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

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Bob,
You already have enough labour law and business regulation
to drive business and people out of the state of Illinois.  Isnt that
enough? 

If you have employers flouting the law that is a whole different
issue. 

Federalizing it across the states in the pretext of
interstate commerce is undesirable and makes it more difficult
for anyone to find a decent place to live.

Robert Naiman wrote:
> 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
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081025/8cd1f5fa/attachment.htm