[Peace-discuss] proposed Organizational Endorsement of the Employee Free Choice Act...

[Robert Naiman]

John asks: "how would this new act guarantee better enforcement of
anti-discrimination and anti-intimidation protections?"

First, the EFCA would allow workers to have a union essentially as
soon as they have majority support, without going through an NLRB
election, which would remove much of the opportunity for the employer
intimidation campaigns that happen now;

Second, it would strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or
intimidate employees trying to form unions and bargain. Currently, for
example, if you are a worker who is fired for trying to organize a
union - a common occurrence - your remedy is to file a complaint with
the NRLB, which after many years, if your complaint is successful,
will award you back pay. This light penalty is regarded by many
anti-union employers as simply a small cost of keeping unions out;

Third, it would establish mediation and binding arbitration when the
employer and workers cannot agree on a first contract. Currently, many
anti-union employers simply refuse to bargain, even though they are
legally required to do so; this provision would remove the capacity of
employers to delay signing a contract indefinitely.

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:49 AM, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If the Employee Free Choice Act, or something close to it, becomes
>> law, there will be a dramatic expansion of unions in the United
>> States, particularly in the South. Polling has consistently showed
>> that many non-union workers would love to be in a union, if they could
>> get past the current regime of employer intimidation. In addition to
>> bringing economic benefit and workplace protection and voice to those
>> folks who gain union representation, it would fundamentally alter the
>> politics of the United States in a progressive way. There will be more
>> anti-discrimination protections and they will be better enforced
>> throughout the country; more peace candidates will be elected to
>> federal office; there will be fewer wars. It's hard to imagine any
>> feasible progressive reform in the next four years that would have a
>> greater long-term impact on the United States than making it easier
>> for workers to win union representation.
>
> Just out of curiosity, Robert (or Ricky, or whoever wants to respond to
> this), how would this new act guarantee better enforcement of
> anti-discrimination and anti-intimidation protections?  The original law -
> the one in the 1930s that established the right to organize private-sector
> unions in the first place and established the National Labor Relations Board
> - forbids employer intimidation in the union organizing process.  The
> problem has always been weak enforcement, combined with a series of adverse
> Supreme Court decisions that watered down the law.
>
> NO law is worth a damn unless there is stong and principled enforcement -
> which always boils down, in the end, to human integrity or the lack
> thereof.  I get sick of people constantly proposing new laws when there are
> perfectly good laws already on the books that have become worthless through
> lack of enforcement.
>
> John Wason
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Ambassador Pickering on Iran Talks and Multinational Enrichment
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kGZFrFxVg8A