One of the most pressing issues now facing Human Resources experts and business owners across our nation is the passage of the Employees' Free Choice Act (EFCA). Currently this bill is with the Senate and House. EFCA, if passed would fundamentally take away the right of employees to vote by secret ballot for or against being represented by a third party or union. Instead of the current rules requiring 30% of employees to sign cards before the NLRB will require a secret ballot vote, the new rules would mandate the employer negotiate with the union if 50% plus 1 employee sign cards. This will present a situation to the employer of being required to negotiate with a union with no prior warning.
Additional issues confronting business owners after passage include a mandated timeline for negotiations. Employers will have 10 days to prepare for the negotiations. Ten days to decide what they want to negotiate, what should be in their first agreement, what costs are involved and who will be on the negotiating committee are a few examples. Once negotiations begin, the employer and union have 90 days to come to agreement. If they cannot, a mediator will be assigned by the NLRB to mediate the agreement. If within 30 days the mediator has not brought the employer and union together, an arbitrator will be assigned to determine the final contract. This essentially takes any control away from, not only the employer and union but also, the employees. All groups must live with this contract for 2 years before negotiating a new contract. Getting items correct in the initial contract is a critical step toward positive employee relations and maintaining a growing business. Having someone unfamiliar with your business and industry is not the situation that anyone wants to be in.
Comments
This article was very informative!
Yes and not correct. The secret ballot provision does not go away! Please get your facts straight.
This article was full of FALSE FACTS the EFCA DOES NOT in any way take away the secret ballot. This is a lie the Repblican Party is trying to spread in an attempt to help out big business and not the working class Americans.
OpenCongress Summary
This bill (aka "card check") would change the rules governing the formation of unions, the way first contracts between unions and employers are negotiated, and how employees' rights are enforced.
Under the bill, workers would be able to decide whether to hold a secret ballot vote on union formation after a majority of employees have signed union authorization cards, or to have the union certified based on the cards alone. Under the current rules, employers have the power to make that decision. The bill also designates a time line for first contracts to be drawn up between unions and employees and stipulates that if no deal is reached within 120 days, an arbitration panel will render a decision that will be binding for two years. Finally, it would increase the fines employers must pay if found guilty of violating their employees' right to unionize.
This bill is organized labor's number one legislative priority, and it is vigorously opposed by the business lob
The real truth is that EFCA gives unions the unilateral ability to decide whether to request a vote or not when between 30 and 50% sign cards. Employers could still also insit on a vote in that % range. BUT, when >50% of employees sign cards, the law says there SHALL be no election scheduled (no matter what anyone wnats) and the union SHALL be certified. For this to be a better scenario for you, you have to have a lot of trust in union organizers, what they tell people, how much fraud there may/may not be in signatures, etc.
Dan, Erik, The NLRB is required to certify without directing an election if a majority have signed cards, as stated in my post 50%+1 employees and the bargaining representative is certified without an election.
According to the Library of Congress, Senate Bill 560 is summarized as follows.
"SUMMARY AS OF: 3/10/2009--Introduced. Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 - Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit."
If I am missing a fact, please guide me to understand your comments.
And by the way Erik, I voted Democrat!
EFCA is a revision to current labor law. In no way does EFCA take away the right of employees to REQUEST an election if THEY desire one after a majority of employees have signed union cards. There is nothing wrong with this approach at all. The employees themselves must inform the NLRB of their desire to have an election. Its very simple and fair rather than the current law which ALLOWS EMPLOYERS to force the election. Employers force an election so that they can bring in anti union lawyers to skirt the law and destroy the union's majority status. Don't believe it ? There has been numerous congressional hearings on this matter of union busting by some employers. Most of the testimony was by those employees whose rights were trampled on with illegal firings and coercion by employers that destroyed the basis of the SECRET BALLOT process. EFCA will correct these abuses by employers. EFCA will not take away the secret ballot provisions of the NLRA Sec.
For those of you EFCA pushers: Stop trying to lie about what EFCA does or does not do. EFCA DOES ELIMINATE THE SECRET-BALLOT VOTE IF 50% +1 SIGN A UNION'S "AUTHORIZATIONS."
Either you're too stupid to read the bill or you're out and out lying. Your choice.
In either case, EFCA is a recipe for disaster for businesses and, ultimately, workers who will see more downsizing in large companies and, in the case of small businesses, outright company closures.
For more info about EFCA and union bosses' con game over this bill, check out 1-888-NO-UNION.COM.
Hello! The Dems dropped card check three weeks ago (www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?th&emc=th). Time to get on to demonizing the arbitration provision.
alltogethernow.org
If the "card check" provision were to stay in the bill (which it probably will not), EFCA would, for all intents and purposes, do away with secret ballot union elections. The bill prohibits the an election once a union submits authorization cards signed by 50% plus one employee in an appropriate bargaining unit and asks the NLRB to certify the union. No union in its right mind would ever ask for an election under those circumstances. Why ask for an election you might lose once employees can vote by secret ballot?
The most appalling thing about EFCA is is bidning arbitration provisions. Allowing government-appointed arbitrators with no knowledge of an employer or its industry to dictate all terms of employment for two years -- wages, hours, medical benefits, retirement plans, seniority rules, etc. -- is a recipe for disaster. As such arbitrators force employers to pay more than they can afford, thoussands will lose their jobs.
Card check has been stripped from EFCA. There are comments on this bill from some of you that are not correct. Mandatory arbitration in the EFCA bill is a good thing. Arbitrators that handle labor arbitration are extremely qualified and knowledgeable of many different industries. Look at their resumes and you will find out. Arbtration is ten times better than a work stoppage or strike and it keeps some employers from dragging on negotiations forever (as today's law allows). Arbitrations are the preferred method of resolving disputes and are used from labor issues to credit card disputes as an example. On "card check". Many companies use this method and one in paricular is AT &T. EFCA is needed because companies like Wal Mart prove it in their anti union tactics.
Hey Jim, where have you been ? Millions have already lost their jobs because of the last 8 years of Bush/Cheney economics. Your arguments don't hold water at all.
John, I strongly opposed Bush/Cheney, voted against them, and campaigned like heck to get Obama and other Democrats elected. But for small businesses in particular, EFCA is a terrible idea.
Wayne, you're confusing arbitration over grievances arising under union contracts (where arbitrators have significant experience and generally do a good job) and arbitration over what contracts should say (where arbitrators have virtually no experience with small and mid-size companies, only with the public sector and a few megacorporations like AT&T).
If you believe that driving up the costs of small businesses (many of whose owners supported Obama and the Democrats) by subjecting them to the pie-in-the-sky dictates of an outside arbitrator who has never run such a business, won't lead those businesses to shut down or lay off rank-and-file employees, enjoy your stay in Fantasyland.
Jim, all do respect to you. I am not confused at all about the arbitration process under EFCA. Why would the NLRB,AAA and FMCS send out an arbitrator to settle a dispute who is not experienced in any kind of business situation large or small. No arbitrator in his right mind would kill a business. That's plain ridiculous. Please take this in consideration. The arbitrator could very well settle the contract dispute in the EMPLOYER's favor. Who is telling you that this is only one sided ? EFCA is fair and should become law.
EFCA should become law. There is far too much union busting going on in America. Trampling on the middle class will undo America. Unionization of workers is the best social fix for our country. It is 100 times better than any government program offered. The way I see it is that a person can sign card for the military and they are in (after physicals etc.) but when an employee signs a union card, they can get fired. This is big time wrong. EFCA, YES!
Patricia this is for you. First of all, majority sign up and card check is fully recognized under current law (NLRA). However, it is up to employer whether or not to recognize the employee group (union) once a majority has been established. Some employers voluntarily recognize card check (at&t,dana,johnson controls etc..). Most employers such as Wal Mart force employees to go through the NLRB to force the issue. This is where the fight starts and companies like Wal Mart are good at it. They can destroy a majority status and fully taint a so called secret ballot election through intimidation and fear. They do this through mandatory anti union captive audience meetings that skirt and break federal law. It happens all the time and testimony by individuals that were wrongly terminated for attempting to unionize made it clear as to why reform is needed to stop the employer abuse. How can you have a fair secret ballot election when the employer has destoyed that effort? EFCA should be passed
Patricia, all one has to do is sign up on the NLRB website and create a log in. You will find many cases on voluntary recognition by employers through card check. It is very legal, non threatening and has been stated as such by the NLRB even though opposed by Republicans, Anti Union Lawyers and their Chamber of Commerce buddies who hate anything with fairness and employee rights. A question for you. Why are employers given so much power to decide unionization ? Shouldn't the decision to unionize be up to employees ? Why do employers intentionally drag on labor negotiations for months and years ? All one has to do is look at labor negotiations in New Jersey concerning the casino workers. With mandatory arbitration guidelines within labor law (such as EFCA), this would not be allowed.
George, I agree it should be up to the employees. I do not think that the majority of employers intentionally drag on negotiations. It takes two to negotiate. Why do you say the employers? Why not say the union drags it on. Some do go on too long and for them, some type of limits may be appropriate.
I have issues with are the card check (which likely will not be in the final version) and the time limits.
Employers will have 10 days to decide on a negotiating committee, first contract items and more. Two weeks is not enough time to do a thorough job on these items. First contract items are critical to employees. Everyone deserves more time to pull things together.
Forced arbitration areas need m ore clarification. How can it be good for business or employees to have an arbitrator that is not familiar with your situation? I’m really concerned with a third party creating rules vs. interpreting the meaning of the rule.
George, I agree it should be up to the employees. I do not think that the majority of employers intentionally drag on negotiations. It takes two to negotiate. Why do you say the employers? Why not say the union drags it on. Some do go on too long and for them, some type of limits may be appropriate.
I have issues with are the card check (which likely will not be in the final version) and the time limits.
Employers will have 10 days to decide on a negotiating committee, first contract items and more. Two weeks is not enough time to do a thorough job on these items. First contract items are critical to employees. Everyone deserves more time to pull things together.
Forced arbitration areas need m ore clarification. How can it be good for business or employees to have an arbitrator that is not familiar with your situation? I’m really concerned with a third party creating rules vs. interpreting the meaning of the rule.
Patricia, you say that you agree that the decision to unionize should be made by employees but yet you are against card check ? Didn't the employees make a decision to sign cards in the first place ? You also state that it takes two to negotiate and this is correct. However, it is not in a union's best interest to stall negotiations. That makes no sense what so ever and documented cases in front of the NLRB prove this to be 98% of the time. It is employers who engage in this type of activity. Arbitrators (3rd parties) don't create rules. They abide by the law. I believe that joining a union and negotiating a contract with an employer is the greatest social, anti poverty program there is. It does not cost the taxpayer one dime. Signing union cards w/o company interference is free choice.
Patricia, where are you coming up with a "ten day" requirement under EFCA for the company to prepare for negotiations and select their bargaining committee ? That isn't in the proposed bill. I don't think you understand card check either. The purpose of card check is to allow employees to freely decide for themselves w/o interference from the employer. It is documented by the NLRB that it has been employers who have destroyed the so called secret ballot process because of their intimidating behavior towards employees once union card signing has begun. How can an employee vote freely when it has been drilled into their head that their place of employment could close if a union is selected? Don't think it happens? Start reading the cases in front of the NLRB and you will be shocked or maybe you really don't care.
Patricia, there were 21,000 workers organized through card check procedures last year in the USA. There was not one case of union or employer intimidation as a result. There were however, frivolous lawsuits brought against employers and unions contesting card check agreements that the two entities agreed to by the National Right to Work "for less" committee who actively fight unions. Regardless of whatever opinion it is that you have, card check works and the so called "secret ballot" election procedure has allowed union busting techniques to foster.
More proof that EFCA with card check and binding arbitration is needed. Heartland Human Services (private co.) in Effingham, IL. Employees unionize in 2005. The employees could not get a contract. They went on strike for two years just to get a contract. All because of a hard headed HR Personnel Director who just hated unions. Finally here it is 2009 and the union was able to get a contract because the company realized that this adversarial position was very bad for all involved. This is exactly one of the reasons why labor law must be changed with binding arbitration in cases where the parties can not reach an agreement. Its a heck of a lot better than a strike which hurts both sides. Unions are pushing EFCA because of the anti labor stances of the Reagan/Bush era's in which they openly engaged in union busting schemes which is contrary to law that promotes collective bargaining (NLRA). Unfair trade deals and bad labor policy has caused union membership to shrink.
Union membership has dropped because of unfair "free trade" laws and union busting principles utilized by Reagan/Bush. Hence, the anti union busting lawyers were invented. Patricia, if an employer has 30 employees and 25 of them sign union cards, why would you want to force an election? It seems to me that they made their decision since IT IS THEIR decision and not the employer's. Is it because YOU know that the so called secret ballot process under the National Labor Relations Act is not so secret and can be tainted by unfair labor practices by employers. Fear and threats work. Ask Wal Mart. The NLRB has documented cases of EMPLOYER interference in unionization efforts. Note! I said EMPLOYER not union interference because there isn't one case out there involving union interference in organizing drives. EFCA is fair and so is card check and mandatory arbitration.
"UNFAIR TRADE" laws such as NAFTA resulted in a 127 billion dollar deficit to the USA just from Mexico and Canada. Imports surged into the USA while exports from the USA were hit with a 25% tariff in China, Japan, S. Korea, Viet Nam and Thailand. The Bush administration knew about this in 2005 and did nothing to correct it. Just in China alone there is a 202 billion dollar trade deficit affecting the USA. 2.9 million USA manufacturing jobs were lost due to NAFTA and so called free trade with China since Jan. 1, 2001. The jobs that were lost were in Steel, Auto, Machinery and Electronics. This was reported to Congress in 2005 by the Dept. of Commerce and again, the Bush Administration did nothing. It does not take rocket science to figure out that under these free trade laws the USA is at a disadvantage because of tariffs placed on our goods. Plus, corporations shifted work overseas under the blessing of free trade. Patricia, there is your free trade answer.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!