The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041) in the US

Should it be enacted?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know
  • Don’t care

0 voters

I notice a anti-union tendency on this board. Even from the Democrats. This is a good bill that will make it easier to form unions without pressure from the companies. I hope that the current round of UAW bashing doesn’t jeopardize its passing.

[quote]The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, would enable working people to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions by restoring workers’ freedom to choose for themselves whether to join a union. It would:

* Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.
* Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes (PDF).
* Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation. [/quote]

I agree that the damage that has been wrought by the UAW should be kept in context. There are certainly plenty of unions out there that are not as bad (and of course, also some that are even worse – in the field of education, for example). It’s also important to keep in mind that when they were originally created, many of these unions actually represented the people at the bottom, and not the fortunate folks with family connections making $60/hour people who use their union power to keep the people at the bottom from being allowed to take a job.

But none of that makes the “Employee Free Choice Act” any less vile. Taking away the employees’ right to a secret ballot? :astonished: Secret ballots exist for a reason, and that is to allow voters “free choice” without fear of intimidation or reprisal because of how they voted (in the context, from either the management or the union).

It’s depressing to think that giving the law a name that describes the opposite of what the law does (anyone remember Bush’s “Clear Skies Act”?) might actually allow this thing to pass. I hope it doesn’t. :s

Sure there are some good unions and most of the unions were sorely needed when they were originally formed. But, many, if not most unions, have been horrible for business and industry in the past 20 yeas or more. Many unions have contributed to the lack of competitiveness of many US industries.

And the bill in question would take away the secret ballot… I’ve posted about this previously and noted that it is a bill backed by Obama… I’m very much against this bill.

The worst “unions” are the “professional associations” that support lawyers and doctors. I’d happily flood the market with those leeches and see what the hidden hand makes of their prices anyday. :laughing:

Excuse the angst, I’m a broker, and we’re mighty unloved at the moment.

HG

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]The worst “unions” are the “professional associations” that support lawyers and doctors. I’d happily flood the market with those leeches and see what the hidden hand makes of their prices anyday. :laughing:

Excuse the angst, I’m a broker, and we’re mighty unloved at the moment.

HG[/quote]

Give it time and they will love you again. The public will always hate lawyers and leeches.

Business has been able to get away with intimidating their employees for a long time. That’s why there are so few unions anymore. It makes you wonder whether the whole Auto industry mess is not an attempt to finally put a stake through the heart of the UAW. All the CEOs flying up to DC in their private jets to complain about how much the workers are getting paid.

[quote]What really happens during union elections?
92% of employers whose workers try to organize force workers to attend anti-union meetings and workers are disciplined or fired for leaving.
78% of employers force employees to meet with their supervisor to be interrogated about whether they want a union and asked to reveal which co-workers are union supporters.
75% of employers hire union-busting consultants to advise them on how to run an effective anti-union campaign.
52% of employers who have undocumented workers threaten to call immigration authorities to deport workers who are trying to organize.
51% of employers threaten to close the plant if workers vote for the union.
25% of employers actually FIRE at least one worker for supporting the union, even though it is against the law. [/quote]
The ‘doing away with the secret ballot’ meme is just another scare tactic from the right wing.

[quote]MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board’s “secret ballot” election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice – whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up – a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.[/quote]
edlabor.house.gov/micro/efca_myth.shtml
Workers of the world! Unite!

Right now, if a union can pressure 3 of my 9 co-workers into signing a card (harassing them on their way to work, outside their homes, etc. if necessary) then they can force an election by secret ballot. If I know that most of my co-workers are firmly in favor of maintaining our independence, I might even sign one of the cards, just to get the union organizers off my back – knowing that we will defeat the union when it comes to the secret vote.

If the majority of the 10 of us workers DOES vote for the union then I’m forced to accept that union as my representative – even if I voted to continue to represent myself. That’s bad enough.

It’s bad enough that I can be forced to be represented by a union without my consent. It’s bad enough that (if I’m in a non right-to-work state) I can be forced to pay money to some union boss without my consent. But at least in the current system a secret ballot is required so we can make our decision without the union watching over our shoulder. And at least in the current system the union won’t know which of us voted against them.

If EFCA is passed, and the union manages to pressure 6 of the workers into signing cards, then that’s all they need to do. All 10 of us would then be forced to accept the union, and no secret ballot vote would be required.

It’s much easier to intimidate people if you can watch the way that they vote. It’s much easier to get an employee to sign a card in a parking lot, with a bunch of union guys standing around him, than it is to get that same employee to vote for the union in a secret ballot where he is free to make his choice without intimidation.

The union bosses are well aware of this. That’s why they are licking their lips, dollar-signs in their eyes, hoping that EFCA passes.

I don’t know Hobbes. I wonder how much or your hypothetical situation was based on real events.
From my link above,

[quote]MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act will increase intimidation and harassment by labor unions against workers.
FACT: Research has found that coercion and pressure actually drop – from both sides – when workers form a union through a majority sign-up process. Beyond this, harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study of a more than 60-year period, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases which they claimed involved union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. Careful examination of those cases, however, reveals that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.[/quote]

I don’t know either, Doc. My guess is that you wouldn’t find information or arguments on this topic coming from Heritage or NRTW Legal Defense Foundation to be any less biased than I find “Myth vs. Fact” written by the bill’s sponsor, or the views of the California Labor Federation. Both sides claim that the other side is the bad guy.

I’m just giving my opinion. In my opinion, the current system is already unfair in that it can require me to join a union and pay money to union bosses even when I’d prefer not to. But at least the workers usually get a secret ballot vote before that happens. In my opinion, a worker is less likely to be intimidated (by either the union or the management) when the vote is secret. I understand that the workers don’t always get secret ballot under the current system, but I think that workers get a secret ballot more often (since the employer has an incentive to require it as well) than they would if EFCA passes. :idunno:

[quote=“Hobbes”]I don’t know either, Doc. My guess is that you wouldn’t find information or arguments on this topic coming from Heritage or NRTW Legal Defense Foundation to be any less biased than I find “Myth vs. Fact” written by the bill’s sponsor, or the views of the California Labor Federation. Both sides claim that the other side is the bad guy.

I’m just giving my opinion. In my opinion, the current system is already unfair in that it can require me to join a union and pay money to union bosses even when I’d prefer not to. But at least the workers usually get a secret ballot vote before that happens. In my opinion, a worker is less likely to be intimidated (by either the union or the management) when the vote is secret. I understand that the workers don’t always get secret ballot under the current system, but I think that workers get a secret ballot more often (since the employer has an incentive to require it as well) than they would if EFCA passes. :idunno:[/quote]
Bias of course, but there’s a difference between being biased and making up fantasy senarios out of thin air.

[quote]The results were telling: 22% of workers surveyed said management "coerced them a great deal.’ 6% said the same for unions. During the NLRB election, 46% of workers complained of management pressure. During card check elections, 14% complained of union pressure. Workers in NLRB elections were twice as likely as workers in card check elections to report that management coerced them to oppose (it’s worth noting that in card-check elections, 23% of workers complained of management coercion – more than complained of union coercion). Workers in NLRB elections were more than 53% as likely to report that management threatened to eliminate their jobs.

Even more interesting, fewer workers in card check campaigns said coworkers pressured them to join the union (17% to 22%). Workers in card check elections were more than twice as likely to report the employer took a neutral stance and let the workers decide. So, in fairness to Megan, neither option is perfect. But these results show that one is decidedly less perfect than the other.[/quote]
biased source
It would seem that the evil employer problem is much more common than the evil union boss problem. I think in the US the percentage of people in unions is something like 6%. Very low. I’ve never been in one, but I’ve never had a job that paid well either.