.jpg)
The list of grassroots groups endorsing the Employee Free Choice Act continues to grow as their members mobilize to support a bill that would remove obstacles to the right to organize. Unlike corporate front groups, grassroots organizations are comprised of actual members who choose to be involved in their communities.
The Employee Free Choice Act allows workers to negotiate with their employer after a majority approve through a simple card check process. Only after an agreement is reached and approved by a majority in a secret ballot election do the workers have a union.
Groups are mobilizing to remind Congress that it’s time to make the change we can believe in the change we can see by passing this bill. Even opponents admit that at least one million workers in the service industries would organize a union at their workplace given unencumbered access to the right to organize. A new survey shows that the tactics employed by opponents of the EFCA are backfiring as a substantial majority of American support passage of the Act.
Endorsing organizations include:
ACORN, Alliance for Justice, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Friends Service Committee, American Library Association – Allied Professional Association, American Public Health Association), American Rights at Work, Americans for Democratic Action, Americans United for Change, A. Philip Randolph Institute, Apollo Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Black Leadership Forum, Business Responds to AIDS/Labor Responds to AIDS, California Church Impact, Center for American Progress, Center for America's Future, Center for Community Change, Center for Corporate Policy, Change America Now, Church Women United, Clergy and Laity Network United for Justice, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Coalition of Contingent Academics Labor, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Coalition on Human Needs, Coalition of Immokalee Workers, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Cornell University LGBT Center, Demos, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Socialists of America, Earth Action Network, Empire State Pride in New York State, Equality South Carolina, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Gamaliel Foundation – Transportation Equity Group, Grassroots Policy Project, Gray Panthers, Gray Panthers of Austin, Tex., Gray Panthers of California, Gray Panthers of Berkeley, Calif., Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Worker Justice, Japanese-American Citizens League, Jewish Labor Committee, Jobs with Justice, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, League of Rural Voters, League of United Latin American Citizens, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Michigan ACLU, NAACP, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Baptist Convention of America, National Center for Trangender Equality, National Consumers League, National Council of Women's Organizations, National Employment Law Project, National Federation of Filipino American Associations, National Immigration Law Center, National Latino Congreso, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Puerto Rican Coalition, National Resources Defense Council, National Stonewall Democrats, National Women's Political Caucus, National Workrights Institute, NDN, NOW California, Operation BIG VOTE, Pax Christi USA, People for the American Way, Presbyterian Church USA – Washington, D.C., Press Associates Union News Service, Pride at Work, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Progressive Maryland, Progressive States Network, Queer Organizing Coalition, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Sierra Club, Sojourners/Call to Renewal Tikkun/The Network of Spiritual Progressives, United Church of Christ - Justice and Witness Ministries, United for a Fair Economy, United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society, United Nations Association of the National Capital Area, United for Peace and Justice, United States Student Association, United Students Against Sweatshops, United University Professors, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, USAction, U.S. Labor Against the War
Comments
You misrepresent the most important aspect. The secret ballot is not required as you state and the lack of a secret ballot will be used to railroad people into joining unions.
This is a much needed bill. Pro-business advocates wrongly assume that the weakened state of our labor laws is a benefit to them….I disagree. If we do not tilt things back to a balanced state you will have more and worst situations like we seen in Chicago with Republic Steel. People will not be put in a corner. The days of sit-down’s and violent clashes will return. Don’t think for a minute that we are above that.
The first comment is also off-base because it fails to recognize the basic power asymmetries that are in play when workers are confronted by company managers and when they are confronted by union organizers. A company can threaten, in a variety of manifestations, a worker’s job. The union, on the other hand, can threaten to be annoying. Rejection of the company can result in the loss of a job. Rejection of the union can result in more annoying confrontations. The imbalance in power is clear and immense.
Widespread abuse by companies when faced with a union election is well documented.
Those who oppose organized labor due to acts of intimidation need to supply documented evidence that goes beyond mere anecdotes. Otherwise, their claims lack credibility. Even in the unlikely instance that such abuse occurs, it is still incorrect to assume that union organizers and employers are on equal footing. The power of employment is much more significant.
For this reason, among others, it is important to pass the EFCA to help workers have a more equal footing and provide for themselves a better chance at a middle class life.
Melissa Allison Seattle Times business reporter
Starbucks plans to settle another labor complaint one more reason why we need the EFCA NOW
Starbucks has reached a settlement in principle over a Michigan barista whom the National Labor Relations Board said was fired in June because of his union activities.
An administrative trial that was scheduled for today has been canceled, and the agreement is expected to be signed this week, said Chet Byerly, resident officer for the NLRB in Grand Rapids. He would not disclose details of the proposed agreement.
A Starbucks spokeswoman confirmed that it is working on a settlement.
It is the third time in a month that Starbucks has faced action from the NLRB regarding the Industrial Workers of the World union.
Last month, an NLRB administrative law judge found that Starbucks took part in unfair labor practices at several of its New York cafes.
Last week, the Seattle chain settled a separate NLRB dispute in Michigan.
All three cases were initiated by baristas affiliated with the IWW, a century-old union that has worked for several years to improve conditions for Starbucks workers.
In New York last month, an NLRB judge ordered Starbucks to give back jobs to three former workers and compensate them for lost earnings. The company also must post notices informing employees of their labor-organizing rights.
Starbucks plans to appeal the ruling, according to spokeswoman Tara Darrow.
Such appeals often take a year and might last longer now that the NLRB's board has lost three of its five members, said University of Tennessee law professor Jeff Hirsch, a former attorney at the NLRB.
Last week's settlement stemmed from a complaint that barista and IWW member Cole Dorsey made to the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration about a leaky air conditioner.
In interviewing at least one Starbucks worker about the matter, attorneys at a local law firm representing Starbucks neglected to issue legally required warnings that help prevent coercive questioning.
"We contend that these warnings are not necessary when dealing with an occupational safety charge. The NLRB disagreed," Darrow said in an e-mail. "We elected to settle the matter to avoid litigation."
Starbucks did not admit wrongdoing but must post a notice in the affected store in Grand Rapids "saying they won't do it again," said NLRB Regional Director Stephen Glasser.
Dorsey, the barista who complained about the air conditioner, was fired in June after working for Starbucks almost two years. The NLRB charges that he was dismissed because of his union activities.
He was fired eight months after Starbucks and the IWW settled an agreement over unionizing efforts by employees at his Grand Rapids store. At that time, Starbucks agreed to post notices in that store advising employees of their unionizing rights.
Such settlements never come with fines and rarely with admissions of wrongdoing. The Employee Free Choice Act, which stalled in the last session of Congress, would allow the NLRB to order fines in some situations, according to former NLRB attorney Hirsch. The bill faces strong opposition from the business community.
In October, Starbucks settled a similar complaint in Minneapolis regarding another employee who claimed he was fired for encouraging co-workers to join the IWW.
By Poster: This is One More Reason
WHY WE NEED THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT NOW!"
Employee Free Choice Act Now .org
The word is ASTROTURFERS. That is what is behind a movement of "grassroots" organization across the USA. The Unions who pumped 450 Million into the election, have 100 Million to spend on "Grassroots organizing" or "astrotrufing" as it is called in washington. It is the unethical way to Feign support where there is none.
They hire a PR firm who write phoney letter to the editors, hold fake PR conferences and then reach out to people in the community including politicians who need an issue to grandstand.
Since 1950 less than half of American Workers are interested in unionizing. Many workers see Unions as an expensive middleman.
This Bill will cause irreparable harm to our nation's economy and will strip us of our right to a private election process. This Bill eliminates a secret ballot election were we can vote our conscience and beliefs without fear of repercussion, and replaces it with a non-private process in which we can be subject to intimidation and pressure to sign a binding petition, a petition which we may in fact disagree with but are forced to sign under pressure and duress.
It is simply un-American and un-Democratic to strip the right to a private vote from the unionization process, same as it would be to force all Americans to choose our elected officials by public petition rather than private vote.
The Employee Free Choice Act will cause irreparable damage to our Nation's economy and self-sustainability. The cost of federal arbitration in employee disputes alone is totally unsustainable and unmanageable especially during this perilous economic environment. We only need to look at Italy who enacted similar legislation in the 1980's.
In Italy, the labor law changes have proven disastrous to the nation's economy and infrastructure. Italy is now one of the poorest countries in the European Union without a reliable transportation and utility network due to frequent worker strikes and unbridled spending on federal arbitration for employee disputes. The were forced to sell and lease public monuments to foreign governments to subsidize these costs.
In Greece the recent strikes have fueled large-scale riots, disrupting distribution channels to food, power, transportation and communication networks.
Our nation simply cannot afford to enact this legislation. We the taxpayers cannot afford it, we the employers cannot afford it and we, the American workers who will be stripped of our basic American right to a democratic election process cannot afford it.
We unite as American workers, as members of the middle class, poor, rich, Democrat, Republican, and Independent in our opposition to this bill.
Does anyone care whether these workers are forced into a union against their will????
EFCA leaves all the provision of section 9A of the NLRA in tact. In short that means that any employee, union or employer can still file an election petition with the NLRB and have a secret ballot election. And why aren't the proxies of big business like Informed Advocate complaining about the Bush Board's rollback of the right to a secret ballot election when an employer declares a union no longer has majority support of the workers? They don't mind when there is no secret ballot in that instance, do they? And Mikey, your criticism is plain wrong.
Secret-ballot elections are still an option under the bill. It's left up to the workers to decide.
"Informed advocate" is some kind of troll, masquerading as a worker.
At this point employees totally control whether working people have any rights on the job - and this is so obvious for anyone who live and works without union protection in NC. All that Employee Free Choice Act is broaden the process- workers can still choose a secret election - but THEY make the choice, not the bosses. And, in the intial labor laws (before companies hired gun lawyers figured out how to circumvent the rights of workers and flaunt the lawy) most union organizing and unions formed through majority sign-up. Secret elections benefit employers since they intimidate and fire workers - they are the ones who intimidate - not the union.
Armcahir quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. Tell you what "ASTROTURFERS", come up with a brainchild idea for a business, capitalize it by indebting all your assets, work 18 hour days to try to eventually get a return on your investment and then turn it over to your employees and let them vote on how the company should be managed. Yah right!
If you can't tolerate where you are at, practice your freedom to move on and find another job to your liking. Let's face it, the vast majority of employers want to know why people leave and they will try to correct the problem if it's significant. Employee retention is priority since replacement costs hurt the bottom line.
The NLRA in today's market place is needed; but, it isn't intended to be the death blow to the free enterprise system. Or is it?
Secret-ballot elections are still an option under the bill. It's left up to the workers to decide.
"Informed advocate" is some kind of troll, masquerading as a worker.
Only union supporters will have the power to choose whether to have an election or not if EFCA is signed and they have enough signed cards. If not, someone who would vote against a certain union won't be able to and someone who signed a card under pressure won't be able to vote against the union.
The real issue is not the card check, but the rules on arbritration that make this law a potential armageddon for business.
Once the union is formed, it is only a short time away from binding arbitration in a dispute, which means a government worker will decide key business decisions on pay, benefits, and disciplinary policy. If people think the economy is bad now, wait for this law take effect.
Armcahir quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. Tell you what "ASTROTURFERS", come up with a brainchild idea for a business, capitalize it by indebting all your assets, work 18 hour days to try to eventually get a return on your investment and then turn it over to your employees and let them vote on how the company should be managed. Yah right!
If you can't tolerate where you are at, practice your freedom to move on and find another job to your liking. Let's face it, the vast majority of employers want to know why people leave and they will try to correct the problem if it's significant. Employee retention is priority since replacement costs hurt the bottom line.
The NLRA in today's market place is needed; but, it isn't intended to be the death blow to the free enterprise system. Or is it?
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!