Tuesday, March 10, 2009

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT


I pasted the piece of the EFCA that seems to be causing all the commotion with the right wing. It's not that long so perhaps they will finally read the damn thing before blindly following what Limbaugh and the anti Working American, pro outsource American Jobs assholes at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tell them.





SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) 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 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).

(7) The Board shall develop guidelines and procedures for the designation by employees of a bargaining representative in the manner described in paragraph (6). Such guidelines and procedures shall include--

(A) model collective bargaining authorization language that may be used for purposes of making the designations described in paragraph (6); and

(B) procedures to be used by the Board to establish the validity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives.'.







I admit that I do find a flaw in the Act. A simple majority of a shop is not a strong enough commitment to the organization and forming of a Union.
I think a two thirds majority supporting organization makes more sense. Then the Department of Labor comes in and holds the actual election. They are supposed to do this already so don't let the right wingers tell they don't.







An unfortunate thing that makes this Act necessary is the illegal harassment of people that try to organize. Although it is illegal, the Dept. of Labor has been all but absent enforcing the law regarding this. The Act gives more protection to those that are exercising their legal rights to organize.







The Act doesn't order or favor one side during negotiations. It only calls for the parties to bargain in good faith. It allows both sides to call in federal mediators to help facilitate negotiations in case of impasse. I worked with a mediator once. I thought he was a dick. But in fairness, he was a dick to both sides.











As good as this bill is, it still won't have much weight in Right to Work states. Or as they are more accurately called, Right to Scab states. In these states Union membership is optional in Union Shops but employees that refuse membership and to pay dues for the servicing of their contract still enjoy the benefits of the contract. This of course appeals to company suck asses. It also effectively prevents Unions from organizing in these states because they can't collect enough in dues to service members and their contracts.








Most states are "at will" states. That is, an employer can terminate employees without cause unless they are covered under a Union Contract, civil law, or the employee can prove discrimination. Good luck with that. Most Workers would like to be in a Union and enjoy the benefits of working under a collective bargaining agreement. The EFCA levels the playing field with unscrupulous employers like Walmart that use illegal tactics and intimidation to keep employee wages and benefit costs down.









There are many companies that specialize in keeping Unions out. They employ delaying tactics. Intimidation. Propaganda. All kinds of crap. And they are good at it. These jokers could sell crap To an Avon Lady. The Act stops these unethical tactics.



There is no reason to fear Unions. They have fought to make the lives of Working Americans better for generations. Almost every family in America is thankful that a current or past parent or grandparent had a Union job that helped raise and fulfill the American Dream for them. Now as much as ever Union jobs can help continue to secure the American Dream. Business has no reason to fear Unions. All that they are asked is to bargain in good faith if their employees choose. Employers that treat employees with dignity and respect will most likely never even see their Workers organize anyway.




Fair pay, beneifits and job security are what Union membership offers. Dedicated long term employees are what employers enjoy when their workplaces hire Union Labor. It's a win win situation for Labor. Management and America.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is it you think we don't know?

This part here :

"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"

That is what we object to.

Specifically this part: "the Board shall not direct an election"

It is built for abuse. The point of the bill may be to fix abuse by employers. Sounds like a good idea. But not by creating new abuse in the opposite direction.

On a personal note. I was poisoned on unions young, listening to friends Dad brag about how he got paid double time and a half to come in on a weekend. He worked a grand total of half an hour, but he was paid 4 hours at 2 1/2 times his normal rate. What he was called in to do could have been done by anyone, but because it fell within his normal duties, no-one else could do it. He actually felt he 'deserved; this. This is not 'fair pay'. This is not good for anyone except the mooch doing it. I cannot say how prevalent this crap is, but it does happen.

Anonymous said...

You are poisoned on unions anon9:51 but why are you not poisoned on Walmart which made employees work off the clock for no pay.

Anonymous said...

(bleh, dunno why I did this as Anon before)

As I said, I have no doubt there are problems. I have no problem with addressing them. What I have a problem with is replacing them with new ones.

As far as Walmart making people work without pay? I don't know enough to say. But I am pretty sure that is illegal as hell, so go to wage and hour and sue. Something like it happenned at Shopko when I worked there and they eneded up having to pay a bunch of back pay and they stopped doing it. Problem solved. May be that enforcement needs improved.

If so, do that. Got no problem with that.

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Read what you said about your friends Dad again Jon. You're mad because his representatives got him a good deal. Join a Union and get yourself a good deal Brother. The EFCA helps make this a better possibility.

Anonymous said...

The general belief on the right is that the left has no morals. That all you care about is what you can get, with no regard to giving fair value in return.

I try not to fall into that, but sometimes y'all make that hard.

An honest days work for an honest days pay is a 'good deal'. There is nothing honest about a full days pay for half an hours work.

It has been said that every persons integrity has a price. Do you really set yours so low as a single day's pay?

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

As a former Union Rep, I set my goal to get as good a deal for my unit's members as I could get. And if parts of that deal were in managements favor I still adhered to them. I expected management to do the same.
What you are suggesting is for one side to go back on it's word Jon. That is unacceptable. You make the deal and shake hands, you live up it until the next negotiation.

A contract with employees can also empower employers by spelling out work rules and progressive discipline schedules which limit liabilities for employers.


If you want to continue I'll keep this post up another day Jon. I thought it would bring more discussion but it's only received 80 hits and just us in the comment section since I put it up. Kind of a shame. I was ready to step out of character and do some in depth stuff if there was much interest. Back to the old snarky me next time.

Anonymous said...

In depth discussion is what I am looking for. I will freely admit that I simply do not understand the liberal viewpoint. Working from a belief that no one is ever absolutely right and rarely is anyone absolutely wrong, I look for the places where I am wrong, so I can learn.

We have as so often happens wandered from the original subject. What I am really looking to find about this EFCA is this:
Is there some factor that counteracts the potential for abuse in the 'card check' system that I am not aware of? Or do you simply find it acceptable or some other explanation I have not yet thought of?

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

The reason the unions want units to be recognized when authorizations are validated is to prevent abuse from employers that are anti union. Anti union employers have many delaying tactics they can use to postpone elections. While delays are going on, harassment of those that work to organize happens. In many cases the organizers end up fired or scared off.

Now I am an honest guy Jon. If the Dept. of Labor would have been punishing violators of labor law and organizing rights all along, this bill would never have been a thought. It's the abusers that the Labor Dept. ignored that caused this reaction.

But in the end, if the employer is honest and treats the employees fairly, he doesn't have to worry about any of them thinking they need union membership anyway.

Anonymous said...

I see you point. I am not entirely in agreement, but I get where you are coming from.

I still would prefer to focus on directly addressing unacceptable behaviour by employers.

I suspect the difference stems from our sense of which is or will be a larger problem, drawing on our own life experiences.

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

I hope Obama does that.

Tom the Redhunter said...

What you don't say in your post is that this bill would effectively eliminate the secret ballot. This opens the door to union intimidation, which, as you perfectly well know, occurs.

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Let me clear this up for you Tom in case I wasn't clear before. I believe it would be better for the shop if the secret ballot were maintained. I agree with you that intimidation or maybe just old fashioned peer pressure would unfairly influence the vote. Keep the safe guards in the bill but change it to secret ballot with two thirds majority and I would be happier. A simple majority doesn't make for much of a shop.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Truth,
Welcome, to geeeeeZ. I told them that you were a well reasoned dissenter to conservatism, to say the least. You are a leftie to say the most. That out of the way, I was a union president for five straight years, and a union member since 1975. I believe in unions.

What the hell? When did it become necessary to slick your way into membership? If a union is the best way to ensure workers' rights, I believe it is, why do you have to get it into the work place on the sly? Have a vote. If it is good, it will pass. Unions have declined because they have lost their way. They have become an arm of political parties, obviously the Dems.

When I was the union prez I refused to endorse anyone. I got into trouble for that, but I felt we were an advocacy group for workers, not for politicians.

I love the idea of unions. I don't love the idea of politicians using unions to get elected.

JoMala "Truth 101" Kelly said...

I've had shops that wanted to organize but too many members were afraid they would lose their jobs after the employer threatened to move elswhere. A violation of labor law that never seems to be enforced. We're n the same page I think as far as right to organize and viability of a union. I've seen too much abuse of the system by employers to believe continuing down the same road has or will work to give workers a level playing field.


What we have now if the EFCA passes is a recipe for non viable shops that cost everybody. I don't give it much of a chance to pass anyway so this may all be spitting in the wind talking about it.


Thanks for your comment LAOT.

Sweating Through fog said...

If the value of card check is to protect workers from employer abuse, why can't the card check process be sufficient to allow workers to leave abusive unions.

Union organizers can present signed card to create a union. Employers can present signed cards to remove a union. That would be fair.

But card check - as written - is a one-way process.