-Remove current obstacles to employees who want collective bargaining.
-Guarantee that workers who can choose collective bargaining are able to achieve a contract.
-Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.
This couldnt be further from the truth. When you strip away the deceiving wording of the bill and get down to the nuts and bolts, you quickly find out this does absolutely nothing but consolidate power to the union officials, while stepping on the rights of the workers.
What will this Bill do?
This bill would make the secret voting ballot a dead letter and replace it with a public vote. Why is this being done? It's being done to make it much easier to unionize and precisely so they can monitor who votes against unionizing in public, known as a 'card check procedure.' I think you and I both can conclude, no matter how someone tries to spin it, why they want this vote to be out in the public.
Taking away the rights of the workers by denying them a secret ballot where their identity is protected from the upper ranks, then switching to public voting will lead to a less democratic environment for the workers. This, in turn, will give the union leaders a greater authoritarian state of power, leaving the workers with an unfair advantage. There's nothing "Free" about that. This also opens up the very real possibility that this will backlash on the workers and make them vote a certain way that they would not have done through a secret ballot. Supporters argue that it will not take away the secret voting ballot, but under Section 2 of EFCA, it clearly states that it amends Section 9 of the NRL Act, dealing with the secret ballot.
EFCA will also lead to a large loss of jobs for union workers.
Noted economist Dr. Anne Layne- Farrar said this of the bill, "The costs [of EFCA] should be carefully weighed against any purported benefits of passing the Act, all of which appears to benefit some groups at the expense of others. There is no coherent theoretical argument that explains how the higher costs, greater legal uncertainty, and expanded government intervention entailed in EFCA would improve overall social welfare."
The report also found conclusively that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs under EFCA in year one would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs by the following year. Job losses directly attributed to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would be equal to the entire population of Boston, MA.
As if taking away their right to a secret ballot , thus their democracy along with personal protection werent enough, it may also cost them their job.
Legal scholar Richard A. Epsteins report, "The case against the Employee Free Choice Act" also reaffirms this idea. "The bottom line therefore is that the passage of EFCA will create huge dislocations in established ways of doing business that will in turn lead to large losses in productivity."
It's apparent with our current economic woes that this is a downright horrible idea. Unfortunately, many members of unions are being deceived by their employers on what EFCA really entails. The employee's arent the only ones being deceived, the public as a whole is being misguided in an effort to garner public support.
This bill will allow extortion, intimidation, and a lack of competition all while the workers have little power to fight back. It's obvious that the labor unions are far more concerned with political clout than their workers.
Doesnt this sound all too familiar? Upper management within the financial institutions and auto industries already abused their powers, and look where that lead the economy. Do you really want to let he unions do the same at a time like this?
After the Great Depression, the economy was reliant upon recovering by building up a sound labor union. This bill will lead to repercussions that we cannot afford and would be counterproductive to the objectives we hope to attain, and dont let Barack Obamas teleprompter tell you otherwise. If they want to pass EFCA that badly, it needs to undergo an overhaul.
No Democrat in Congress is going to openly oppose this bill since the union is a very large voting block of theirs, yet clearly none of them want to deal with it. They are giving organized labor lip service and stringing them along for the time being.
All I ask is when the time comes, and if EFCA passes, at least give the workers a secret ballot election free from scare tactics and intimidation.
Comments
You say, "This bill would take away the secret voting ballot and replace it with a public vote." - WRONG JOE! - The secret ballot provision is STILL part of the NLRAct. If the total of employees wanting a union can be proven to be 30% - they can request a secret ballot, NONE of that changes. This bill only modifies the NLRAct - does NOT replace it. And why is a Republican so worried about workers' rights? Doesn't make sense, does it? Read more about the bill and please UPDATE your story...
Joe, please get your facts straight. EFCA does not take away the right to a secret ballot if the Employees choose it. EFCA gives the right to form a union freely to the workers instead of the employer as it is now. Under current labor law there has been documented cases of employer interference in so called "secret ballot" elections held by the NLRB. The current law is so broken and mutilated by the Chamber of Commerce/Big Business side that employees dare not select a union for fear of swift retaliation. Read the cases on the internet under the NLRB's own website. In your article Joe, it is the same spin that the Chamber of Commerce is putting out and it is a total, complete lie. Get it straight!
The affect of this law would be that the workers have no secret ballot, the union, once it has 50% of check cards signed, will never allow it. Why would the union not want a secret ballot in every case? Because the union's goal is to organize, and this law allows them to do that much easier. The arbitration details within the bill are also a disaster.
The card-check process would take the place of NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections currently used to determine whether a majority of employees want union representation.
Read Section 2(a)of the EFCA(H.B 800).It clearly takes power away from the workers.
Feeding people 'lies.'
George McGovern is against this bill.Now you tell me how someone as liberal and pro-union as is it gets is all of a sudden against this bill, perhaps because it is undemocratic?
That is also absurd to conclude that Republicans do not care about workers rights.
Also,are you in unions? If so, do you have a say in the management or board?
Give me a break....Union's don't file petitions now with only 30%. It is rare that Unions file with the NLRB with only 50%. So, the bottom line, is that with the proposed Card Check legislation the 50% "quota" will result in automatic certification with the NLRB for any union filing over 50% the proposed unit. The real key for a fairer process is to simply shorten the time from petition filing to secret ballot election. Six Canadian provinces have the right idea in going to an election in 10 days. This significantly eliminates the "campaign" time which can result in unfair pressure from both sides. Give the educated American the benefit of the doubt and allow them the continued privilege of the secret ballot process. It will not only continue the credibility of the process, but lessen ultimately all the litigation that will go on endlessly because of the quest to eliminate the secret ballot.
This suggestion that this bill "would take away the secret voting ballot" is the first myth corrected on The Committee on Education & Labor's website
This bill actually gives workers the choice as to whether to have a secret ballot or use the card check process. Right now the employer has the choice.
You have no excuse Joe. But the republican leadership is worse. Many of these guys are lawyers. When they all intentionally tell the same lie about a bill in this way, I believe it represents a form of racketerring: Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Telivision.
This just like anything else is a battle of soundbites. If you want it straight from the horses mouth,here it is. This is Barack Obama talking about how "rather than having a secret ballots, you would have card checks." How much more direct can you be?
I cannot embed videos in the section, just copy and paste the title into youtube to see for yourself. This is the unedited version.
"Obama Agrees that EFCA eliminates Secret Ballot Elections."
My biggest problem with this bill is the secret ballot. This is a big "thank you for you donations and votes" to the union leaders disguised as being for the employees. Like I said, all I ask is for the secret ballot to remain there for the workers. Is that too hard to do? What is so threatening about democratic voting without intimidation that you have to resort to squeezing it into a bill? It's always the first point attacked on the websites you look at because it's there and is the biggest threat to the passage of this bill.
Joe, I did not refer you to a sound bite. I refered you to the website of the committee bringing the bill forward: The Committee on Education & Labor. As I said, the first myth this site explains is the myth you are spreading in your article. Since you appear unwilling to do what journalists used to call research, I have copied what the site says below.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the "secret ballot" election.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the secret ballot eleciton process. That process, also known as a National Labor Relations Board election would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill 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 allows workers, not corporate executives, to make that decision.
Of course the Committee on Education and Labor is going to say that, their Chairman, Congressman George Miller, is the writer of the bill as you know.
I have no stake in this bill nor do I have any hidden motives. I have done research, I referred people to look at Section 2(a)of EFCA. I went straight to the source itself,not outside organizations pushing for the bill,but straight in.
Section 2(a) of EFCA: 'If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection'(a).
It would make secret voting a dead letter.
I would like to also note from Section a of the bill "the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection', its not the employees chosing, thats the union officials. It would make secret voting almost next to impossible written under that context, and that is where the opposition is coming from. The employers can go back time and time again just to reach that 50%, and once they're at that marker, they're sprinting to unionize, killing the option of secret voting.
This writer has no idea what a union is. A union IS the workers. It is not SEPARATE from the workers. A union is an organnization or collective or workers. So this statement: "consolidate power to the unions, while stepping on the rights of the workers" makes no sense. consolidataing power to the union is consolidating it to the workers.
This statement: "This, in turn, will give the union leaders a greater authoritarian state of power, leaving the workers with an unfair advantage," also makes no sense. Fine, give workers an advantage. They need one for a change. Their earnings have been declining for a decade. The real disadvantage is trying to organized while corporations force workers into one-on-one meetings where they threaten and intimidate and force workers to tell how they will vote on the "secret ballot."
Finally, the important thing to note is the Employee Free Choice Act leaves up to the workers -- NOT THE COMPANY -- whether to go with secret ballot or majority sign up.
he is talking about ppl high up in the union it is in his responses look. he is showing stuff ppl keep saying things with no proof. i have to read more into it
Section 9 [159](e) of the present National Labor Relations Act is unchanged by the Employee Free Choice Act. This section (quoted below)states that if employees want to file a petition with the labor relations Board to have a secret ballot election they can. The Employee Free Choice Act merely allows workers to also decide the issue through the card check process if 50% of them sign the cards. It gives employees the choice. Describing it as undemocratic is more than merely wrong.
(e) [Secret ballot; limitation of elections] (1) Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and labor organization made pursuant to section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title], of a petition alleging they desire that such authorization be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer.
Since you mentioned Section 9, its amended by section 2. Im going to copy and paste this into two sections:
SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.
(a) In General- Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative
and that no other (union or individual is) the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).
I've been getting an enormous amount of hits on this article consistently, which doesnt hold up compared to the average of the articles.
I looked further into this and found:
"Recently, an effort to post all across the web fake comments supporting a key union cause has been discovered. In Internet activist talk, this is called “astroturfing.” The term describes a campaign of fake comments posted on multiple websites where articles are discussing any particular issue about which the “astroturfers” want to have their position known. In this case the issue is the discussion of the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and the “astroturfing” is an effort by union supporters to explain away the dangers this act represents to the American worker. The end result is supposed to be that when regular web users come to a page and see the pro-union message they imagine it to be from a “real” visitor. In truth it is an organized campaign to spam comments"
Pumpjack, pumpjack hiding in the glade, got an alligator on his middle leg (joe)
supporters have now resorted to ad hominem attacks whats new?
Joe,
I made a rather simple point.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) does not take away the employee's right to call for a secret ballot as clearly outlined in Section 9 [159]9 (e) of the present National Labor Relations Act. Section (6) of the EFCA, which you copied, does not change that; it merely shows that workers can also use the card check process--if they choose.
I am a Philosophy Professor; I do not work for a campaign. I am simply amazed by the discussion of this bill. It clearly gives workers the choice of whether to use the secret ballot or card check.
The fact that republicans have been so successful spreading this lie that the bill takes away the secret ballot demonstrates, I believe, just how oligarchic our society is. If the rich want us to believe a lie, all they need to do is pay enough people to say it on TV and young guys like you will spread it around for them.
The the Orwellian, DoubleThink-named Coalition for a Democratic Workplace is really a front group for anti-Union Corporate forces:
www.americanrightsatwork.org/the-anti-union-network/chamber-of-commerce/coalition-for-a-democratic-workplace-exposed-20080424-557-273.html
John where did i mention that source? That works on both sides of the spectrum.
Tim, I know you're trying to establish credibility by stating you're a Philosophy Professor, but the fact that you said "all they need to do is pay enough people to say it on TV and young guys like you will spread it around for them" is downright ludacris. It seems as if you're judging younger kids? Whom you teach? I'm probably just wrong.
You mean to tell you've never spread one lie in your classroom? I find that very hard to believe, teachers eat that soapbox up alive with their personal beliefs.'Us young people spreading lies' is almost laughable. What about the older people who create them?
Once again, someone prove to me theres no referendum on section 2a which I've stated multiple times. Call me 'pumpjack' to divert the attention away from the fact you cant prove that false. Anyone who reads this conversation throughout can look at the bill and see I did not deceive anyone at all.
Joe, you are incredibly ignorant or blatantly lying about labor law and the revision (efca) being proposed in Congress. EFCA DOES NOT take away the right of employees to vote for unionization IF THEY REQUEST IT. Don't believe it ? Contact U.S. Senator Tom Harkin a Co-Sponsor of EFCA. Not enough ? Contact Rep. George Miller. I did and you should too since your facts are not correct. EFCA as proposed is the fairest and most simplest way to decide whether EMPLOYEES wish to be represented by a union or not instead of giving that power to EMPLOYERS as is NOW!
Joe is a typical right wing, union hating company spin master. People like this run on total fabrication.
Joe, you are a spin master of the highest degree and a fabricator. The so called "secret ballot" in determining unionization is controlled by employers and union busting lawyers who employers utilize to thwart union campaigns. There is nothing "secret" nor sacred in this method sponsored by employers under Taft/Hartley. The process has been tortured to say the least by outfits like Wal Mart, Home Depot and other anti worker employers. The NLRB and congressional testimony by employees who have been terminated for attempting to unionize make it loud and clear that the law must change. The union movement in America is the best anti-poverty program there is and it costs taxpayers nothing! We as a country should be supporting workers in their attempts to unionize instead of wrecking havoc on the middle class with vicious attacks on wages and suppression of unions, which George Bush contributed to greatly. It is clear where you stand but at least tell the truth.
Well, Timothy, first things first. It is clear that the president disagrees with you. My citation you ask? That youtube video immediately under the article where he states, and I quote, "rather than have a secret ballot," which infers, there would not be a secret ballot.
Also, my man, James Lewis, you so brilliantly stated, " EFCA DOES NOT take away the right of employees to vote for unionization IF THEY REQUEST IT." Joey never said it would take away the right to vote, rather the privacy of that vote, which is the critical problem with the EFCA. Nice try and outstanding misquote. Oh, see, I actually quoted what you said. Copy and paste does wonders.
Okay spin masters the truth is revealed. You again don't understand labor law, have not read EFCA and shallow hook, line and sinker the B.S. from the US Chamber of Commerce. What the heck is so wrong employees having a say in unionization efforts ? Whether employees prove a majority through card signing or whether they request an election through the NLRB. It should be their decision, noy the employer's. What exactly is wrong with that ? As it has been demonstrated by testimony in front of Congress, illegal firings/threats/coercion is the norm under current law. This is why EFCA is being debated and will become law.
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!