Economic conservatives are accustomed to sound reasoning and strong leadership from Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) on labor policy matters.  Senator Hatch has once again been eloquent during the current debate on the Employee Free Choice Act.  (Read his speeches HERE and HERE).  

But Senator Hatch has not been alone.  Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, is currently in his second term in the Senate.  He is the only Senator formally trained as an accountant, and he owned a chain of family shoe stores before entering government.  He knows a thing or two about economic policy.  And, as his speeches on the EFCA have shown, he knows a lot about labor policy too.  Here are some highlights from last week’s debate (more to come as the transcripts of  today’s deliberations become available):

• “It is a very disturbing development when this body, which has no greater purpose than the preservation of our democratic rights, would choose to tell the working men and women of this country that democracy will stop at the factory gate.”

• “The U.S. Supreme Court, along with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has uniformly, and over the course of decades, held that the private ballot is the best, most reliable, most democratic means of determining employees' free choice in the matter of unionization, and that all other methods, most particularly--most particularly--card signing are inherently flawed and unreliable.”

• “However, what they have gotten entirely wrong is the notion that the decline in union representation levels has anything whatsoever to do with some infirmity in the law. Those who make this claim conveniently forget to mention that the law which they complain about today is identical to the law in effect when unions enjoyed their greatest organizing success and their highest levels of private sector membership.”

• “Now, the truth is, where unions choose to participate in a democratic process and make their case to the workers in an atmosphere of open debate, the system is fair and they are more than capable of success.”

• “In light of organized labor's unprecedented electoral success over the last 10 years, this bill is like a baseball hitter who is on a decade-long hot streak and batting .620, insisting that the game is unfair and that the pitcher's mound has to be moved back.”

• “The current rate of alleged employer unfair labor practices represents a drop of nearly 24 percent compared to 1990; a staggering 42 percent when compared to 1980.”

• “The truth is that the National Labor Relations Board scrupulously monitors the behavior of all parties during the entire period of a union-organizing campaign. Any misconduct by an employer that interferes with the employees' free choice in the election process is automatic grounds, automatic grounds, to set aside and rerun an election.”

• “It has never been and it should never be the role of the Federal Government to maintain or increase the level of unionization. That is a matter of free choice for individual employees, not a matter of Government mandate.”

• “The proponents of this bill are not concerned about employee free choice at all. They are concerned solely with giving organized labor a way to stop their decades-long membership decline, the loss of membership dues money, and the loss of the political leverage such money buys.”

• “The bill also applies a stronger set of penalties, but only against employers. Even though unions face an annual average of almost 6,000 claims of harassment, intimidation, and coercion, it should come as no surprise that the bill's drafters see unfair labor practices as a one-sided affair.”

• “Another little hidden gift to organized labor in this bill is that under this legislation, there would be no private ballot vote when a union was attempting to get into the workplace; however, a private ballot vote would be required to let the employees get out of the union.”

• “The Democrats' own witness at the HELP Committee hearing in March admits that it is not true that any one employee who prefers to vote by secret ballot election can secure such an election.”

• “Essentially, private ballot elections will only take place under H.R. 800 if the union chooses to have one by submitting authorization cards from less than 50 percent of the workers. As a practical matter, that will never happen.”

• “Comparing union wages versus nonunion wages nationwide is also inherently misleading since union workers are concentrated in geographic areas and industries where the wages and benefits of all workers are generally higher.”

• “That is not the end of the NLRB's authority under current law. If the National Labor Relations Board finds a fair election is not possible, they can certify the union regardless of the vote and order the employer to bargain.”

• Another myth: Workers seeking to form unions are routinely fired; one in five is fired; one in five is fired every 20 minutes. . . .Yesterday, we heard this same myth repeated, and it is based on three phony analyses by stridently prounion researchers, who often make a series of wholly unfounded assumptions and routinely misuse statistical data. . . . Here are the facts. In 2004, for example, nearly 150,000 employees were eligible voters in National Labor Relations Board elections. Using their assumptions, there were only about 1,000 reinstatement offers that year. That is not 1 in 5; that is 1 in 150.”

• “Now, the second "analysis" uses the National Labor Relations Board's backpay figures as the basis for this claim. Here is the problem. The vast majority of those backpay claims do not arise in the context of an organizing campaign. They do not involve union employee terminations. And they do not single out union supporters. Most involve bargaining violations with already-established unions. In 2000, for example, two-thirds of the backpay number involved a single case that had absolutely nothing to do with an organizing campaign.”

• “The third study consisted of stridently prounion researchers calling union organizers about campaigns they conducted over a short period of time in an isolated geographic area. The "statistics" relied on were nothing more than untested anecdotes.”

One by one, Senator Enzi knocked down the arguments relied upon by EFCA proponents and demonstrated why this bill would make bad labor policy.  Perhaps it would only be fair to move the mound back a few feet the next time Senator Enzi is called on to pitch.