[Update I: a better explanation]
[Update II: firsthand experience]
The anti-labor, anti-union, anti-worker Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (NAMBLA) are out to get Al Franken. NAMBLA likes that Norm Coleman is opposed to worker safety, decent benefits and living wage jobs. Of course, unions are for these things. NAMBLA want to hinder the union organizers as much as possible. NAMBLA doesn't like the Employee Free Choice Act (ECFA). In an orwellian maneuver, NAMBLA is trying to twist the truth and make EFCA into something that would be bad for workers. As usual with legislation that groups like NAMBLA oppose, the opposite is the truth.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a piece of legislation which would change federal law with regards to the rights of workers to unionize. Specifically, it would make it easier for workers to unionize by...[more on what the bill would do]. It was introduced in both the House and Senate during the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congress. It passed in the House on March 1, 2007 for the first time, but was filibustered by Senate Republicans in June 2007.
(SourceWatch)
The bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the following
Certification on the basis of majority sign-up: Would provide for certification of a union as the bargaining representative of a unit of employees if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finds that a majority of those employees have signed authorization cards designating the union as its bargaining representative. In addition, it would require the board to develop authorization language and procedures for establishing the validity of signed authorizations.
At the time the bill was introduced, a group of workers hoping to unionize were required to sign authorization cards indicating that fact. Once 30% of potential members signed the cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would then schedule a supervised election in which members would vote on whether or not to unionize. Even in cases where large majorities of potential members expressed a desire to unionize, the election process could still be ordered.
A company had the legal ability to allow its workers to have union representation (without going through the NLRB) if a majority of potential members supported unionization. The Employee Free Choice Act would make this recognition mandatory, taking away a company's ability to force a majority of potential members to go through the NLRB election process.
First-contract mediation and arbitration: Would declare that if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach an agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for mediation. If the FMCS was then unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute would be referred to arbitration, and the results of the arbitration would be binding on the parties for two years. These time limits could be extended, however, if both parties agreed to do so.
Stronger penalties for violations while employees are attempting to form a union or attain a first contract: Violations of the National Labor Relations Act would now face the following punishments:
Civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees’ rights during an organizing campaign or first-contract drive.
An increase in the amount an employer is required to pay when an employee is discharged or discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first-contract drive to “three times back pay."
Here's the orwellian ad itself. Get used to it. They project that the average Minnesotan will see this ad 12 to 15 times. Oi.
NAMBLA is made up of loads of organizations that profit from preventing people from making a living wage and working in safe workplaces. O yea ... they hate unions, too.
They like Norm Coleman, though.
Update I
Since I didn't explain it so well ... see comments ... I'll post a comment from my cross-post over at dKos where Budlawman wrote the following:
It's a disgraceful sham when pro-employer anti-union liars and obfuscators speak of this desperately-needed legislation as a threat to the secret ballot, when it is in fact employer outlaws who have destroyed industrial democracy, by habitually using the organizing campaign period required by the current law and procedure to threaten, coerce, promise, fire, and otherwise taint that process, all in violation of the law, and all with little or no incentive not to beat the union supporters to a pulp, with so little recourse for employees and unions. That is why wherever possible, unions have avoided going through the secret ballot process which ensures employers maximum captive abuse of employees. There have been only rare instances of union abuse of the current system that permits but does not require voluntary recognition.
If we want to restore the middle class in this country, we need unions, and in order to bring back unions, we must ultimately change the culture that it's OK, just a cost of doing business, to intimidate workers and delay the bargaining process to the frustration of the employees who simply want to better their working lives, and to the frustration of public policy, which does and should favor union organizing, which is a basic internationally recognized civil right.
Update II: firsthand experience of why EFCA is a good thing
Another commenter at my dKos cross-post, Chico David RN, had posted his experience when the nurses at his hospital organized a union. It wasn't pleasantly but illustrates why the EFCA is so important:
One often hears in rather vague terms about the anti union campaigns that employers run when their employees try to unionize. For the majority of Kossacks who have never experienced one directly, I thought it might be interesting to hear directly from one who has been through a pretty tough campaign.
To lay the ground work for it, I'll first tell a little bit about the NLRB election process. While each campaign is uniqe in some ways, many features are the same, so our's is probably a fairly typical example.
(What is an anti union campaign like?)
Okay, here I am, a staunch union guy with my union card, and if I don't get why voting to unionize is good or bad, it is easy to see how this ad will confuse/mislead a lot of people.
So break it down for me, and I am seriously not even being a smart ass because I really do not get it.
Why is having a secret ballot election to unionize a bad thing? It would seem that it would make it easier to unionize since they would not have to fear reprisals? What was wrong with having an election process?
Thanks,
Alec
Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignaation as those offended.
Currently, the National Labor Relations Board allows employees to use a secret, confidential ballot to determine whether they want union representation. This is to ensure the election is free of employer and union coercion.
In the end, majority rules, and no matter which side prevails, an individual employee’s vote is not disclosed to the employer or the union.
However, the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA), would require union recognition based on a petition or “card check” system.
In a “card check” campaign, union officials gather authorization cards signed by workers. But these “card checks” are made public to the employer, the union organizers and coworkers. Imagine that your private choice would be made public. This provides a less accurate reflection of what employees actually want than does a secret ballot election.
Just think if you went to your local polling place this November to cast your vote in the general election and discovered that you have to make your private choice in public - in front of your friends, neighbors, precinct workers and government officials.
All workers, in every industry, deserve the fundamental American right to a federally supervised private ballot election.
This right is guaranteed when you vote in political elections; there is no reason why you should surrender this right in the workplace.
Charlie,
On the face of it, your argument makes sense. Why is labor and such onn the opposite side? Could you dispassionately put yourself as devil's advocate and explain the other side?
Thanks,
Alec
Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignaation as those offended.
Under the election rules, whereby there can be no union until an election is held:
There is some sort of election/campaign time period, which forces union supporters to lobby for their cause. And some shady employers will intimidate them and taint this campaign period a la Zimbabwe? So it is not the election per se, but the time leading up to the election when the workers are being intimidated? So no election, then no shady bosses intimidating workers in the lead up. Is that the jist of it?
Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignaation as those offended.
Despite my current conservative status, I spent 10 years in the Teamsters local 970. Most of the parts of this bill are pro-union but not really objectionable. But getting rid of the secret ballot is downright crazy. Aside from the examples presented above, this abolition of the secret ballot would extend to voting on contracts. So an employer would know which employees voted for or against their contract offer.
The only reason I can think of that this was included in the bill is the cynical reason, that the unions know it wont pass with this provision and plan on negotiating it away to get the rest of the bill.
The personal testimonies do a better job than I'll do in terms of providing a rationale for EFCA. But the most crucial thing to understand is this: a traditional National Labor Relations Board election to determine whether or not to form a union is not even remotely close to a secret ballot election as we know it.
Employers do a number of things to interfere with the election process that make these elections more akin to what happens in countries run by Robert Mugabe. They not only have more access to workers on the clock, they hold captive audience meetings, intimidating one to one meetings with workers, and sometimes go as far as participating in the surveillance and direct intimidation of their employees. Often folks who support the union are simply fired as a way of sending a message that might say yes.
Under EFCA, workers can choose a secret ballot election. They can also choose to use a card check process which makes it easier for folks to sign up. It gives workers more choices about how to make an important decision. It takes some power away from employers to abuse what should be a fair process where folks make a free choice.
It's good public policy, and scary for the business community. The only thing they want more than lower taxes is fewer union members.
Secret ballot is the only way to have a fair vote. It's a bedrock principle of this country. If your argument is correct, that workers are intimidated by employers, then there is no plausible reason that unions would want to expose workers to retaliation by the company.
Look, I'm not trying to make this a union vs company debate. I have no love for the unions, and your notion that they are pure and innocent and the corporations are evil is silly. But for the sake of argument, let's say that you are right, all corporations are evil. Then why would you want workers to have to expose by declaring their desire to unionize? It makes no sense.
You're right. A secret ballot election IS a bedrock principle of our society. But we also have bedrock beliefs about what a fair election looks like, and those bedrock beliefs are routinely and regularly violated by unscrupulous employers in traditional National Labor Relations Board elections.
I'd love to live in a world where truly just secret ballot elections were possible in workplaces. But instead, I live in the real world where 91% of employers hire union-busting consultants when workers decide they want to organize.
I live in the real world where one side in these "elections" gets unfettered access to the "voters" and the other side gets very little access.
I live in the real world where one side can violate the rules governing the election with little or no consequence. I live in the real world where I've heard dozens and dozens of workers testify about the intimidation they've felt in traditional NLRB campaigns.
You're simply ignoring the reality of what really happens in these "elections." You're ignoring the imbalance of power that exists in workplaces. You've done nothing to acknowledge or address the reality of the situation. You're arguing hypothetically, which doesn't really move the conversation forward.
You asked why I would want to have workers exposed by declaring their desire to unionize. Two responses: first, in traditional NLRB elections, workers who support a union are "exposed" long before the actual election occurs. Management does a great deal of work to determine who's voting how. It informs how they proceed with an anti-union campaign. So it's impossible to argue that workers are somehow protected by a secret ballot in a traditional NLRB election.
Second, the fact is that in instances where workers use a card check method, the instances of intimidation and harassment on the part of unscrupulous employers are dramatically reduced. That's often because the employer, workers, and unions have come to a mutual agreement about how workers will make a decision to unionize. And they've often agreed not to disparage each other in the process.
Maybe card check neutrality isn't perfect. But the facts don't lie. Workers are far less likely to be fired, far less likely to face retaliation for union support, and far less likely to be subject to management intimidation in campaigns that use this methodology.
As to your simplistic charge that I'm painting all employers as evil, I'll just say this: Some employers have acted responsibly in the current anti-labor climate. They've agreed to build relationships with unions before organizing drives ever start, and to approach an organizing drive as a partnership that is about improving the quality of the goods they produce or the services they provide. Those employers are doing the right thing. If there were more like them, the world would be a better place.
But again, in the real world, many employers place as much priority on keeping unions out as they do on keeping taxes low. In that reality, if we want workers' lives to improve, we simply have to do something different.
If you're interested in maintaining the secret ballot and doing it with integrity, you should at least be advocating for the real punishments laid out in EFCA for employers who violate the rules governing an NLRB election and the real remedies for workers who face stiff consequences simply because they want to organize.
I'm not arguing against the entire bill, just the balloting provision of it. You keep responding with the goals of everything else included.
I'm sure there is plenty of intimidation by employers, but I also know there is plenty of intimidation by the unions. There is a huge financial stake to the union to organize a new shop, so please don't tell me that the unions are lily white and innocent.
So why not get rid of the card check portion of the law and get the rest passed?
You cannot be serious. I'm not going to argue that individual organizers might cross a line in card check campaigns. Humans are imperfect. They run imperfect institutions.
But to suggest that unions would systematically employ the same intimidation tactics unscrupulous employers use is both not in line with the facts and not in line with logic.
91%. 91% of employers in the real world whose workers choose to organize hire anti-labor firms that encourage intimidation and coercion. That comes out of a study from Cornell University. I'll wait for you to cite some real numbers to prove that unions engage in anything remotely like this. I believe I'll be waiting a long time.
But there's another angle here. It goes entirely against the self interest of a good union organizer to use anything like intimidation or coercion. Even if it worked in the short term (and who believes anyone would be coerced into joining what is essentially a volunteer organization) it would totally spoil any shot of getting a worker involved in a union after the initial organizing drive.
Some would argue that unions don't really want workers to be involved. Rubbish. The unions I know want members to be active and engaged leaders who drive the work of their locals. You don't get that if you're intimidating or coercing on the front end. The organizers I interact with (and I interact with many) just don't do it.
One other note here. Previous comments from others above indicate that EFCA requires card check. That's just false. It provides card check as an option. The secret ballot option also remains. Given how corrupted those elections are, though, caveat emptor.
Stumble It!
I don't get it
E,
Okay, here I am, a staunch union guy with my union card, and if I don't get why voting to unionize is good or bad, it is easy to see how this ad will confuse/mislead a lot of people.
So break it down for me, and I am seriously not even being a smart ass because I really do not get it.
Why is having a secret ballot election to unionize a bad thing? It would seem that it would make it easier to unionize since they would not have to fear reprisals? What was wrong with having an election process?
Thanks,
Alec
Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignaation as those offended.
Same here
I am slightly lost here as well.
Why EFCA is a Bad Idea
EFCA is terrible public policy and here's why:
Currently, the National Labor Relations Board allows employees to use a secret, confidential ballot to determine whether they want union representation. This is to ensure the election is free of employer and union coercion.
In the end, majority rules, and no matter which side prevails, an individual employee’s vote is not disclosed to the employer or the union.
However, the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA), would require union recognition based on a petition or “card check” system.
In a “card check” campaign, union officials gather authorization cards signed by workers. But these “card checks” are made public to the employer, the union organizers and coworkers. Imagine that your private choice would be made public. This provides a less accurate reflection of what employees actually want than does a secret ballot election.
Just think if you went to your local polling place this November to cast your vote in the general election and discovered that you have to make your private choice in public - in front of your friends, neighbors, precinct workers and government officials.
All workers, in every industry, deserve the fundamental American right to a federally supervised private ballot election.
This right is guaranteed when you vote in political elections; there is no reason why you should surrender this right in the workplace.
Okay, so why are unions andlabor supporting EFCA
Charlie,
On the face of it, your argument makes sense. Why is labor and such onn the opposite side? Could you dispassionately put yourself as devil's advocate and explain the other side?
Thanks,
Alec
Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignaation as those offended.
So, to clarify....
Under the election rules, whereby there can be no union until an election is held:
There is some sort of election/campaign time period, which forces union supporters to lobby for their cause. And some shady employers will intimidate them and taint this campaign period a la Zimbabwe? So it is not the election per se, but the time leading up to the election when the workers are being intimidated? So no election, then no shady bosses intimidating workers in the lead up. Is that the jist of it?
Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignaation as those offended.
I agree
Despite my current conservative status, I spent 10 years in the Teamsters local 970. Most of the parts of this bill are pro-union but not really objectionable. But getting rid of the secret ballot is downright crazy. Aside from the examples presented above, this abolition of the secret ballot would extend to voting on contracts. So an employer would know which employees voted for or against their contract offer.
The only reason I can think of that this was included in the bill is the cynical reason, that the unions know it wont pass with this provision and plan on negotiating it away to get the rest of the bill.
EFCA is crucial for workers
The personal testimonies do a better job than I'll do in terms of providing a rationale for EFCA. But the most crucial thing to understand is this: a traditional National Labor Relations Board election to determine whether or not to form a union is not even remotely close to a secret ballot election as we know it.
Employers do a number of things to interfere with the election process that make these elections more akin to what happens in countries run by Robert Mugabe. They not only have more access to workers on the clock, they hold captive audience meetings, intimidating one to one meetings with workers, and sometimes go as far as participating in the surveillance and direct intimidation of their employees. Often folks who support the union are simply fired as a way of sending a message that might say yes.
Under EFCA, workers can choose a secret ballot election. They can also choose to use a card check process which makes it easier for folks to sign up. It gives workers more choices about how to make an important decision. It takes some power away from employers to abuse what should be a fair process where folks make a free choice.
It's good public policy, and scary for the business community. The only thing they want more than lower taxes is fewer union members.
Sorry but no...
Secret ballot is the only way to have a fair vote. It's a bedrock principle of this country. If your argument is correct, that workers are intimidated by employers, then there is no plausible reason that unions would want to expose workers to retaliation by the company.
Look, I'm not trying to make this a union vs company debate. I have no love for the unions, and your notion that they are pure and innocent and the corporations are evil is silly. But for the sake of argument, let's say that you are right, all corporations are evil. Then why would you want workers to have to expose by declaring their desire to unionize? It makes no sense.
Wait a minute....
Dave--
You're right. A secret ballot election IS a bedrock principle of our society. But we also have bedrock beliefs about what a fair election looks like, and those bedrock beliefs are routinely and regularly violated by unscrupulous employers in traditional National Labor Relations Board elections.
I'd love to live in a world where truly just secret ballot elections were possible in workplaces. But instead, I live in the real world where 91% of employers hire union-busting consultants when workers decide they want to organize.
I live in the real world where one side in these "elections" gets unfettered access to the "voters" and the other side gets very little access.
I live in the real world where one side can violate the rules governing the election with little or no consequence. I live in the real world where I've heard dozens and dozens of workers testify about the intimidation they've felt in traditional NLRB campaigns.
You're simply ignoring the reality of what really happens in these "elections." You're ignoring the imbalance of power that exists in workplaces. You've done nothing to acknowledge or address the reality of the situation. You're arguing hypothetically, which doesn't really move the conversation forward.
You asked why I would want to have workers exposed by declaring their desire to unionize. Two responses: first, in traditional NLRB elections, workers who support a union are "exposed" long before the actual election occurs. Management does a great deal of work to determine who's voting how. It informs how they proceed with an anti-union campaign. So it's impossible to argue that workers are somehow protected by a secret ballot in a traditional NLRB election.
Second, the fact is that in instances where workers use a card check method, the instances of intimidation and harassment on the part of unscrupulous employers are dramatically reduced. That's often because the employer, workers, and unions have come to a mutual agreement about how workers will make a decision to unionize. And they've often agreed not to disparage each other in the process.
Maybe card check neutrality isn't perfect. But the facts don't lie. Workers are far less likely to be fired, far less likely to face retaliation for union support, and far less likely to be subject to management intimidation in campaigns that use this methodology.
As to your simplistic charge that I'm painting all employers as evil, I'll just say this: Some employers have acted responsibly in the current anti-labor climate. They've agreed to build relationships with unions before organizing drives ever start, and to approach an organizing drive as a partnership that is about improving the quality of the goods they produce or the services they provide. Those employers are doing the right thing. If there were more like them, the world would be a better place.
But again, in the real world, many employers place as much priority on keeping unions out as they do on keeping taxes low. In that reality, if we want workers' lives to improve, we simply have to do something different.
If you're interested in maintaining the secret ballot and doing it with integrity, you should at least be advocating for the real punishments laid out in EFCA for employers who violate the rules governing an NLRB election and the real remedies for workers who face stiff consequences simply because they want to organize.
Not the whole bill
I'm not arguing against the entire bill, just the balloting provision of it. You keep responding with the goals of everything else included.
I'm sure there is plenty of intimidation by employers, but I also know there is plenty of intimidation by the unions. There is a huge financial stake to the union to organize a new shop, so please don't tell me that the unions are lily white and innocent.
So why not get rid of the card check portion of the law and get the rest passed?
Still not acknowledging the real world
You cannot be serious. I'm not going to argue that individual organizers might cross a line in card check campaigns. Humans are imperfect. They run imperfect institutions.
But to suggest that unions would systematically employ the same intimidation tactics unscrupulous employers use is both not in line with the facts and not in line with logic.
91%. 91% of employers in the real world whose workers choose to organize hire anti-labor firms that encourage intimidation and coercion. That comes out of a study from Cornell University. I'll wait for you to cite some real numbers to prove that unions engage in anything remotely like this. I believe I'll be waiting a long time.
But there's another angle here. It goes entirely against the self interest of a good union organizer to use anything like intimidation or coercion. Even if it worked in the short term (and who believes anyone would be coerced into joining what is essentially a volunteer organization) it would totally spoil any shot of getting a worker involved in a union after the initial organizing drive.
Some would argue that unions don't really want workers to be involved. Rubbish. The unions I know want members to be active and engaged leaders who drive the work of their locals. You don't get that if you're intimidating or coercing on the front end. The organizers I interact with (and I interact with many) just don't do it.
One other note here. Previous comments from others above indicate that EFCA requires card check. That's just false. It provides card check as an option. The secret ballot option also remains. Given how corrupted those elections are, though, caveat emptor.