The American strategy for success has always been a simple one: work hard, and achieve a better life.  For far too many Americans today, however, this opportunity is slowly becoming out of reach.

In a national Peter Hart survey last December, 10 percent of those interviewed acknowledged that they are "falling behind. " Fully one-half reported that they are making "just enough to get by."

As my friend and colleague, Congressman George Miller [CA-07], Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, recently declared, ". . . the middle class has been squeezed."

"Corporate profits and executive compensation have skyrocketed,"Chairman Miller observed, "but the middle class has seen their wages stagnate, while the costs for basic needs like healthcare, education, food, energy and housing continue to increase."

Most experts would agree with the Chairman that "globalization and misguided government policies" have led to widespread economic insecurity.  His use of the term, "misguided," however, may be overly diplomatic.

A strong case can be made that the "squeezing" of the middle class of which he speaks has been intentional.

Corporate America has been on the attack in recent years – demanding more work for less pay, while raising prices to whatever the market will bear.  This squeeze has progressed with the connivance and, at times, the active assistance of the Bush Administration and its congressional allies.

To fully understand why America's working families have been vulnerable to these tactics, it is helpful to draw upon our history.

Since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the economic advance of working Americans into the middle class has been constructed upon our ability to join unions.   Collective bargaining for fair wages, better working conditions, healthcare benefits and pension security has allowed tens of millions of Americans to build better lives.

Today, as the December Peter Hart polling data reveals, a majority of all workers (53 percent) would join a union if they could.

More than two out of every three believe that unions can make a positive difference in their lives.  They know that union workers earn 30 percent more than their non-union brethren — and are nearly twice as likely (80 - 49 percent) to be protected by health insurance.

For minorities and women, the benefits of union membership are even more pronounced.

Now, America's working families are in a fight.

While big business has squeezed, the Administration and its congressional allies have stood in the way of initiatives to increase wages and improve working conditions.  They have been even more adamant in their opposition to union organizing.

However, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has observed, "there is a new Congress in town."

The new Democratically led Congress has been listening to the tens of millions of American workers who want the protection of a union.  In the House, we have heard compelling testimony that far too many companies have resorted to threats, intimidation, firings and other illegal activity in their anti-union campaigns.

This is why I was honored to join Chairman George Miller as an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 [H.R. 800].

When enacted into law, this legislation will allow the majority of employees at any workplace to choose union representation by the simple act of signing an authorization card.   It will require mediation and arbitration when workers and employers cannot agree on a first contract.  The legal penalties that may be imposed upon employers who threaten, intimidate or fire workers for engaging in protected union activity will be increased.

On March 1 of this year, 228 House Democrats and 13 Republicans passed the Employee Free Choice Act and sent it to the Senate for its consideration.  There, where 60 votes are typically required to move legislation forward to passage, opponents hope to block this reform legislation by a filibuster – the same delaying tactic that was used to slow down civil rights bills in the 1960s.

Supported by a big money lobbying effort, opponents contend that unions could be formed by majority sign-up campaigns without the formal elections that businesses now oversee.  They say that we should fear union abuse.

What this anti-union campaign fails to reveal, however, is this.  During the more than six decades that majority sign-up procedures have been permitted, there have been only 42 incidents in which improper union action has been proved.

In sharp contrast, I should point out, more than 31,000 workers were awarded back pay or other remedies for anti-union violations during 2005 alone.

Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act may succeed with their threatened Senate filibuster this year. Next year, however, is an election year when we will be choosing successors for 21 Republican Senators.

It is worth recalling that working people gained a vote at their workplace through the collective bargaining that complemented and reinforced their political voice in the political realm.  New Deal reformers called this balance of popular power and influence "industrial democracy."

Now, "industrial democracy" is under sustained attack.  The political voice of America's working families may be required, once again, if we truly are to forge that more perfect union that will assure all Americans their place within the middle class.