Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« Tax Breaks for The Minimum Wage | Main | The Tide: Trade Defitics Rising »
February 09, 2007
Employee Free Choice Act
Just thought I'd put up an open thread here to see what people think: will the Employee Free Choice Act become law anytime soon? So far, according to the AFL-CIO website, 232 House member have signed on as co-sponsors (by the way, the AFL-CIO section on this is very comprehensible and readable). What's your reading on where YOUR member of Congress stands, particularly your Senators (because I think the House will likely pass EFCA but it will find a very uphill battle in the Senate).
February 9, 2007 in Labor | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d83463e79c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Employee Free Choice Act:
Comments
I heard from some good sources that have told me the EFCA bill is supposed pass unscathed through the House with about 2/3 majority but will probably be filibustered in the Senate. I’m not sure what sort of strategy that is? However, those who are working on it say that as long as it gets the 2/3 majority in the House that will be considered a victory.
Posted by: GusRP | Feb 9, 2007 11:02:13 AM
Well, at least there is no Senator Santorum to carry the right wings water against labor this year!
Posted by: adam Joad | Feb 9, 2007 2:21:01 PM
Well, at least there is no Senator Santorum to carry the right wings water against labor this year!
Posted by: adam Joad | Feb 9, 2007 2:21:04 PM
The important thing is to bring this bill to the awareness of the American people. Those representatives who vote against it will be targets in the upcoming elections.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
Posted by: John Foster | Feb 9, 2007 3:09:36 PM
It will get thru the house and senate and be vetoed by the smirker
Posted by: john williams | Feb 10, 2007 1:20:54 AM
Why are we pushing for card check? Why not work for minority union rights like in Europe? In many countries there a group of people can just sign up to be in a union, presto, they're in a union and the company has to negotiate a contract with them. Plus, their contracts don't apply to the rest of their coworkers so you don't have a free rider problem like we do with Right-To-Exploit laws.
This way you wouldn't have to deal with this ridiculous "unions are against democracy because they're against secret ballots" BS. You can instead equate signing up for a union like signing up to be a member of a church or club.
Blanket card check would be a big improvement over the current labor laws, but there are better solutions out there.
Posted by: poppopbang | Feb 10, 2007 6:56:16 PM
True. Shouldn't the focus of organized labor be on improving wages and working conditions, rather than on securing exclusive rights to the bargaining unit? The only obstacle here is the toothless tiger that is the NLRB. Making minority unions successful would be a lot easier with strong, enforceable labor laws to protect workers.
I suspect that EFCA will have a chance of passing on the next go around. If it does, unions will be able to build their membership, and that's a good thing. But in the few cases where unions fail to build majorities through card check, it will fall to workers centers and other groups to push the minority-union idea further.
Posted by: Mike | Feb 10, 2007 7:59:01 PM
The main reason EFCA won't skate right into law is that some dim bulbs in Congress still think that Stern , Hoffa ,& Sweeney & co. are actually committed to REPRESENT the best economic interests of either their present members OR the potential new card signers they've got their eyes on.
By now, a lot of the pols are pretty much in on the unfunny "joke " that "old" organized labor has made of itself.... they know that owning exclusive rights to the bargaining unit is the main & only obsession of labor's top geezers*. CTW & the A.wF.uL. have done more than enough to show the observant that they are NOT looking to improve the wages , benefits , and ( lately ) health care access of their members ... they are merely looking to administer a dues base & will gladly suffer the few inconveniences that go along w/ that , like passing out hot-dogs on Labor Day and putting up w/ their own discontented dumb-ass members , if ONLY Congress will grant them easier access to the , ...ahem... labor market.
But ...how to really persuade skeptical lawmakers that organized labor has fallen off the wagon for good & is done challenging for a piece of the pie? Thousands of existing union members could be mobilized to visit the Capitol & give personal testimony that this is so.
Too cynical for you ? Then take a look at the name of the E.F.C.A. and ask yourself why it's not called the " Card Check Common Sense " bill or something perfectly clear like that ? Calling it Employee free- choice is really pouring on the canned whipped cream ! As others have noted, what's conspicuously missing is the notion that a working person should be able JOIN any union of his or her choice .
- Thank goodness for Worker's Rights Centers, John A. Joslin ( IBEW & willing to shop around )
* note: unchained or "free-geezers" like Harry Kelber & others excepted, of course.
Posted by: John A. Joslin | Feb 11, 2007 10:05:32 AM
As of Wednesday, the EFCA made it out of the Labor Committee and it is now up to the House to vote on it and it looks like it will pass in the House.
http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/rel021407EFCA.html
In addition to providing a fair mechanisma for unions to engage in organizing campaigns, the EFCA has some teeth for punishing employers who discipline or dismiss workers for union activities.
The idea of minority unions, or Open Source Unionism, where contracts are negotiated with the employees, inspite of their numbers, of the company who have agreed to union representation has tremendous potential, especially with regard to retail organizing: hello Wal-Mart. And, according to Charles Morris, in his book, The Blue Eagle At Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights In the American Workplace, which, coincidently is in the booklist here on the left side, the current laws under the National Labor Relations Act provides language that allows minority unions. And, he goes on describe how early in the 20th century, most unions were organized as minority unions. He suggests that unions once again use this process as an organizing strategy to bring more workers into the labor movement.
This book also presents an interesting description of the evolution of the National Labor Relations Act and the players involved.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
Posted by: John Foster | Feb 16, 2007 10:02:49 AM
If you read the sight from the union you would think that many can't wait to join. But if you look at real numbers the membership is way down and the people that do not want a union shop are way up. If you want I will post the figures.
I do not want to be in a union. They rip off my money and when there is a problem you still have to fend for yourself. I have been there and done that. I do not want to be forced to join a union because the shop is union. That is how it is in Oregon. That is not free choice no matter how you look at it. Having to vote publicaly is also wrong. The secret ballot is the American way.
The unions are fading fast and this is there last breath. I hope.
Posted by: Carl Rye | Feb 21, 2007 9:18:42 AM
Where I work I have no contracts, no voice, no job security, and no retirement benefits. All this coming from a company that has had record profits every quarter for the last several yeats. While their profits soar, our wages and benefits fall backward. The company I work for makes over 4000.00 clear profit for every car that rolls off the line less than a minute each time.
Why should I not want job security and a retirement plan? My company's idea of a retirement plan is a broken back or shoulder after a few years work and a nice "don't let the door hit you in the ass" on the way out with nothing. I say bring back unions in the most militant way imaginable and make this country strong once again!
Posted by: Jared Jackson | Feb 21, 2007 5:02:30 PM
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been sent to the House. The question is when will they bring it up and how will they sodomize the bill.
http://aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/
We need to monitor those who oppose the bill and target them in the upcoming elections.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
Posted by: John Foster | Feb 22, 2007 8:55:46 AM
By the way I am in a non union shop and make a very good wage. The health benifits are the best in the state. And if I have a problem there are state laws that would back me.
Posted by: carlrye | Feb 23, 2007 8:03:20 PM
What a waste of net space. I posted my opinion and the clowns here deleted it and put words under my name that I did not say. I guess you really do not believe in freedom of speach. This is why the unions are falling under. No one wants to be in a place where others make choices for you.
Who ever changed my words deserves what ever they get.
Posted by: carlrye | Feb 23, 2007 8:03:57 PM
Question: Why would George Miller tell the Mexican government that secret ballot is the fare way to have an election and turn around and come up with this unbelievable bill that states we need to eliminate secret ballot elections and go to a card check process? I guess what he believes is good for other countries is not good for our own country. I wander who he gets most of his campaing money from???
The EFCA is against what democracy stands for. How about this, why don't we have a presidential election on the card check process, maybe I could become pres. This bill is a joke and shame on anyone who supports it!!!!
Posted by: Steve | Feb 27, 2007 11:10:51 PM
Who are these unionbusting scabs that have infiltrated this cite? I mean, why can’t they go the NAM or Chamber blogs and give their rightwing screeds there. They say that Card Check is against democracy, well how else does one acquire democracy when NLRB elections are riddled with legalities, time restraints, and employer influence? I mean how would it strike you if you voted for president and your vote was challenged multiple times in court? If you went to the polls to vote and you were told that they changed the election to next Tuesday or that your vote wouldn’t be verified till two—ten years later? Or if you went to the polls and they made you watch Democratic or Republican propaganda films or told you that if you voted for a certain candidate that you would be fired from your job or would receive some other disciplinary action. The NLRB elections are so antidemocratic that I wonder if they take their cues from Nazi Germany?
Posted by: GusRP | Mar 1, 2007 1:38:56 AM
Why are unions afraid of the secret ballot?
Could it be that unions have absolutely no chance to succeed, where workers have a chance to vote without union intimidation?
The only type of person who is afraid of the secret ballot is a bully.
Posted by: Peter Parrott | Mar 1, 2007 7:17:06 PM
............Who are these unionbusting scabs that have infiltrated this cite?............
I am not a union busting scab. I believe in democrisy and free speach. I guess you do not since you do not want a discussion you just want us gone. Of course the unions do not want us to speak out they just want us to be members wether we want to or not.
I know union members that are right wing so what makes you think I am? I am an independant. What I say is what people of all political beliefs feel. I do not limit myself to people who believe as I do politically. I bet you do. It is already against the law for an employer to fire someone if they try to unionize. If they are so stupid they do not know how to retaleate than do you really want them as a member.
This is about the falling union membership. The reason it is falling is union greed. Plane and simple. I have seen the top of the union in bed with the organizations that they have members in. The result members get screwed. Plane and simple.
thanks for reading
Carl Rye
Posted by: carlrye | Mar 2, 2007 10:46:04 AM
The CEO pay in this country @ 400 or more times the average workers pay is another example of corporate america gone wild.
We need to reign them in on all levels and more unions will be a good start . Productivity is up nationwide but real wages are down or level . People I know want unions but are afraid
of illegal firing if they organize . Our regular politcal elections need to be fixed as well . Without a VOTER VERIFIED
PAPER AUDIT TRAIL they have been and will be stolen!!!!
Posted by: gene | Mar 2, 2007 2:51:35 PM
GusRP, the National Labor Relation Act was brought forth by the unions in 1935. Just a little bit of info for you.
Posted by: Steve | Mar 2, 2007 7:08:24 PM
Oh my my! If only it was this easy to de-certify union repesentation. 50% plus one and 30 days later the unions gone. But the union bosses and their drat toadies will never put that kind of language into this bill!!!
Posted by: murphy | Mar 4, 2007 9:07:59 PM
Employee Free Choice Act and Republican Disinformation
Republicans opposing the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act are lying up a storm to swing public opinion against the proposed law. Their primary attack claim is that the bill denies workers a free, fair election by secret ballot. Unfortunately, there is nothing free or fair about the current system of voting on unionization. The law is tilted heavily in favor of company power and against the workers.
I have been involved in an unsuccessful attempt to unionize a business. I saw disturbing examples of intimidation and unfair tactics that the Employee Free Choice Act would have prevented.
Companies are able to hold “captive audience meetings” to argue against unionization. They are legally able to include certain workers and exclude others. Attendance is mandatory for some and prohibited to others. They are held on company time.
Workers trying to unionize are not able to meet on company property without permission of the company. Strong union supporters are usually excluded from “captive audience meetings” so the company position is the only one heard by the workers forced to attend. Sometimes illegal threats or statements are issued at these meetings when the company feels certain that workers attending them will not report them to the federal government.
The burden of proof by law regarding illegal tactics by companies in complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board definitely tilts toward the company. Most companies fail to see violations of labor laws by anti-union “so-called worker committees” (often comprised of quasi-management employees) while pro-union workers are threatened frequently with being fired if suspected of engaging in pro-union activities. The anti-union “so-called worker committees” can operate on company time (which is illegal) without much fear. While most companies will deny knowing about such activity, it seems likely that these companies often secretly organize these anti-union “so-called worker committees” and direct their operations. In almost every case, the company has complete knowledge of their activities.
Supervisors will often threaten employees when no witnesses are present. Threatened workers are often afraid of reporting the threats or do not know the procedure for reporting them. These threats are illegal but very difficult to prove. The company can fire pro-union workers during the election process to intimidate other workers even if the federal government or courts eventually get their jobs back. In the meantime, the union vote will often go against unionization out of fear.
The company will sometimes threaten to close the business or move it if the workers vote for a union. This is illegal but it does happen. It is very difficult to prove. Illegal activity by the company is difficult to prove in part because many companies make rules against bringing recording devices or cameras into the work area. This also makes it difficult to document unsafe working conditions. Workers can lose their jobs trying to document violations of labor or safety laws by the company.
Union organizers and union officials do not have access to company property during the election cycle to discuss the benefits of unionization. They are not supplied with phone numbers of employees although the companies do have that information.
If you distribute any union materials including union pledge cards on company property during working hours, you can and usually will be fired. Pro-union workers are often warned about this even when they are not actively involved in the distribution of pledge cards or materials just to intimidate them from speaking up for unionization.
The current union election system is not fair or free. It is much like the “free elections” held in Communist countries or other dictatorships. The Republicans and their large corporate masters are being completely dishonest in the way they frame the issue and describe the current situation.
Republicans falsely claim that workers are intimidated into signing union pledge cards. This is so rare as to be almost non-existent. The intimidation is almost entirely on the side of the companies. Companies are in a position of power over workers. Co-workers are simply not in a similar power situation. Only the company is really in the kind of power position to intimidate workers.
Criminal behavior influencing union votes is almost always on the side of the company. The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to stop this criminal behavior and all intimidation of workers. The legislation says that if a majority of workers sign pledge cards in favor of unionizing the union will be automatically recognized by law. It is majority rule. It eliminates the opportunity for the company to block the majority desire for unionization by using illegal tactics and intimidation.
A vote against the Employee Free Choice Act is a vote in favor of the current rigged system. It is a vote in favor of company intimidation and illegal company behavior. It is a vote against the workers.
Democrats overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. In the House vote, only 2 Democrats voted against the legislation. 13 Republicans voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. The final vote was 241 in favor and 185 against.
Some Senate Republicans may attempt to block a vote on this legislation. If they do, every working American should vote against them. If any Democrat joins them, they should be defeated at the next election. Workers should contact their Senators immediately and let them know their vote on this legislation will determine your vote in the next election.
It has been reported that Cheney has pledged that Bush will veto the Employee Free Choice Act. This is the best reason I can think of for voting Democratic in the 2008 Presidential Election if Bush vetoes this pro-worker legislation.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a vote for worker rights. A vote against it is a vote against worker rights no matter how the Republicans spin it.
Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .
Feel free to publish or distribute without prior approval.
Posted by: Stephen Crockett | Mar 14, 2007 8:49:45 AM
" Workers trying to unionize are not able to meet on company property without permission of the company. "
While waiting for favorable labor legislation from Congress, workers trying to unionize can certainly figure out OTHER places to meet that don't involve getting permission from the company .
Being totally helpless is not a useful prerequisite for being a present supporter or future beneficiary of decent labor legislation.
- John A. Joslin
Posted by: John A. Joslin | Mar 14, 2007 5:33:33 PM
So long as managment can replace workers permanantly, the power of unions are diminished. congress ought to write a law that disallows usurping a striker with a scab who walks away with his job forever.
Posted by: thomas hess | Jun 14, 2007 3:36:24 AM
"Shouldn't the focus of organized labor be on improving wages and working conditions, rather than on securing exclusive rights to the bargaining unit?"
This is a truly good question, but then we have to ask: Why union representatives or their activists are the primary target of those about to be unionized?
Highlander Leyend: "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE"
Companies just as all other groups of power need to be regulated or they will be willing to challenge not only Unions but Government itself.
Posted by: Riggo Villafuerte | Mar 21, 2008 2:47:39 PM
