[Peace-discuss] Liberal opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act

[Robert Naiman]

The change in labor law in Illinois only applied to unions in the
public sector. As such, it doesn't have any impact in the private
sector. Moreover, the problem of employer intimidation in the United
States is overwhelmingly a problem of the private sector, because
public sector employers are subject to community pressure in a way
that private employers are not - a key reason that union density in
the private sector is lower.

I am hopeful that sometime soon we can organize an event here with the
locked-out AFSCME workers in Effingham, so they can tell us about
their experiences, and how the abuses they've suffered would likely
not have occurred if the Employee Free Choice Act were law. Their
employer is a private firm under contract to the state. Under present
arrangements, the state has an incentive for this kind of arrangement,
since if the workers were state employees they would likely not be
subject to this kind of abuse.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> "Democracy in Illinois"? The state with the most restrictive ballot-access
> laws in the country (with the possible exception of Georgia), owning to
> sweetheart gerrymandering by the Republicans and Democrats? (And the state
> that may even have stolen the 1960 election?) A state in which organized
> labor is as influential as any other?
>
> Has anyone noticed any big expansion of independent unions in Illinois as a
> result of that change in Illinois labor law taking place?
>
> [The following is from Michael J. Lotito, Martin F. Payson and James J.
> LaRocca, "The Right to Vote Under Attack -- Again," Employment Law 360, Aug.
> 13, 2008
> http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/pdf/081308_The_Right_to_Vote_Under_Attack_Law360.pdf]
>
> ...Until recently, this proposed law seeking to abridge a worker's right to
> vote has drawn little attention outside the ranks of organized labor, its
> primary sponsor. General publicity about EFCA has generated confusion as to
> whether the Act totally disenfranchises workers in the union organizing
> context.
>
> Labor claims that EFCA does not eliminate the secret-ballot union
> certification election, a process where employees can decide whether to
> select a union by a private, secret-ballot vote.
>
> Proponents of employee rights have challenged organized labor's contentions.
> They believe that the bill effectively eliminates a worker's right to a
> secret vote.
>
> Technically, both sides are correct. Practically, however, labor is
> completely in error and its arguments are misleading and duplicitous.
>
> Under existing law, the National Labor Relations Board can hold a
> secret-ballot election where 30% or more of workers in an appropriate
> bargaining unit sign union "authorization" cards.
>
> However, if a majority of employees in a unit signs authorization cards, the
> union may ask the employer for voluntary recognition, without a vote.
>
> Employers seldom voluntarily accept the cards as an accurate reflection of
> employee sentiment about union representation because they are unaware of
> the circumstances under which workers may have signed the cards. This forces
> the union to petition the Board to give employees a secret-ballot vote.
>
> EFCA would amend the law by forbidding the NLRB from holding a secret-ballot
> election where more than 50% of employees in a unit sign union authorization
> cards. The bill states that if a majority of workers sign union recognition
> cards, the NLRB "shall not direct an election but shall certify the" union
> as the exclusive bargaining representative for the appropriate unit of
> employees.
>
> In other words, once a majority of employees ("fifty percent-plus-one") sign
> union authorization cards, the bill eliminates an employee's right to a
> secret-ballot election. It is only where less than 50% of employees in a
> unit have signed cards that labor is correct in saying that employees would
> preserve their right to a secret ballot.
>
> In reality, unions rarely seek an election where they have less than a
> majority of the employees signed up. As candidly stated by Vicki Saporta,
> former National Organizing Director for the Teamsters, unless a union has at
> least 60% of the workers signed up, its ability to win an NLRB election is
> less than 50%.
>
> Thus, unions almost always seek to get a strong majority of cards signed by
> whatever means possible before requesting a vote. This begs the question:
> "why request a vote with the possibility of losing?"
>
> Labor's solution is do away with the secret-ballot vote once it has obtained
> a card majority (no matter what employees may have been told to get them to
> sign), which translates to automatic EFCA certification. This vote-free
> process, which labor disingenuously calls a "card check election," is what
> [organized] labor means when it refers to "employee free choice"...
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> Under existing law, 30% of workers can request a secret ballot
>> election. The EFCA does nothing to change that. If the EFCA becomes
>> law, 30% of the workers can still request a secret ballot election, so
>> in fact the law will still be tilted toward a secret ballot election.
>>
>> The EFCA would give _workers_ the ability to determine by what process
>> they shall make the collective decision whether or not to have union
>> representation. Right now that decision is made in the private sector
>> by the employer.
>>
>> It's worth noting that in Illinois today, in the public sector, we now
>> have card check. If someone works for the state of Illinois - for
>> example, for the University of Illinois - and would be eligible to
>> join a union (for example, not management), then the labor law now
>> governing that person would allow people in that unit to file for
>> union recognition on the basis of union authorization cards signed by
>> a majority.
>>
>> Has anyone noticed any big crisis about the destruction of democracy
>> in Illinois as a result of that change in Illinois labor law taking
>> place? I haven't.
>>
>
>



-- 
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