain's current campaign manager served as president of a lobbying association that fought to protect Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the sort of regulation that McCain is now proposing. One of his economic advisers was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae, while other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. McCain already got slaughtered in 2000. Bush Junior had no problem playing ads that hit McCain for his role in the Keating Five case. Why this wasn't an issue during the 2008 primaries is beyond me. The Republicans had other options, at least Romney used his own millions. I prefer Senator Obama's historic number of small donations and the fact he did more for reform in just a few years than some Dems and Reps did in their 30-year careers.
am and len
I didn't say a Democratically controlled Congress under Clinton, I said a Democratically controlled government. Clinton's Justice Department pressured financial companies to extend loans to people unable to repay them citing the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. I didn't say anything about deregulation. In the case of quasi-government entities I think regulation is necessary. And who voted against more oversight for Fannie Mae? Dodd, Obama and Clinton, all in the top dozen recipients of Fannie Mae money. Detroit made SUVs because that's what the American consumer was buying. If the price of gas were still under $2 / gal they still would be. I am not bashing the working man because I am one - that's why I resent the bejesus out of having to pay out of pocket for other people's mistakes. I waited to buy a house until I could afford one after renting for over 20 years and have worked too hard for my money it over to people who didn't earn it. Conservatives vote based on what's best for the country. Democrats put their hands out and ask, "What will the government give me?"
CS
Not to burst your bubble, but Congress under Clinton was controlled by the republicans. Reagan did quite a bit to deregulate as well. This is not a problem that the democrats made, despite how you attempt to spin it. Remember Bush pointing to the housing boom as proof that the economy was doing well? Guess what, you can't have it both ways. If that was the republican proof that things were going well, it does not become the democrat's albatross.
Wow, reading cs and ira
you'd think that the folks that actually get things done in a corporation were the devil himself. Blame the workers for GM's decision to keep making overpriced, gas guzzling SUV's (Hummers, are you kidding me), while the rest of the dumb world is investing in hybrids. Blame the workers for companies not being able to compete with universal health care in other countries. Let's make sure that folks who work the line don't make too much money, it might spoil them, after all, if they had any drive at all they would go to college and become brokers or lawyers. Yes sir, we have brilliant captains of industry. Fire the workers, rehire them at 1/2 pay, no benefits, so they can buy Chinese goods at Walmart. Now there's an economic plan thought up by a genius. Please, before you trash the working man, remember that the executive suite has never put the first screw or weld in anything. It's all paper until someone actually makes the product.
chris33 your cut-and-pasting is getting tiresome
The government isn't responsible for handing out jobs, the government doesn't control gas prices, foreclosures are rising because people who had no business getting loans were extended loans under pressure from the Democratically controlled governments of Carter and Clinton (Housing and Community Development Act of 1977), the record trade deficit and the fact that the Big Three are on the verge of bankruptcy are due at least in part to ridiculous negotiating tactics of labor unions who demand outrageous compensation for low-skilled labor, whether the money in Iraq is a waste is a matter of opinion, a huge dent in the budget deficit could be made by eliminating entitlement programs to people who don't want to work and the stock market crash hasn't crashed. Obama voted with his party more than 90% of the time with his party, which controls a Congress with an approval rating that is less than half of Bush's.
Good day.
Typical Ira
the "facts" you present arise from an op-ed piece authored by a McCain campaign advisor. Didn't think anybody would read the byline would you?
Thanks, George
Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, a $500 billion dollar budget deficit, and a stock market crash. Thanks, George Bush. McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.
Let's end this madness.
Vote for Obama/Biden on November 4th.
unions strangle business
If you want to get a true sense of what unions do in the contemporary business environment, compare the balance sheets of GM and Ford with those of Toyota, all three of which have plants in the States. Unions have driven up the cost of labor so high that American automakers are unable to remain solvent. All the unions care about it how much money their members get regardless of how it affects the company. If a company goes under, everyone working there loses their jobs. Of course, the new business model is: don't worry about making prudent decisions. If you get into trouble, the government (a.k.a. the taxpayers) will bail you out because not to would harm the economy. As for minimum wage, go into a McDonalds and tell me those people are anything but overpaid. And for those of you castigating McCain for being honest about his not having a strong grasp of economics - no president knows everything about everything. What about Barak's ploy sci undergraduate degree and his law degree prepared him to be an economics guru? McCain was showing candor, an admirable trait in a president and one Omama lacks.
Voting Like A Worker
Working folk need to vote our interests and that clearly means Obama in this election. We've had enough of big business politics and it's we who have to pay for the mess they've made of it.