It's on: the Employee Free Choice Act will be introduced in both the Senate and House this afternoon. Supporters of the bill held a press conference today at the Capitol, and the lead sponsors each released statements. Here's Sen. Ted Kennedy, EFCA's lead sponsor in the Senate:
The current crisis has shown us the dangers of an economy that leaves working families behind. The people who work in our factories, build our roads, and care for our children are the backbone of this great nation. The Employee Free Choice Act will give these hardworking men and women a greater voice in the decisions that affect their families and their futures. It's a critical step toward putting our economy back on track, and I hope that we can act quickly to send it to the President's desk.And here's Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, an ardent opponent of the bill:
The right to a secret ballot is one which has been protected in America for hundreds of years because we know the value of political expression without fear of coercion. The attempt by some Democrats to take away this fundamental right goes against the ideals of political freedom upon which our nation was founded.
Not only will this legislation invite harassment and intimidation into the work place, it could also cost America even more jobs...
The bill would eliminate employer-mandated secret-ballot elections in
the union organizing process, allowing workers to potentially form
unions via petition. Labor likes it because it makes the organizing process easier; business alleges it will foster union intimidation. EFCA promises to be one of the more intense
lobbying fights of the new Congress, with a Chamber of Commerce VP
describing it as an "Armageddon" showdown between business and labor.
The lobbying fight has been on for some time now, but blitzes from both sides will likely follow after today's development. Right on cue, the Chamber led nearly 200 small business leaders to the Hill today to talk to their senators about it, and a similarly amped up effort from labor can be expected as well.
Update: Labor, it should be noted, had workers on the Hill today visiting congressional offices as well.
apparently mitch mcconnel hasn't read the bill. EFCA does not eliminate any secret ballot. if gives employees a choice-hence the "choice" part of free choice-to chose either card check or a secret ballot.
from the HELP Committe's fact check:
The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the NLRB election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply gives workers the choice of forming their union through an election or through majority sign-up. The majority sign-up process has been a widely used path to union representation since 1935, but workers may only use the majority sign-up process currently if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act puts that choice in the hands of employees rather than their employer.
I don't mind somebody opposing EFCA based on the facts, but to oppose it based on lies, and LYING to the american people about what it does and does not do seems very, republican-like.
"Freaktown", don't forget to pick up your paycheck at the front desk of the union office, and note that over 7% has been deducted for dues.
Apparently Mitch McConnel HAS read the bill. The EFCA "Employee free choice act" is the wrong name for this bill. It should be titled UDCA or "Union Dues Collection Act".
For the facts 1) read the bill 2) visit the SHRM website.
I don't mind somebody favoring the EFCA based on the facts, but to support it based on lies, and LYING to the American people about what it DOES do is deceitful.
Why am I not surprised. It’s just another typical response from the labor movement - over promise and under deliver. Laying party differences aside - if it looks like and smells like a pile of crap, odds are that it is a pile of crap.
Well, let me ask this - if a majority of workers are willing to publicly say they want a union, why is a vote needed? What is the benefit of a vote?
I mean, I'm all for secret ballot elections. They serve a valuable purpose. But they're not the only fair way to make a decision. Certainly we shouldn't get rid of them, but the EFCA doesn't do that. It says that in a situation where a majority of employees have signed cards, they can choose not to do a vote.
Why is this inherently invalid and problematic?
because the way it works is, they have a "card check" to see if there is majority support for a union. If there is, they apply to the NLRB for a vote. That vote takes time to organize. In the meantime, the employer can pressure and/or FIRE employees who favor unionizing thus, when it comes time to VOTE on the union they won't be majority support and the union will fail.
EFCA basically lets the employees choose. If they want a secret ballot vote, they can have one. If they want a card check vote, they can have that too.
EFCA does not eliminate secret ballots. If gives the employees the right to choose what kind of vote they want, a card check, or a secret ballot. Like i said above, this is the "choice" in the free choice act.
And radconcepts, if you're against unions for some irrational reason, that's perfectly fine. It is america after all. But why do those anti-efca force have to LIE about what this bill does and does not do?
If you want more info: here's the link i reference above. It's to the committee overseeing the bill.
http://edlabor.house.gov/employee-free-choice-act-myth-vs-fact/index.shtml
There are a few problems here - under the proposed EFCA bill the union would need to get 50%+1 of the employees to sign cards. Let's say there are 150 employees in a company and the union wants to organize there. They would need 76 signed cards (50%+1 of the employees) to be recognized. If they can identify 76 employees most likely to sign the cards-for any reason, union support, peer pressure, intimidation, not sure what they are really signing, etc.-the union never needs to approach the remaining 74 employees. If 76 employees sign the cards the entire 150 are now unionized. The 74 employees not informed of the union campaign are required to join and pay dues. Where's their "Choice?"
Also, the bill clearly says if the union can produce 50%+1 valid signed cards the NLRB will authorize the union as the official bargining representative. There's no option for the employees to request a secret ballot election. The only time that can happen is if the union gets 30% to 50% of the employees to sign cards...then they can request a secret ballot election.
The other HUGE issue is binding arbitration after 120 of negoation. There's no incentive for good faith bargaining. The union can make wildly over-inflated demands and "settle" for a little less.
Those are the invalid and problematic issues...
Why have anonymous voting booths in November? Why not let the candidates pass out cards during campaign functions to the American people and say “Support the candidate, sign this interest card…read the fine print if you would like… it’s just a card stating that you are interested in supporting the candidate”. Then we can tally up the cards, oops…I mean votes, after 12 months of collecting them and see who wins. Those who signed the cards can’t change their minds 1 day or 12 months later. Let the American workers vote based on empty campaign promises. What is the inherent problem? You must be joking.
This is not “choice”. Put away the threaded lead pipe and let the workers choose with an anonymous election process. Why is it that the unions loose 50% of their elections with the NLRB? The light of truth kills lies…every time.
HR Service - that doesn't seem to me to be an argument against card check, it seems like an argument against majority rule. I mean, even if all 74 employees would oppose the union (and let's note, this is a bit of a surprising concept to begin with - a company of 150 employees, 76 of whom are in on a secret plan? The rumor mill would be working overtime) you still have a majority of employees saying they want to unionize, and you unionize as a result. That's not, to my mind, undemocratic. Now I'm open to some of the other criticisms - in particular, the time limit on negotiations seems to me potentially problematic. But I just don't see what's so undemocratic about getting to 50%+1 via public statements
radconcepts - your concern is that the cards will be fraudulently represented? That seems a concern, but on the other hand, there are limits to my sympathy for people who sign things without reading them. Certainly I would assume such misrepresentation would be illegal. Does any law cover it? But on the other hand, it seems like, if NLRB elections fail about 50% of the time, that 50% would fail to get a majority via card check as well. I'm still not seeing the fundamental injustice here. Again, in a case where a majority of employees have publicly and actively declared their support for a union, and done so with the knowledge that their declaration amounts to a vote for the union, what is the added benefit of a secret ballot?
Phil,
Certainly you would think that it would be illegal for union organizers to misrepresent the facts about signing a card. Surprise…it has happened in the past and it will continue to happen in the future. It is the union way.
What is wrong with an anonymous election process with the NLRB? I will tell you what is wrong with it. The unions are forced to answer the difficult questions about their organization and their practice of taking advantage of trusting employees who believe that they are only signing an “interest card”.
Your argument holds no water. 50% fail with the NLRB and have 90% cards signed. The proposed legislation will turn over employee rights to the union and end anonymous elections. I can hear the union leadership counting the money already.
Majority rule or majority taken advantage of? Your words demonstrate majority taken advantage of and prove the point I am making. Thank you for playing and exposing the true nature of the union agenda.
A note to all – follow the money and you will see the truth. Greed does ugly things to people. Protect your rights and write your senators to reject the EFCA.
radconcepts - Sure. Illegal stuff happens. On both sides, though - I assume you're not going to deny that businesses have used illegal union busting tactics as well.
I find the idea that a workforce that had a 90% card signing rate would fail to get 50% in a secret ballot election difficult to believe - little yet that this would be a common occurrence. Can you provide some background on this rather dramatic claim?
And indeed, as I look through the subsequent comments, I see enormously troubling stuff like Jesse's comment below, about employers using on the clock time to bash unions. Worker intimidation is flatly unacceptable in this case. And though the line between, as you put it, "educating workers about the facts" and harassment is a subjective one, it seems clear that it is not unusual for employers to end up on the wrong side of that line.
To my mind, this appears a broken system. Card check is imperfect, but as I said earlier, given that the deck is stacked by nature in the employer's favor, something that obviously favors unions does not seem to me unreasonable - in fact, it seems to me that even with card check employers have a huge set of advantages over workers.
Do you have a better proposal to fix the current system of abuses?
Another example of a neo-con dittohead blindly following the direction of Limbaugh, Foxnews and the GOP.
You don't bring forward a single argument against the EFCA except that unions support it so it must be crap. It surprises me how easy it is for you to point fingers without a twinge of self-reflection. it's obvious you 1) don't work in the manufacturing or service sectors where unionization has been a constant battle since 1950. and 2) you assume that because you proclaim some viewpoint is true, it somehow re-affirms your self-righteousness.
oh they brought up the words "secret ballot"!!! I like secret ballots, I don't like open endorsement. Boo Socialism, Boo USSA, Boo Obama, Go Limbaugh!!!
funny thing is, the secret ballot process exists right now, ONLY with a 30% participation in unionization. Other than that, your oh so moral and good-natured employer will never have to call a "secret ballot".
Now if union participation secret ballots were mandated to be held within a certain term, then your whole argument about secret ballots and Americanism would be valid.
On the contrary, you are supporting the autocratic system that is now in place and allows discrimination towards those brave 30% who are willing to openly express union support.
Read your own writing once in a while, without the Oxycontin.
max"POWER",
It sounds like I have struck a cord. The truth hurts.
When the facts are on your side it is tough to be wrong.
Oh, I have been in the service industry for the last 20 years and have seen first hand what the unions have done to this country.
As far as me being a "neo-con dittohead" - you know not of what you speak. Therefore the rest of your statements are equally lacking in value. NEXT
that's a chuckle. Thanks for proving my point ditto.
To say the act eliminates the secret ballot is not a lie. Supporters of the Act are correct when they say that the bill does not delete the current election process. The truth is, however, that the election process will never be used again. Union supporters say that the EMPLOYEES choose whether to seek certification through an election or majority sign-up. That is not the case. The UNION will decide whether to seek an election or majority sign-up. Union supporters say that "EMPLOYEES are the UNION." Anyone who has ever been in a union knows that is not true; the union may be the employees' representative, but they ARE NOT the employees. No union will ever seek to have an election when they can get certification through majority sign-up. Union supporters say that they lose elections because of employer intimidation and unfair labor practices committed during organizing campaigns. The truth is, once employees find out that the truth about collective bargaining, they often change their mind. The union organizers will tell all kinds of wonderful stories about better wages, benefits and working conditions. Employees are desperate to believe it. When the employer gets around to educating the employees and the employees find out that nothing changes, that the employer doesn't have to agree to anything, and about all the rampant corruption and theft by union officials, support drops off. Don't forget the corruption and intimidation used by union organizers to get the cards signed. If the EFCA passes, union organizers will have a free pass to use WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY to get cards signed and start collecting dues. The unions' very survival, along with their trips to Vegas, big cars and fat salaries, are tied to this legislation.
Many good employees have found out the hard way - be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
On the other hand, there's an entire industry devoted to helping employers prevent unions from winning elections. So it's a matter of which side you want to empower to use dirty tactics. The problem is, the employee/employer relationship is an unbalanced power relationship. The employer holds a lot of cards. That's why unions matter in the first place. Lowering the bar, so long as the bar is still majority support, does not seem to me particularly unfair.
This is not good. If the Democrats want to pass this thing, they need to balance the high-flown Kennedy rhetoric with an aggressive campaign pushing back against the claims of vote coercion and union corruption.
Compare the two statements in the story above. Which sounds more likely to stick in the mind of the average Joe: some gauzy fluff about "working men and women", or the alarmist "take away your rights" spiel? If the Democrats want to win this one (and its one of the most symbolically and practically important pieces of legislation on the table this year), then then have to fight from it. So far, I don't see a single Senator taking the fight to the Republicans and putting them on the defensive. Get it together, Dems, or stop calling yourselves a political party.
If one side in a political election had the names, addresses and home numbers of all voters, held their jobs in their hands, could force them to both listen in groups and one on one to the person who had control of their livelihood and was allowed to deport anyone who disagreed with them with little consequence while the other side had to go door to door to get votes you would not say this was a fair election. This is exactly what happens in union election campaigns. Balance must be brought back to the process. EFCA seeks to restore this balance
Let's get a few facts straight! Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.
As worker who formed and organized a union in 1992 and a current organizer with over 50 organizing campaigns under my belt. Not many people have a clue what happens when workers try to organize into a union under current labor law. Allow me to explain what normally happens during an organizing campaign right now.
First a petition must be filed with NLRB after a majority of the workers have signed cards or a petition. Remember these workers came to the union and asked for representation. After employer gets notified that a petition has been filed that's when the delay starts because over 95% of the time corporations hire a labor(Union Buster) consultant or attorney who belongs to his union (ABA) the american bar association who are paid big bucks and teaches them all the dirty tricks and sometimes a worker will be fired to chill the campaign. Sad but true, let me know if you want to hear from some of them.
If the employer doesn’t agree with the petitioned unit which 90% of the time they don’t because that means faster election (42) days normally. A hearing is schedule dragging out the election possible up to 70 days when the dust settles an election is scheduled. There can be no secret vote until the voters are determined once that happens the employer’s crank up their anti-union rhetoric. I call them Dog & Pony shows. Heck the union is not even entitled to voter list until the unit is determined normally about 2 weeks from date of schedule election. Think about that how you would inform a confused worker who was included against his will after hearing all the company propaganda.
They force the eligible voters to attend captive audience meetings during normal work time so they can brain wash them on how bad unions are. All of their propaganda comes from the Union Buster word processor; sometimes they even force the workers to watch a video that is professional made bashing unions. Remember the reason they wanted to organize in the first place was due to their employer not treating them fair. They approached the union wanting help. Bottom line happy workers won’t organize and the Union can’t force them to. All the union meetings are voluntary
Right now I organize like there are no labor laws because in reality that's the truth. The Bush administration assigned 3 conservative panel members to sit on the NLRB. Think of it as the fox guarding the hen house. About 25% of all union campaigns have a termination once the organizing campaign starts. I have seen good cases pitched by the Bush board stating no merit to the case. Employer's and their consultant know the current law has no teeth so instead of respecting their workers wishes to organize they engage in antagonizing their own workers. Just like the school yard bully.
Another fact under current board law workers can decertified a union with 51% signature w/out having a secret election. The company attorney writes Union letter stating that and the union is out of there. How is that democracy?
The current laws were enacted in 1935 because back then there were no laws the employer's and corporations acted lawlessly. Workers were beaten shot and even killed because they refused to be treated like slaves. They organized for respect dignity and fair wages and working conditions. Working 7 days a week 16 hr days was unacceptable.
Whether you agree with unions or not- the issue is does the American Worker have the freedom to join a union? The current law says we do but unless you have ever tried to unionize your workplace most of you that thrash organized labor will thrash EFCA because you are clueless on what really happens.
The Employee Free Choice Act will assure a level playing field for working people - there will be more penalties when employer violates workers rights. If employer want to act like criminal like they normal do there should be consequences including jail time. Why do you think they are willing to spend $200 million to oppose EFCA? Whose freedom are they really fighting to protect? Can someone remind me what we are doing in Iraq- something about Freedom? We need to stop being hypocrites and let working people have the Freedom to have a Union if they want one. When we do the economy will work for everyone not just the CEO or Corporations.
I hope you agree as a country scaring the daylights out working people because they want to organize and bargain for better is just plain wrong. Not saying we need to agree if unions are need or not.
It’s time for some real labor law reform in this country. Its time for a change!
I have been involved in some organizing. I think the right to organize will be tarnished if the secret ballot is taken away. I guy that is quiet and will do anything for some to leave them alone may sign a card. I will tell it is not fun when you a coworker or someone from the union hall calling your house every day during an organizing campaign. If the company rep did that there is a filing to NLRB. The company should be able to give out facts. The union gives empty promises. I always ask anyone that want to get into a union what can you garentee me not promise me?
Art believe me the company does provide facts however, they are very misleading. One thing the employer won't do when they put out propaganda is mention that Unionized workers make up to 40% more than non-Unionized workers go the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website to confirm. Employer’s runs their campaigns based on fear and deception just like a scam artist on the street. You know the guy who challenges you to find the nut under the shell. In this case the employer clouds the workers issues with misleading propaganda.
Art, unless you have ever been involved in an organizing campaign it’s difficult to understand how unfair the current system is or the fear that comes with organizing for workers. You will continue to hear from big business and the Chamber that labor is attempting to take away the secret ballot, again not true. The Employee Free Choice Act does not take the secret ballot it's in there as part of the bill all it does is give the choice to the workers not the company. This bill if it becomes law which we think it will, will raise the standards of living for all workers. Think about it. I hope you agree the economy needs to work for all workers not just CEO’s and Corporations. Without unionization how do think that can be possible? We have all seen what happens when Wall Street gets the key to the safe.The reason they will fight to stop EFCA is not about any secret ballot, but about greed. They don't want workers to share in the prosparity.
Its UN American to torture it should be UN American to break the law and antagonize workers because they want to organize.
I hate to say this but you sound like a company man with a union back grown. As a laymen I get it the Union is a business paying saleries to people that maintain their efforts. Not every business is evil. I can say today I work with good people and someone unionizing will change the atmosphere for ever.