The Employee Free Choice Act and Why You Should Support It
by Hillary MeisterLink to article
On March 1, the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800 - http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/) passed the House (241-185). Created by a bi-partisan coalition consisting of Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.) the EFCA will give employees back the opportunity to join and form unions by:
• Establishing stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.
• Providing mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.
• Allowing employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation. (AFL-CIO)
But before the bill can become law it must pass the Senate and see the light of President Bush’s pen, so don’t start singing Billy Bragg’s “There is Power in a Union” just yet.
In fact workers in America may be humming a different tune especially since Vice President Dick Cheney let it slip in a recent speech to the National Association of Manufacturers, a group who has seen most of their jobs and industry shipped elsewhere, that the President will veto the bill anyway. If that happens, the only recourse is for a 2/3rds majority override of the veto by Congress.
I first became aware of the bill through my friend, Lisa May, a high school history and social studies teacher in Florida who sent out an email to everyone she knew about contacting our local reps to get the bill pushed through. She’s had plenty of union experience whereas I, however, work in an industry that has no real union representation or, seemingly, a glimmer of hope for one (welcome to the world of IT).
She tells me labor unions were given legal status in the U.S. in 1935 by The Wagner Act also known as the National Labor Relations Act.
“Once unions were legalized workers started forming and joining unions like crazy,” she says. “But in 1955 The Taft-Hartley Act, aka Labor-Management Relations Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-hartley_act) was passed, which made organizing unions more difficult.” The Act was originally vetoed by President Harry Truman who labeled it a “slave-labor bill” but the Republican majority overrode the veto and passed the bill into law.
It’s ironic how the tables are switched these days, but will there be enough of a majority vote to override the imminent veto?
The Taft-Hartley Act also allowed states to pass “right-to-work” laws that made union shops illegal. So, while the NLRA gave unions the green light to operate for worker’s rights, the LMRA changed it to red and gave employers sharper knives to use to cut out unions in their shops.
“Managers would put employees through union busting meetings – workers were required to go to these meetings and during this campaign time unions were not allowed to be on company ground. It was intimidating to workers and made it difficult for workers to join because of the tricks employers would do,” May says.
“American workers have no idea how much the unions do for them. The [Republican] congress tried to get rid of overtime pay – they were trying to reclassify workers as salary workers to avoid paying overtime,” May explains. “The AFL-CIO was the only group fighting against them.”
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) have their fight cut out for them now as the wave of anti-EFCA propaganda hits the media from labor lawyers (union busters) and otherwise. Just recently, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an opinion piece penned by Richard Hankins, an Atlanta labor lawyer, not 24 hours after the bill passed the House. He claims that the bill will have “unintended devastating effects on the workers the unions claim to protect” and, oh my God what if Wal-Mart were to experience unionization of their thousands of underpaid, no-benefit employees – “One can easily imagine than an employer such as the retail giant Wal-Mart — a prime target of today’s unions — might choose the temporary inconvenience of a lockout over permitting an arbitrator to topple the first domino that could lead to a nationwide loss of control.”
Too bad Hankins wasn’t in the room while the House mediated for five hours about the EFCA on March 1. Testimonies from workers about harassment, job termination, threats of plants closing, intimidation and physical assault by employers and their lackeys to keep them from forming or joining a union filled out the debate and gave the bill’s bi-partisan authors plenty of ammunition to help it pass.
John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO states, “Because of today’s vote, the future looks a little brighter to all Americans who have watched corporations celebrate record profits, but have themselves been shut out of the party, left with stagnant wages and facing soaring costs. A union card is the single best ticket into the middle-class and, thanks to the Employee Free Choice Act, working people may finally have the chance to be part of a union.”
We unrepresented workers can only hope. So keep those cards and letters going to our elected officials to make sure the EFCA gets a fighting chance. Go to the AFL-CIO’s site at http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/ and follow the prompts under Take Action.
Videos of speeches from the House during the debate:
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=74
Tags: AFL-CIO, Employee-Free-Choice-Act, right-to-work, union-busting, unions
March 16th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Employee Free Choice Act and Republican Disinformation
Republicans opposing the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act are lying up a storm to swing public opinion against the proposed law. Their primary attack claim is that the bill denies workers a free, fair election by secret ballot. Unfortunately, there is nothing free or fair about the current system of voting on unionization. The law is tilted heavily in favor of company power and against the workers.
I have been involved in an unsuccessful attempt to unionize a business. I saw disturbing examples of intimidation and unfair tactics that the Employee Free Choice Act would have prevented.
Companies are able to hold “captive audience meetings” to argue against unionization. They are legally able to include certain workers and exclude others. Attendance is mandatory for some and prohibited to others. They are held on company time.
Workers trying to unionize are not able to meet on company property without permission of the company. Strong union supporters are usually excluded from “captive audience meetings” so the company position is the only one heard by the workers forced to attend. Sometimes illegal threats or statements are issued at these meetings when the company feels certain that workers attending them will not report them to the federal government.
The burden of proof by law regarding illegal tactics by companies in complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board definitely tilts toward the company. Most companies fail to see violations of labor laws by anti-union “so-called worker committees” (often comprised of quasi-management employees) while pro-union workers are threatened frequently with being fired if suspected of engaging in pro-union activities. The anti-union “so-called worker committees” can operate on company time (which is illegal) without much fear. While most companies will deny knowing about such activity, it seems likely that these companies often secretly organize these anti-union “so-called worker committees” and direct their operations. In almost every case, the company has complete knowledge of their activities.
Supervisors will often threaten employees when no witnesses are present. Threatened workers are often afraid of reporting the threats or do not know the procedure for reporting them. These threats are illegal but very difficult to prove. The company can fire pro-union workers during the election process to intimidate other workers even if the federal government or courts eventually get their jobs back. In the meantime, the union vote will often go against unionization out of fear.
The company will sometimes threaten to close the business or move it if the workers vote for a union. This is illegal but it does happen. It is very difficult to prove. Illegal activity by the company is difficult to prove in part because many companies make rules against bringing recording devices or cameras into the work area. This also makes it difficult to document unsafe working conditions. Workers can lose their jobs trying to document violations of labor or safety laws by the company.
Union organizers and union officials do not have access to company property during the election cycle to discuss the benefits of unionization. They are not supplied with phone numbers of employees although the companies do have that information.
If you distribute any union materials including union pledge cards on company property during working hours, you can and usually will be fired. Pro-union workers are often warned about this even when they are not actively involved in the distribution of pledge cards or materials just to intimidate them from speaking up for unionization.
The current union election system is not fair or free. It is much like the “free elections” held in Communist countries or other dictatorships. The Republicans and their large corporate masters are being completely dishonest in the way they frame the issue and describe the current situation.
Republicans falsely claim that workers are intimidated into signing union pledge cards. This is so rare as to be almost non-existent. The intimidation is almost entirely on the side of the companies. Companies are in a position of power over workers. Co-workers are simply not in a similar power situation. Only the company is really in the kind of power position to intimidate workers.
Criminal behavior influencing union votes is almost always on the side of the company. The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to stop this criminal behavior and all intimidation of workers. The legislation says that if a majority of workers sign pledge cards in favor of unionizing the union will be automatically recognized by law. It is majority rule. It eliminates the opportunity for the company to block the majority desire for unionization by using illegal tactics and intimidation.
A vote against the Employee Free Choice Act is a vote in favor of the current rigged system. It is a vote in favor of company intimidation and illegal company behavior. It is a vote against the workers.
Democrats overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. In the House vote, only 2 Democrats voted against the legislation. 13 Republicans voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. The final vote was 241 in favor and 185 against.
Some Senate Republicans may attempt to block a vote on this legislation. If they do, every working American should vote against them. If any Democrat joins them, they should be defeated at the next election. Workers should contact their Senators immediately and let them know their vote on this legislation will determine your vote in the next election.
It has been reported that Cheney has pledged that Bush will veto the Employee Free Choice Act. This is the best reason I can think of for voting Democratic in the 2008 Presidential Election if Bush vetoes this pro-worker legislation.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a vote for worker rights. A vote against it is a vote against worker rights no matter how the Republicans spin it.
Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .
Feel free to publish or distribute without prior approval.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Just another note about a situation that happened recently regarding the EFCA. Read this article posted on Common Dreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/02/250/