There's been a lot of chatter from the lunatic Right and even some Democrats like Senator Diane Feinstein(CA) that we cannot afford strong labor rights in this down economy. Companies that are struggling to survive have to be able to crush any workers that are agitating to get better wages and benefits, and so there is declining support for enacting any labor reform even under a Democratic administration, and again the Employee Free Choice Act is unlikely to pass the Senate.
While it is true that paying fairly negotiated wages and benefits costs more than paying as little as you please, it goes without saying that struggling companies could make even more profits if they simply enslaved their workers, and didn't worry about upholding any human rights.
After all, many of our top paying manufacturing jobs went overseas to countries where their isn't such a bother about being paid "living wages". If you were starving and homeless before, living in a company dormitory and being fed, but working 24/7, is a better deal than dying. "Food and housing" are the true requirements of a "living wage,"
Some of you may be believers in "pursuit of happiness" ideals, and think that we all should have the opportunity to improve our circumstance and that joining together for mutual benefit is a basic human right. Fortunately we have a Senate that knows better, and will be more practical, making their corporate contributers happy. Since most Americans aren't in a union, they don't consider labor rights to be important.
Fortunately, we do have a decent President who knows something about community organizing. After all, unions are just communities that are organized at work.
So, since labor reform remains unobtainable in the Senate, and continues to be perceived as a "big union" interest to most Americans despite the fact that most of us work and the middle class was strongest when unions were at their strongest in the late 1950's, what can we hope from Obama and his new labor secretary?
First off, a labor department that cares about labor rights will be more effective in enforcing the law. Bush I enacted a Performance and Results Act in 1993 to make sure that minimum standards are upheld. The Bush II National Labor Relations Board hasn't posted a report since 2003, but under Obama, the NLRB might give a damn about their performance. Actually having some goals and a President that holds you accountable will be a big plus for Labor rights.
Also, while it used to be pretty gruelling to hold an election and develop a community of workers, a net-savvy President could streamline the process. The NLRB could easily set up online forums for American workers to debate their conditions at work and whether or not they would like to hold a secret ballot election. Big labor could do the same, but doesn't seem to be innovating fast enough. Beside, the government could verify employment at a company, which would be more difficult for a non-gov't entity.
The hardest part of organizing a new union is at the embryotic stage, when union supporters can be fired at will with no penalties for law-abusing companies (assuming the Employee Free Choice Act never becomes law). By creating an incubator for all American employees, the Obama administrator could allow virtual card check elections 24/7. Granted, a company could insist on a secret ballot, but if one were held in a timely manner, workers would finally be in control of their own destinies at corporations that have long since forgotten the premise of cradle to grave employment.
So despite the failure of the Senate to support labor reform for the good of the middle class, our President could fix some of this problem with his strong leadership.