Teamster Magazine recently interviewed Philip Dine, one of the nation’s foremost labor experts, on some of the recent issues facing the labor movement. His answers, like his 2008 book “State of the Unions,” is an unbiased and informed look at these topics.

Q. If you had one piece of advice for the labor movement, what would it be?

A. Unfortunately, labor is used to campaigning for people, but it needs to spend a lot less time trying to elect individuals and more time making its agenda part of the national discussion. After the election, it shouldn’t be asking for things as a favor; instead its issues should be part of the mandate. This time, having been shafted so often after an election, unions aren’t going to have much patience. Especially since the majority of the country wants what they want.

Q. Will the Employee Free Choice Act become law this year?

A. It’s not going to get through in the fashion in which it was originally written. Down the road, labor will face a choice of a watered-down version or putting the whole thing off until Congress changes its composition in January 2011.

You say “how could this happen? You have a president who supports you and was a cosponsor in the Senate, you have a public that thinks the pendulum has swung too far to the corporate side, you have economic problems, and labor leaders and Democrats after the election saying it’s a priority. So why is it in trouble?”

The answer is, in part, the economic situation: An economic crisis makes EFCA almost seem like a luxury to political leaders. They think we’ve got to save jobs, we’ve got to get the economy moving, and we’ve got to get the support of the Chamber of Commerce. An all out-effort for the bill by the president would incite a scorched-earth response from the business community.

Also: Labor was late out of the gate in making the case for EFCA. Just as important, labor has not really told the public why it should give a darn. As a result, to the average person, this looks likes a ‘He said, she said.’ Big business contends, ‘Labor wants to intimidate workers.’ Labor responds, ‘Level the playing field.’

The average person doesn’t know that 30,000 people a year were given back pay, even under the Bush NLRB, often because they were fired or penalized by their employer for trying to form a union. The average person doesn’t know that 16 workers a day die on the job from accidents. The average person doesn’t know it’s harder to form union here than in any other industrialized country.

In short, the average person doesn’t know why a vibrant labor movement is in the national interest—how it improves safety, leads to a strong middle class.  The average person doesn’t know all the impediments put in the way of workers who try to carry out their rights. They don’t know these things—and so this idea called EFCA is perceived as coming out of left field.

Q. Would you be surprised to learn that employers incited violence and blamed it on unions in 7 percent of representational elections from 1999 to 2003, according to a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute?

A. No. The reality is that some companies use violence, intimidation and lawbreaking. They turn it around and act like this is what they’re concerned about, if the Employee Free Choice Act is enacted. In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act is meant to correct those problems. Some employers flat out break the law. This isn’t just union rhetoric, this is based on statistics.

These are the facts: In the ‘50s, a few hundred employees a year were rewarded back pay in cases involving illegal firings or other employer lawbreaking. That’s risen to 30,000 a year. Think of the chilling effect that has on every worker thinking of forming a union.  

Q. Do labor unions have to work harder explaining what they stand for?

A. Labor has to communicate better and stop complaining about the media, even though the complaints are justified. Labor folks need to find and cultivate reporters who will treat them fairly so they can get their message out. In terms of politics, they have to spend as much time discussing their message as backing candidates, so people are voting for safer workplaces, they’re voting to stop the deindustrialization of America, they’re voting for a balanced industrial relations system.

Unions need to explain why a robust industrial relations system has been a key factor in our economic prosperity and political stability. When there’s an imbalance we get public policies and private practices that help no one in the long run. Unions aren’t just a special interest group; they are working in the national interest. That has to be debated publicly, through the media. In elections people have to be told this. It has to be part of the national political conversation.