Battling Over Employee Free Choice

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (4)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  The Employee Free Choice Act is neither free nor fair, but it sure is a feel-good name.

  If 50% + 1 employees sign a card supporting a union, that presumes an honest vote and automatically installs the union. Or throws the company into immediate arbitration.

  But if just 1% of those signatures were coerced by fellow workers, or 1% changed their mind and would otherwise vote against a union, such a vote would fail. The unions are not dummies, they know this.

  Not only is this unfair, it may indeed further erode American jobs. Be careful of what you ask for. This will kill American jobs (it cannot help them).

  Better, if just 40% sign a card in support, a vote of all employees should be held. Coercion can come from the company too.

  It’s outrageous when CEOs of public companies are getting $10M pay packages and yet criticize the pay of workers.

  Congress (you know, the jokers taking the campaign contributions) should mandate shareholder approval of executive pay.

  Fair is fair.

  Posted by Jack E Lohman on May 28, 2009 at 9:52 PM

  A small minority of lower skilled workers and possibly a minority of higher skilled workers have even a basic understanding of what the signing the union membership card means.  The average lower skilled worker does not even know that he or she will have to pay dues to be a union member and that the dues are not voluntary; they are automatically deducted from the worker’s pay check.  The average low skilled worker in signing the card which has been explained for the first time by a friendly, highly paid union organizer salesperson only knows what the union organizer tells him or her.  Things like sign here so we can help you get better wages and benefits or fill this out and sign here so we can send you information on our union is what the lower skilled worker is likely to know at the time he or she signs the card. 

  The employer and union campaign contest is the only way that the typical lower skilled worker and many higher skilled workers are going to have a chance at achieving an understanding of the pros and cons of union membership and representation.  The secret ballot election is the only likely way a worker can be assured of expressing his or her preference without fear of retribution from anyone.

  Union leadership and staff are paid by far the majority of these workers’ payroll deductions.  Whether the services of the union leadership and union staff is worth their cost to the worker is a serious question with significant impact on the workers’ take home pay and deciding this issue requires knowledgeable workers.  The whole education and voting process must be transparent.  The employer and union campaigns preceding the election must be fairly and closely supervised by the NLRB and the concluding secret ballot election must be conducted by the NLRB in a way that assures complete secrecy and integrity for the workers. 

  This process is critical as due to the very nature of unionization, a worker once signed up as a member cannot be free to withdraw his or her membership at any time.  Therefore it is mandatory that the worker understand what he or she is committing to before the process is concluded and the worker becomes possibly a long term, involuntary captive of the union membership.

  In this day of intense international competition, if employers are smart enough and principled enough to pay their workers well, provide good working conditions, and help their employees achieve their potential, then why burden society and our economy with the expense of highly paid union leaders and staff whose stated objectives have already been met?  Let unions serve those workers who need a union and who would benefit by a union, but, not effectively create a monopoly for unions to force membership on workers whether or not the workers get commensurate value in return from their highly paid union leadership and staff. 

  Monopolies for large union organizations closely tied to the politics of the executive and legislative branches while lucrative and assuring job security for union leadership who otherwise have substantial difficulty in attracting new “Customers” (members) willing to pay their costs are certain burdens to our freedoms, national competitiveness and standard of living.

  Posted by Craig Milum on May 31, 2009 at 10:28 PM

  Sorry to criticize, but I don’t think Mr. Moberg makes this clear enough:  EFCA would not eliminate NLRB elections.  It would merely create another option—majority sign-up—for workers who wish to be represented by a union.

  Majority sign-up, also called card check, has already been used successfully at many workplaces.  But recognition of a union chosen through card check is not currently binding on employers.  And some employers are less ethical than others.

  In at least one workplace, more than 70% of employees signed union cards, but the union was defeated in the election that followed.  In a great many workplaces where a union won election, the employer stalled or refused to negotiate a contract.

  Employees at any given workplace are likely to know what would work best for them.  EFCA would provide them with options.

  Posted by tinabraxton on Jun 29, 2009 at 7:40 PM

  Likewise on the criticism, but, there is a need to be realistic and honest about these discussions.

  Of the three parties involved in unionization, the employer, the employee, and the union, under EFCA only the union or the employees could ask for an election. The union is not going to because it is easier to get cards signed than go through an election campaign and win a majority of a secret ballot election. The employees are not going to do it mainly because they don’t know it can be done or how to do it plus the union organizers are generally going to discourage it, in addition to the employees are usually a diverse group and they don’t have a practical way to organize themselves, to call meetings and establish their own drive to get sufficient signatures signed to submit a petition to the NLRB for an election. If EFCA passes, realistically, secret ballot elections to organize employees, the hallmark of democracy in the workplace will be history. The only elections will be for decertification because though EFCA allows Card Check to establish a union, EFCA requires a secret ballot election to to decertify a union.

  Knowledgeable proponents of EFCA pretend that under EFCA secret ballot elections will happen if employees prefer them only because it sounds so indefensible to propose the elimination of worker protections and rights in favor of unions.

  It is common knowledge among labor unions that unless at least 70% of the cards are signed that the chances are less than 50% of going through a short employer-union contested election campaign followed by a secret ballot election and winning a majority of the votes cast.

  Imagine an “election” where all that is required is to get people to sign cards confirming their “choice” and only one side has the opportunity to gather votes. There has probably not been a single important election in the history of this country that the actual loser would not have won if he or she had the advantage of being the only one collecting votes and had months to collect the votes.

  EFCA is life support for Big Labor. Big Labor has not been able to breath and function on their own for years because they have not created sufficient value to most workers to voluntarily exchange their money in dues payments for the benefits of union membership. That is why private sector unionization has decreased from around 35% to 8% in the last 50 years. In a free society, government should not force economic choices to satisfy political preferences and the lifestyles of a few.

  Posted by Craig Milum on Jul 9, 2009 at 9:06 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by David Moberg

• Out of Control
  Too big to regulate, the banks need to be broken up.
• Labor’s New Leader
  The AFL-CIO stakes its future on Richard Trumka.
• The Retail Devolution
  Two new books explore corporate evil.
• Who’s Got the Power?
  Progressives find themselves outmaneuvered on healthcare reform.
• Not Your Parents’ Labor Movement
  Why the Republic sit-in failed to inspire other worker actions.
• Solidarity Reunited?
  Unions rally around shrunken UNITE HERE as it takes on its former ally.