Employee Free Choice debate heats up
March 17, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Pending Legislation
As businesses continue voicing concern about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), Congressional Republicans have introduced a new bill they hope will stop the union-friendly proposal in its tracks.
Before Democrats had the chance to formally introduce the EFCA during this Congressional term, the Secret Ballot Protection Act (SBPA) was introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
If passed, the SBPA will guarantee employers the right to ask for a secret ballot election when workers are deciding whether to unionize.
Currently, elections are held if 30% of employees sign cards saying they want to unionize. The EFCA would let unions take power as long as a majority of employees sign those cards.
Who’s more likely to win the fight? Experts say the EFCA has a better shot of passing, given the Democrats’ majority in Congress and the fact that President Obama has made the bill one of his priorities.
However, the presence of the SBPA could convince the EFCA’s supporters to compromise.
We’ll keep you posted.
Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, Secret Ballot Protection Act, unions
March 18th, 2009 at 11:55 am
It’s a disgrace that the any union or employer would require employees to vote without the privacy of a secret ballot. There are bully tactics already in place that put employees in an uncomfortable position when these elections take place. These elections should ABSOLUTELY be done secretly and the privacy of all employees respected and maintained.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
This Orwellian piece of legislation takes away the secret ballot for those who may want to form a union. It eliminates free speech by the employer who may want to offer reasons not to form a union. The EFCA takes away two fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. People should be screaming about this. Unions however, see it as an easy way to line their pockets since now they can easily bully employees and face virtually no consequences. Once there are no more businesses because they cannot bear the costs of this legislation, who will Obama and the unions go after next?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Unions are no longer needed in this era. There are laws that protect workers in every aspect of their employment. Unions cost jobs. Their fees and anti-company attitudes have caused the cost of products to rise and definitely have caused the automotive industry in this country from remaining competitive.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Jim, I hope you never apply at my company. I would rather shut the doors of our 3 companies than allow a union to dictate how we run our own business. Workers who are pro union are usually unmotivated, unambitious and need the shelter of the unions to keep their jobs regardless of performance. I would want to be employed because of my achievements and keep my job because of my performance than to hide behind a union for security. Frances & Bernice I appreciate the comments you made. Very well said.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
All you have to do is take a look at the auto industry to see the effect unions can have if allowed to run unrestrained. I agree with you Bernice, unions had their place and time and it has passed. As an HR Manager, I am an employee advocate, but there have to be limits to how much burden a company can sustain before it collapses!
March 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Don’t worry folks – with the rate this is going the government will be there to bail all of our companies. Let’s just print more money to pay the bills – it free isn’t it? This does not even deserve comment! What has happened to America?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Change we can believe in, indeed.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Level the playing field. If signed cards by 50% of employees equals automatic recognition, then signed cards of 50% of employees represented by a Union should be sufficient for decertification or removal of representation of the Union without a vote or any other oversight or involvement by the Labor Board. Fair’s fair. Union’s want to see some stimulus for the working men and women they represent … cut their Union dues. This would have an immediate and tangible impact on EVERY worker they represent. Finally, unions rail about executive compensation … how about limiting the income of union leaders (even at the national level), from ALL sources being tied to the average compensation earned by the workers/members they represent … just like they’ve suggested.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The issue isn’t whether or not Unions are good or bad it is protecting the employees right to make the choice to be represented free from coercion. Employees may tell a Union they will vote for representation then vote against it in a secret ballot because they don’t think it meets their needs but are afraid to say so face-to-face with co-workers or organizers. Employees may tell their employer that they will vote against a Union but vote for it in a secret ballot because they think it is a better deal for them but fear reprisal if their true intent is known. Some people are more susceptable to bullying behavior than others and no one should make the decision to be represented (or not) out of fear.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
This bill is simply going against the democratic vein of our Constitution.
I am in favor of respecting employees rights. Usually in a workplace there are
people that are in favor or against the need to have union representation.
Where does this bill respects the rights of those that do not feel the need to be
represented by somebody else?
President Obama made a campaing promise to the unions. Did he consider the cost to the very same businessess he is now desperately in need to help survive?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Point: While the NLRA does allow for elections to be held if 30% of employees sign cards, the reality is that unions will not normally petition for an election until they have approximately 70% signatures because they know that many of the people they harassed or intimidated into signing cards will vote against them in the actual election. IF unions harass and/or intimidate people now into signing cards, can you imagine what it will be like if the Employee Forced Choice Act is passed?
March 19th, 2009 at 6:11 am
There is nothing right about the EFCA, but it is not about right or wrong or what is best for the country. It’s simply pay back of the worst kind to the Union Leadership (who needs more dues) for it’s support in getting the present administration elected.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I hope Kline is serious about the SBPA, and it’s not just a ploy to combat the EFCA. He should absolutely push this through.