The Employee Free Choice Act Passes (House)

[rodeodance]

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=76


The Employee Free Choice Act Passes
March 1st, 2007 by Karina

By a vote of 241 to 185, the House of Representatives passed The Employee Free Choice Act. Watch the closing speech by Education and Labor Chairman George Miller:

[sam sarrha]

1. pResident wet brain alcoholic drug addict AWOL draft dodger wont let us have freedom of choice..

[rmgarrette64]

3. Or, in this case, he'll insist on it

Despite the name, this is not a Freedom of Choice Act. It is, in fact, quite the contrary. Consider how much we're trying to make sure elections stay valid at state and federal level. Why exactly would we wish to remove that from unionization?

Sorry, but eliminating secret balloting, getting rid of an actual election to express people's choice is not a good idea.

R. Garrett

[Donnachaidh]

4. republican talking point?

enjoy your time at DU. :sarcasm:

[rmgarrette64]

5. So, explain it to me

I'm willing to admit I might be wrong. And so far everyone except me on this thread has been in favor of this bill. All I have heard about it says this is a very bad idea, I really do not like the idea of eliminating balloting - let people make a free choice.

But hey, I've been wrong before.

Why is this a good idea? What am I missing?

R. Garrett

[tkmorris]

7. Because it isn't a "free" choice

The ballot process is badly broken. On the surface, the concept of a secret ballot sounds as if it would protect workers from the excesses of management, but in practice it doesn't work that way. I'm making dinner so I can't lay it out point by point right now, but here's a good summary of why the card check process may be superior in protecting worker's rights.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/03/21/here%e2%80%99s-what-nlrb-%e2%80%98elections%e2%80%99-really-mean/

[Solo_in_MD]

12. It doesn't make the case well if at all

and having read there and elsewhere, I am yet to see a compelling case for not using a secret ballot. Public card checks are not the same and IMO not as honest a reflection of the true will of the employees.

The claimed issue is the amount of time from the election to certification. Why is eliminating the election going to change that? If the employer is going to fight tooth and nail after an election, cards checks will not make it any better. If the post decision process is flawed, fix it, do not remove the only true measure of worker desires.

Not saying that the current system is perfect, since it is clearly flawed. However, I beleive that the process could be cleaned up with while the secret ballot is maintained. I would much rather see a process that requires less than a majority to sign cards, an immediate secret election, and then immediate implentation of the results, one way or the other.

Question for the group: Recently, how often does the union have a majority of the cards and yet loses the election? The seems to be the real issue here.

[rodeodance]

8. the AFL-CIO supports it. link here.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/02/06/employee-free-choice-act-introduced/

i really do not know much about it. but will do some reading.

[Donnachaidh]

9. From the afl-cio site --

"Currently, if employees present an employer with union authorization cards signed by a majority, the employer can demand a secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). But the NLRB election process is broken because it enables employers to intimidate, coerce and harass workers and drag out the process indefinitely."

This is taking the power to INTIMIDATE away from the employer. The secret ballot election was a tool used by EMPLOYERS to coerce and intimidate potential union employees.

"Employee Free Choice Act would make the process of choosing a union more fair 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."

[rodeodance]

13. Bush said he would veto (via Cheney) if passed.

[Rainscents]

10. Why are you against Union???

They are the ONE who fought and DIED for yours and mine rights! You need to STOP listening to CORPORATE WHORES and RW TALKING heads on the RW radio! Of course, RW and corporate whores are against WORKERS RIGHT!

[nosmokes]

11. ok, here's a cliffs notes version

to hold a vote first you hafta get a petition w/ % of the workers signed sayiing they're interested in having the election. the petition hasta go the NLRB to be verified. that process ultimately involves mgmt at the company so they know who signed the petition, i.e.:the potential trouble makers. the people who signed are then treated poorly, maybe nothing illegal, but they're given the worst shifts, maybe split shifts, and mgmt does everything possible to make their lives miserable. if they need to get home to take care of kids they get saddled with mandatory overtime. if they could use the OT they get their hours cut back to the minimum. and mgmt begins a scare campaign talking about how people are gonna lose their jobs and all sorts of other BS if the union gets in. and the people with the guts to actually try to do the organizing are fired illegally. i don't have the stats offhand but google the afl-cio site and get an education.

[Megahurtz]

2. Yey -Yah!

Now lets see if it will stay!

[madrchsod]

6. never get by the senate

the rethugs will say they will filibuster and the democrats will cave