In describing the Employee Free Choice Act, Chris writes:
The bill would eliminate employer-mandated secret-ballot elections in the union organizing process, allowing workers to potentially form unions via petition.
And that's absolutely right. But as T.A. Frank has argued in The Washington Monthly, this is not necessarily the most essential part of the bill from the perspective of organized labor or, for that matter, those who hope to limit labor's influence.
What most undermines the secret-ballot process is that employers can violate the law in numerous ways without consequences. Under EFCA, however, every illegal action has the potential to be costly, so firings, spying, threats, or other forms of intimidation would be less likely. Also, there is an alternative way to preserve the secret ballot while guarding against company malfeasance: expedited elections. Under current law, months can go by between when NLRB announces the results of a card check vote and when a secret-ballot election is held. If, however, this campaign window were reduced to just a few days, employers would have less opportunity to intimidate union supporters into changing their minds.
So why the focus on card-check and eliminating employer-mandated secret-ballot elections? Frank argues that this represents a rhetorical strategy on the part of EFCA's opponents.
Given that card check is substantively minor, why has it come to define the entire debate about EFCA in Washington? Because it is the one element of the bill that its opponents can object to and still seem principled--it's easier to stand up for "democracy" than for the right of companies to break labor laws without consequence.
And so, as Frank later suggested, a strategic retreat on the most polarizing aspect of EFCA might be an acceptable outcome.
Given that card check probably requires many times more political capital to wedge into the bill than anything else in EFCA, I wouldn't be surprised to see it abandoned in the final version. And I won't be joining liberals and progressives in raising cries of betrayal or spinelessness should Democrats wind up settling for only 80 percent. The long game is what matters here.
Politically, one could go further: by accepting that secret ballots are good and valuable and in tune with American ideals, etc., the labor movement would put its opponents on the defensive. It's hard to see exactly how business groups would counter this move.
ugh...not this lie again.
EFCA WILL NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOTS. It will give employees the choice of either using card check, or a secret ballot. this is the "choice" referred to in the "employee free CHOICE act."
Are you kidding me, freakdown? Did you not learn anything from the lesson yesterday?
It is not a lie. As it is proposed, the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot. There is no "choice". You know that and I know that.
yo radconcepts,
You are wrong, as is Ambinder. The secret ballot is still an option under EFCA.
The simple fact is that the option will never be executed because of the way the bill is written.
What you are telling us is that a union will take the path of most resistance and elect not to have the NLRB recognize the union by simply providing signed cards. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
In this case, yes, as it is proposed, the EFCA will eliminate the secret ballot. The "choice" is up to the union, not the workers.
The sponsors and the proponents of this bill have come up with a clever and deceitful way to misrepresent the word “choice”.
As currently proposed, the EFCA legislation would allow for secret ballot elections if 30% of the employees request one. Exactly how that 30% would make that request is so far not defined. As it now stands, 51% of employees must sign a card requesting a secret ballot election to get one so, oddly enough, the EFCA changes make it EASIER to get a secret ballot, not tougher.
As I see it, let's say "union goons" go out and force 51% of the employees to sign cards. Unless the law is written in a way that makes the process cumbersome, under EFCA any 30% of the workers could petition for a secret ballot if they feel those cards were coerced.
Now, let's examine how things currently work. A union can go out and get 51% of the cards signed, take them to the employer and cut some sweetheart deal or place pressure on the employer through a corporate smear campaign and there's a union without any further involvement by the workers. No election. No opportunity to petition for one. And this is happening all the time all over the country right now -- employers and unions are sitting down and deciding if and when workers can unionize. EFCA does not cut out the worker from the process, it CUTS OUT THE EMPLOYER.
Why do unions want EFCA? Because polling consistently shows that workers WANT a union but it has reached the point where few shops can sustain through the election and first contract process. Currently, for workers to get the union they want, they must be able to endure through at least a year of employer attempts to bust the union effort. They can NOT just vote for one and get one. They have to be prepared and to make it through the firing and harassment of worksite leaders, cuts in hours and other tactics designed to get supporters to quit, unpaid captive audience meetings and repeated interrogation about their union sympathies. Most workers want a union -- few workers are able to get through that process to get one.
So yeah, if EFCA became law union membership would jump in this country within a matter of months. Already Walmart stack has been downgrades based only on the THREAT of EFCA -- that's how damn bad all of us know Wallmart workers want a union. And the business community is freaking because they know, given an EASY choice, most workers would go union in a heartbeat.
Marc Ambinder and pro-EFCA commenters, you are distorting the facts grossly about what this legislation would do when you say it would leave the choice over secret ballot elections "up to the workers." That's nonsense.
Under EFCA, if some or most workers want a vote over unionization, and union organizers don't, there is no practicable way the workers can force the union organizers to allow a vote.
Therefore, practically speaking, EFCA gives workers no leverage whatsoever over whether there is a vote or not. The only way you can say it does is if you call union organizers who don't even work for the company "workers." That's a nice trick.
Journalists and commmenters who claim EFCA leaves the choice over secret ballots vs. "card checks" up to the workers are either simply mouthing Big Labor propaganda about a bill they don't understand, or deliberately lying.
Stan Greer
National Right to Work Committee
National Institute for Labor Relations Research
Hello,
I'm glad to have stumbled upon this article, as I've recently been discussing a way to move forward on EFCA on my blog, one that protects both the secret ballot AND workers rights. Which surely even Stan won't oppose to:
Head over to the blog if you want to read the rest.
Sorry, Bryan, I would oppose your proposal, because the National Right to Work Committee (my employer) and I personally oppose all laws and legislation that authorize union officials to "represent" workers who don't want union representation, even if a majority of their fellow employees really do want union representation.
We have no problem with union officials representing employees who choose to join a union. But no federal or state law should require a worker who doesn't want a union to accept it as his "exclusive" bargaining agent just because of what his/her fellow employees think.
We have a lot more info about this at www.nilrr.org -- the web site of the Committee's affiliated research organization.
Surely, though, even people who, unlike me, think it's okay for union officials to speak for workers who don't want them, if the union has majority support, would agree the union should truly have majority support to get such a privilege. The "proof" EFCA requires for such an outcome is laughable.