Under terms of the now-dead Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the labor organizing laws would’ve been changed to allow the NLRB to certify a union based solely on the collection of signed cards from a majority of a company’s employees.

Four states–Arizona, Utah, South Carolin, and South Dakota–reacted to the specter of EFCA by passing legislation requiring a secret-ballot vote for all union organizing efforts.

The NLRB, claiming superiority of federal labor statutes over state laws, is now threatening to sue the four states to overturn their legislation.

Speculation further abounds that the NLRB will use its regulatory and review authority to establish the EFCA’s card-check provision without a Congressional vote. If that happens, there could be some interesting court fights between each of these four states and the NLRB.

The Bush-era "no match" rule gave employers three months to straighten out mismatched employee Social Security numbers or immigration documents that conflicted with what’s on record in D.C. After three months, the employers would have to fire those employees who couldn’t produce evidence of proper documentation (presumably because they’re using fake documents and numbers to cover up their illegal immigrant status).

Predictably for the Obama administration, the "no match" reversal was hailed by union supporters, which is somewhat ironic since unions just as predictably fear lower-cost labor as represented by undocumented workers, but the unions are engaging in a trade-off for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

"The no-match program was a flawed and ineffective enforcement tool that would have hurt U.S. citizens and other authorized workers," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO.

No doubt.

As for the E-Verify extension that has long been opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups (that rely on undocumented workers for cheap labor), even those who might otherwise cheer the extension saw a Trojan Horse in its midst.

Said a statement by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the extension is "further evidence of the Obama administration’s and the congressional leadership’s effort to raise a smokescreen while it dismantles all effective controls against illegal immigration."

No doubt.

Stay tuned to see what’s really going to transpire on the immigration front, provided the health care reform front ever recedes from center stage.

However, as they did with the Lilly Ledbetter decision of 2007, and as legal observers predicted when Gross was decided, the Democrats are fighting back against the high court.

Congressional Democrats in the House and Senate have concocted the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA–POW?), which re-establishes the standard that the Supreme Court rejected, that of merely showing age was a factor in the adverse job decision.

“This extremely high burden really undermines workers’ ability to hold employers accountable,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee during a news conference.

Harkin was joined by co-sponsors Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D.-Vt.) and Congressman George Miller (D.-Calif.).

"The same Supreme Court responsible for the backward ruling against Lilly Ledbetter has now thrown another legal barrier in front of hardworking older Americans," added Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

The three Democrats are also enthusiastic sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which business has denounced as undemocratic because it virtually does away with the secret ballot in unionization drives.

Let’s put this number in perspective. For starters, just last year support for unions stood at 59 percent, and when the landmark, union-enabling National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) passed and Gallup first asked the question, support was pegged at 72 percent. That poll was in 1937, and support didn’t breach that rarefied stratosphere until 1957, the heyday of American economic might, when it soared to 75 percent.

The previous low of 55 percent was recorded twice–in 1979 and 1981, years of high inflation and recession.

So 48 percent is really historic, and it comes during the nationwide focus on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which may well have been a contributing factor in the plunge in support for labor. Of course, the debacle in Detroit with the creation of Government Motors and Fiat USA with union ownership in the first instance and union favoritism in both cases may also have played a part.

Behind the site and game, evidently, are two groups called Americans for Tax Reform and Alliance for Worker Freedom. No idea who they are.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the SEIU in California is blocking elections at hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities as the nascent National Union of Healthcare Workers gathers signatures and calls for elections.

Behind the battle lies the brutal takeover of United Healthcare Workers West (UHW West) earlier this year when SEIU President Andy Stern installed some henchmen at UHW and then accused the native leadership of embezzelment. The ousted UHW quickly morphed into the National Union of Healthcare Workers and is now battling SEIU for representation of healthcare workers in the Golden State.

Stern is fighting back like any good employer by trying to block elections while accusing the rival union of illegal tactics.

So far, two elections have been held, and each union has won one.

Since unions are unions no matter if one or more of them is an aggrieved party, it matters little who wins, but it would be nice to see Stern get his much-deserved comeuppance.

In fact, as I have written before, labor law heavily tilts the scales in favor of unions during organizing drives:* Unions control the election timing, so workers do not vote until union support peaks.

* Employers rarely learn of the organizing drive until unions ask for an election, so unions have months to build support while employers have just one month to present the other side.

* Employers may not ask employees if they support the union. Unions may ask employees how they will vote and focus their efforts on persuading undecided workers.

* The law severely restricts employer speech while allowing unions to say almost anything they want. Employers may not promise to improve working conditions if workers vote down the union. The union may promise anything it wants, even if it knows it cannot keep those promises.

* Employers may not even ask workers what problems they have in the workplace and why they want a union. Unions can ask workers about anything they want.

* Unions may not campaign while workers are on company property and on company time. However the company must give unions the addresses of every worker and unions can visit workers at their homes. Employers are legally prohibited from visiting workers homes to campaign.

"Compromises are going to be made," said Harkin, 69. "It probably won’t be card check [as part of the final law], because too many people are opposed to it now."

Card check allows organizers to unionize a company by merely getting 50-percent-plus-one of the employees to sign off on the idea. No election need be held, but the union (har de har har) could still ask for one.

Business is unilaterally opposed to it, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling the EFCA "Armageddon." (New York Governor David Paterson has already created card check in his state by fiat–executive order. Henceforth, all businesses receiving government assistance in just about any form in his state will be subject to card check unionization.)

Harkin said he’s hoping that the compromise bill he’s negotiating with fellow senators will win the "grudging support" of both labor and "some business." For its part, labor says card check is non-negotiable and absolutely essential, and from the business side comes the stance that, even with card check gone, the EFCA is still Armageddonish with its binding arbitration provision.

The proposed law mandates a two-year binding contract be imposed if the company and union fail to agree upon a contract after 90 days of direct negotiations and another 30 days of mediation. In the words of Rodney King, "Can’t we all just get along?" Evidently not.

One, Penny Pritzker, a Hyatt zillionaire, actually ran Obama’s campaign finance committee, the one that racked up about $750 million (with nine-figure contributions from unions) for the presidential campaign and another $53 million just for the inauguration.

Neil Bluhm, founder of the private equity firm Walton Street Capital and gatherer of $160,000 for the Obama campaign, just says no as well, and is joined by another billionaire, Lester Crown, who runs an eponymous investment firm. Crown gave the max personal contribution allowable under the law to Obama.

What took them so long, or did they just notice Obama’s true stripes?

A little history from The Japan Times: Back in the 1980s, “official” Japan became worried that labor was getting too expensive, threatening its manufacturing and exports. Importing cheap labor was at first ruled out as a solutionbecause it would debase Japan’s “homogeneous” racial stock, but that proved to be tatemae, a facade, as the nation began importing workers from China as “trainees.” Not being citizens, they didn’t have to be paid the minimum wage and they could be worked long, long hours.

Later, Japan also starting inviting Nikkei, foreigners of Japanese descent who mostly do not speak Japanese, to work in the country. Like the trainees, they are not citizens and thus not subject to any labor laws. Reports of working both of these groups as many as 16 hours a day and paying them just $400 a month abound, which you can read about in more detail in the article.

Now, with a severe economic downturn hitting Japan, the trainees and Nikkei have been the first to be fired. The trainees have no choice but to return home, where they face disgrace and possible prison time for not being able to repay their sponsors for sending them over. The Nikkei are being offered “golden parachute” payments of $3,000 for each worker and $2,000 for each dependent to return home and never come back!

The Japan Times concludes, and this sounds eerily like America:

It’s epiphany time. Japan’s policymakers haven’t evolved beyond an early Industrial-Revolution mind set, which sees people (well, foreigners, anyway) as mere work units. Come here, work your ass off, then go ‘home’ when we have no more use for you; it’s the way we’ve dealt many times before with foreigners, and the way we’ll probably deal with those Indonesian and Filipino care workers we’re scheming to come take care of our elderly.

Wow, I truly feel sorry for these people. It’s even making me reconsider my opposition to unions and the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The phrase “mere work units,” in particular, sticks in my craw.

The article is truly eye-opening, a must read.