Obama speaks out on Employee Free Choice Act
February 18, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Pending Legislation
Depending on who you ask, the Employee Free Choice Act will either become law soon or, it’s a long shot to pass in its current form. Here’s what the President has to say about it.
Barrack Obama recently discussed the EFCA in an interview with the Washington Post. Here’s the gist:
Obama said he’d like to make it easier for employees to join unions and that “the basic outlines of the [EFCA] are ones I agree with.” However, he also said he’ll listen to all sides and is willing to help them reach a compromise. “There are steps that we can take other than the [EFCA],” he said, “that will make a difference there.”
When asked if the act would a priority for his first year in office, Obama answered: “Let’s see what the legislative docket looks like.”
What does it mean?
Though it’s still one of Obama’s priorities, some members of the business community now feel the EFCA will be put on hold while more pressing economic issues are dealt with. Other experts expect some of the more union-friendly provisions will be eliminated through compromise.
We’ll keep you posted.
You can read a transcript of the interview here.
What are your thoughts on the EFCA? Share your views in the comments section below.
Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, Obama
February 25th, 2009 at 9:44 am
EFCA should not be passed. The biggest issue is the invasion of privacy on members of a potential bargaining unit. Currently, employees have the safety of expressing their final sentiment about union represtation in a private voting booth. Under the proposed legislation, employees’ privacy is stripped away and they are subject to worse kinds of harassment than any kind of harassment that unions allege employers engage in during a union campaign. It just does not make sense!
February 25th, 2009 at 10:33 am
The biggest issue for me is that employees get to make a choice under EFCA without giving management and opportunity to make it’s case. And that an arbitation panel can make a deal for the parties and just walk away from the dispute.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I agree EFCA should not be passed. Unions are wanting payback for supporting a particular party in order to achieve their business need – that is – they need members to increase their own revenues. Workers often times are provoked/shamed/pushed into signing a card just to get an organizer off their back. They then have the opportunity to privately decide what they actually want to do. Remarkably, fewer and fewer people seem to see the need to have a 3rd party represent them.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Secret ballot elections have been the gold standard for all elections in this country since it was founded. Why change that now? How can they possibly be unfair?
February 25th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
This bill is clearly anti “free choice” and provides unions with an open season on employees. I continue to not understand in this day and age how it is that unions get the reputation as pro employee and company’s are anti employee. Unions are just as much business as business…they have large payrolls and executives that require increased enrollment to support their livilihoods. As stated above, unions have seen a steady decline of membership over the last three decades due to the humanistic approach most successful companys now take in realizing that their human capital is just as important as the service/product they provide. Employees should not have to pay someone to work in America and the unions who have sold fear for so long are becoming obsolete and thus the reason they see the need to change the NLRA. Once passed they will continue to use their protected right to manipulate and lie getting employees to sign a card. Thus, global business becomes stagnate just like the Airlines/Auto/Education industries.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The US doesn’t need unions or EFCA. Unions were created back in the day when we didn’t have the employment laws in place that we do now. Now that everything they do is pretty much what the Federal Government mandates, it should be done away with. UAW included. Look what they have done. Have you checked their payroll for people who work for the UAW that the union dues go to pay, they could get some much more by just putting it into a savings account. Get real people.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Excellent comments and I agree with all of you. The real trick is getting your elected representatives to agree this is abominable legislation. One easy way is to use congress.org. It is a simple way to find out who represents you, voice your opinion, and see how your reps voted on issues. Demand that your officials listen to their constituency and stop this horrific slap in the face of freedom and individual rights.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
The problem legislatively is that a majority of the representatives in the congress come from major metro areas, are democRAT, and support the government unions who make up their constituencies in these areas. Plus, the unions give them huge sums of bribes, er, campaign money.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
The title of this article is a misnomer: “Obama speaks out…” He equivocated throughout his answer and never made it clear where he stands. Judging by his past stands, however, I say he’s all for it. I also believe this is a privacy issue and that no one’s ballot should be open. That’s why we have locked ballot boxes — electronically or otherwise — in this country.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Also, Nobama was a co-sponsor of the EFCA when it first failed in the Senate a few years ago, but you won’t find THAT in the lame stream media.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Lame stream media. Good one!
February 26th, 2009 at 8:46 am
The manner in which some of you choose to respond is really quite unprofessional. This is just my opinion and I appreciate the opportunity to share it. Incendiary comments like DemocRAT and Nobama are really not necessary. They detract from an otherwise insightful board.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Tony of course is correct. It would have been nice to see the same request for respect when President Bush was president. The vitriole in some of the posts was breathtaking, but I saw no complaints then. Respect for the office, no matter who holds it, is important, but issues and a discussion of issues, the disagreements or agreements are completely proper.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I agree with Tony M. Disagreement ought to be respectful.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Nobama? democRAT? Incendiary?
The only thing incendiary about this is the nature of change that’s going to hit us all in the next sevreal months. We’re all going down in flames if some of these policies get enacted.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I don’t understand. What are all the laws that THESE POLITICIANS are passing for if we need UNIONS? We have a small insurance business and it seems to me that anyone who hires employees
gets penalized. And as employers you have very little rights. We provide the jobs, get taxed for it and then get sued for making a mistake. The employee might never get sued for stealing, for using company time for personal use, etc.
All my life I was a Democrat, but when George Bush ran for President, I voted for him for many good reasons which I will not go into it now. Since then I have learned that Democrats want to “shake hands with you while using someone elses hand”. And that goes for the unions. “Let’s use someone elses money to help others while we get the credit (OBAMA STYLE).
February 27th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Could it like almost sound “Socialist” or “Communist”?
February 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Dianna, your point is spot on Democrats have become the party of the lazy and have used an anti business strategy to get elected. Obama’s statement that the Unions will grow the middle class income is ridiculous, if you need a better example look at Detroit and how well Unions have helped the middle class they have helped themselves and their private golf course. The only help for Americans to achieve a better income is hard work and not relying on some third party who couldn’t care less about the members they represent. I was in a union for most of my career before I decided that it was time to get moving and be able to provide for my family but my point being is that you can bet the Union had nothing to do with my financial position…it was hard work. Union Execs are laughing all the way to the bank as they really have no commodity that they sell or produce but they make a fortune off of fear. I know it is a stretch however I liken it to the days of mobsters were they would walk in the local business and ask for protection money (probably the reason why a Hoffa runs the largest union in America, Teamsters) and from what? Who knows? As it has been said get ready for the pain to come as our newly appointed Sec of Labor comes straight from the Union Hall. Finally I respect the fact that Tony asks for respectful debate however this is an issue of ideology and there are just stark differences between most America and the socialist approach Obama has embarked on, he was elected because of Bush failures and even then by a very slim popular vote margin.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I don’t like our new President being labelled Socialist or Communist any more that Republicans liked President Bush being caricatured as an idiot. Can we discuss the issue at hand respectfully without maligning people, or parties? If not, I am signing off. I don’t have time or energy to listen to it.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Unions are are a business. Unions have rich excutives and pretty good pay checks which can be equal to some of the owners of real business. Unions have made the American auto manfacturing incapable of competeing to foriegn companies who do not have unions. Small business will be shut done if Unions begin to catch their big buck salaries from everyone. Small business is 70 % of america’s wealth. Obama has already failed to live up to his promise to control the use of money by banks and finacial groups. Obama has said small business needs help and he was releasing money to banks to help them. Is this true? Obama does not understand American business. He has never owned a busines. He is a nice man but I have trouble with decisions that do not support the peopel(small Business) who create jobs and are fair to the people who work for them. i do not support government controlling business or giving money to a group that wishes to abolish Israel and its people. That is remininscint of Hitler.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:14 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.