Employee Free Choice Act Introduced in Congress

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AFL-CIO News Blog

by Seth Michaels

The Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate today, launching the legislative battle to restore workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life.

It’s a great day for working families and a sign of the change that America voted for last fall. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) announced the bill’s launch at the Senate, along with workers whose struggles to form unions illustrate the need to give workers, not bosses, the ability to choose how to form a union, as well as a guarantee of a contract and protection from employer intimidation, coercion and firing.

Deborah Kelly, one of the workers testifying today before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee about the importance of protecting the freedom to form a union, says her union is vital to protect her and her family.


Sen. Tom Harkin shows how without unions, and the Employee Free Choice Act, America’s workers fall behind.

Deborah Kelly, one of the workers testifying today before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee about the importance of protecting the freedom to form a union, says her union is vital to protect her and her family.


Read more: http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/03/10/employee-free-choice-act-introduced-in-congress/

[msongs]

1. the Republican Party Inc IS A UNION for crap sake nt

[ccharles000]

2. I hope it will pass

[Triana]

3. Urge your reps to support EFCA...

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/passefca

[stillcool]

12. thanks for that...

This is one of those 'bottom up' things that I think we are supposed to participate in. I will do the very least I can do and call my Congressman tomorrow. I hope that this is kept alive and kicking for the duration, up until the vote.

[dana_b]

18. definitely

we can't just hope that they do the right thing because we all know that big business will be lobbying so hard against this. We have GOT to put the pressure on as well.

[No Elephants]

25. Your Senators, too? (The story says the bill is in both Houses.)

[MilesColtrane]

20. Done.

[pattmarty]

4. It's about fucking time.....................

[santamargarita]

5. Stem Cell Research and Employee Free Choice Act in one week...

the rat bastard Republicans must be praying to their cardboard cut out of Jesus George Bush!

[harun]

31. Yep, I am sure we have their attention now.

[totodeinhere]

6. Please, no flames here. I am not opposed to the EFCA. However....

I am uninformed about this issue. At first glance, it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with allowing employees to use a secret ballot to decide whether or not they want a union. So how am I wrong here? Is it that the ballots might not really be secret and the employer might someone find out who voted for a union and retaliate against them? Or is there some other reason why a secret ballot is undesirable? Thanks.

[electricray]

7. When a vote is scheduled, the ballot may be secret, but...

the time and place of the vote is not. The workers are then subjected to threats and fear tactics by management. The whole process is ominous and similar to boiler-plate (time-share) style sales presentations. The employees don't end up voting for their own best interests because of all the pressure put on them by the management. Some companies spend millions of dollars to bring in anti-union spin shops to scare the bejeezus out of people. If you could just sign a card to show your desire, there would be no way for the intimidation to be concentrated so heavily around the moment you have to make the decision.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. Thanks for that explanation.

So it sounds like more of a petition that can be signed away from the shop/management. Yes?

I too have been a little in the dark on this.

[fed_up_mother]

19. The intimidation works the other way with card signing.

It's a public act, and everyone knows if you don't want to join a union. Personally, I'm very much for unions, but have problems with the intimidation factor on BOTH sides.

[readmoreoften]

23. How is it intimidating for your co-workers to ask you not to screw them over?

Why would you not want to join a union if you're able? Do you want lower pay and shittier benefits? Who else is going to negotiate for you against management?

I really can't think of a reason not to join. Unless you're a kiss-ass trying to climb the ladder, of course, it does interfere with that...

[One_Life_To_Give]

28. Proof of her point

Your attitude displayed above is sufficient coercion.

[kenfrequed]

38. What?

How is pointing out obvious economic shortfallings of non-union work 'intimidation'?

I think intimidation requires:

A: A threat that is being offerred on the part of the intimidator

and

B: Some semblance of a capacity to carry out that threat on the part of the person making said threat.


Telling you that you have no bargaining posture with management and pointing out 'shittier pay and benefits' without a union isn't a threat. It is an obvious and statistically accurate assessment of union vs non-union work.

[Chovexani]

42. Power differentials FTW

Seriously, what a dumb couple of posts. The last time I checked union members can't do anything to you if you refuse to join nor do they spend millions of dollars on consultants to coerce you into doing what they want.

During my stint in the retail trenches, I worked at a chain electronics store and as soon as management even got a HINT that we were trying to unionize, in came the professional union busters to scare the shit out of us with Reefer Madness-esque presentations on the Evils of Unions. Sadly, it worked, and we couldn't manage to organize the store.

That happens way more than people would think.

[No Elephants]

44. Whether it is about a union or something else entirely, your fellow workers can do a lot to

make your life miserable at work, even get you fired. It's never happened to me about a union or anything else, but I know the power of co-workers who decide to gang up on someone, regardless of the reason.

[kenfrequed]

50. Oh sure

And management is going to listen to the whinings of 'those pro union' fellow workers?

Gimme a break.

And wow, if every case you have ever heard of workers intimidating each other was NOT about union activity, then maybe its a crappy argument to make.

[No Elephants]

57. If co-workers decide to gang up on you, it does not matter whether their reason is

union activity or something else.

Mind you, I am addressing only the narrower point that your fellow workers cannot do anything to you. As I have posted elsewhere on the thread, I am totally pro-union, whatever it may take to get a shop to be pro-union.

[kenfrequed]

66. What?

I don't understand how you can be 'pro-union' but against legislation that would protect the majority of workers ability to form a union.

[No Elephants]

69. I am NOT against the legislation. I disagreed only with the sub point that co-workers cannot

do anything to you. I am so pro-union that, if I had to, I would show my card to everyone in the shop AND management and screw whatever consequences I had to put up with, even firing. But that's me, not everyone.

[Chovexani]

53. Being mean to you is not the same as being able to get you fired.

Please look up the term "power differential".

Also: I am a black, queer, Pagan woman working in corporate America, I really don't need explanations of how co-workers can gang up on people they consider outside the group.

Power differentials mean if my co-workers do it I can go to HR. If management does it I have to file an EEOC complaint because HR will likely do squat. That is the point sailing over your head.

[No Elephants]

60. Being sabotaged by co-workers CAN get you fired. And my friend IS and HR worker in a

nursing home whose co-workers ganged up on her. Or, should I say she was.

[One_Life_To_Give]

59. LOL, Intimidation thru Peer pressure only requires perception

of negative consequences from failure to yield. I'm sure it was lovingly meant how Obama like it is to be "A Kiss ASS". Right up there with don't be an XXXXXX one drink, drag, toke etc. ain't going to hurt you. Coercion is coercion no matter who perpetrates it nor how noble their intentions.
Thinking otherwise is a characteristic of Shrub and his misadministration.

[kenfrequed]

74. Pretzel logic

Ok, but what does that have to do with unions?

This kind of pressure can occur anywhere at all, but what the hell does this have to do with signing a damned card. And do you honestly think that any minor pressure brought to bear on individual workers for signing up is the equivalent of an employer calling in a multimillion dollar PR attack? Or of employees being fired for 'other reasons.'

I am fairly certain that any employee would rather put up with limited amount of flack from their fellow workers for disagreeing with them then end up in the unemployment line.

Also comparing Unionizing to coercion to Bush? Are you sure you are posting on the right board?

[One_Life_To_Give]

80. Two wrongs don't make a right

There are better solutions. Such as Cards signed and put into pre-paid envelopes to NLRB or other independent auditior.

Surely this problem can be fixed without having to sacrtifice the Secret Ballot. For where will that lead us? DLC representative bringing each of us a ballot to fill out?

[No Elephants]

81. Turns out, there are safeguards. Please

read this. http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/index.cfm#qp

[fascisthunter]

47. lol

:crazy:

welcome to ignore

[No Elephants]

29. I am 100% pro-union. Just for accuracy, tho, union employees have never been my co-workers. There

is a difference.


That said, (honest) unions are better for workers






And better for the country, too!

[raebrek]

84. I'm intimidated already n/t

[fed_up_mother]

85. Some career fields are great for unions, but some aren't, imo.

People shouldn't be threatened to sign or not to sign.

[totodeinhere]

86. In some cases you might not want to join a union because it is corrupt. And...

it's leaders get paid big bucks yet they don't really do anything for the rank and file. Not all unions are a panacea. Just like anything else, some are good and some are bad. As we all know, some were infiltrated by the mob.

[kenfrequed]

37. Intimidation?

Uhm, its a power relation thing. If you refuse to sign a card what happens to you? You go to work the next day with the same rat-bastard management that was bad enough that you needed the union in the first place. It's not like anyone does anything for choosing not to sign a card.

If you decide to show up and vote for union and you are found out you are generally fired 'for other unrelated reasons.' No appeals and no protection. There is an entire industry within private security and PR that functions off of violating the ever living crap out of the National Labor Relations Act. Union Busting is a real threat.

Some Union rep walking around asking you to sign up is not a threat. Even if the result was a union, you would still have all union protections that were bargained into whatever contract that was negotiated. These protections extend to both people who vote yes or no. So no, there is no relevant amount of intimidation and I have never met a union rep that has used intimidation as a tactic.

Please don't use false equivalency arguments that only end up strutting up the status quo.

[Chovexani]

41. lol

I bet you believe in "reverse racism" too.

[fascisthunter]

46. um... what intimidation?

that is a right wing meme BTW.

[joeglow3]

51. Agreed, it does go both ways.

A friend of mine was a member of telecomminications union. They went on strike 8 or 9 years ago. A few co-workers of his crossed the picket line and went to work. They left work and returned to a car keyed to hell with all four tires slashed. I just wish people on both sides of the aisle could act like rational people.

[pberq]

68. Unfortunately there have been cases of intimidation as you say

However, the vast majority of intimidation comes from management, and something needs to be done about it.

I was involved in a card check recognition as a local union officer and also employee. Yes, we knew who did not sign cards, but in our case it was such a no brainer about having union representation that we had something like 90% support. And this is in a right-to-work state where a number of the non-union employees signed cards. It was obvious to them that union representation would give them better pay and working conditions.

[No Elephants]

73. IMO, whether to have a union is ALWAYS a no brainer, unless there is a REALLY bad union. And I

cannot even think of a union that bad.

As I posted elsewhere on the thread, if you are anti-union, you need to study you some history about how management behaved before unions.

[DireStrike]

83. And then the union organizers can fire you.

[No Elephants]

26. Does the bill give the worker a choice of how to vote, card or ballot?

[pberq]

63. Yes - the choice is left to the employees

Currently, management dictates whether there is an election or card check.

Please read the full info on EFCA at:

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/index.cfm#qp

[No Elephants]

75. That's great. Thanks. I am going to post that to people on this thread who wanted secret ballot.

[No Elephants]

49. Does management know who signs the cards?

[pberq]

70. No, management does not know who signs the cards

This is a critical part of the majority sign-up process.

[totodeinhere]

87. How can management threaten workers when they will not know who voted for the union...

and who didn't? It just doesn't make any sense. Yes, the time and place of the vote is not secret, but so what? Management will not know who voted for what so what difference will it make if they know where the vote is being held? And as far as the employees not voting for their best interests is concerned, shouldn't that be for them to decide? After all, in a democracy, people should have the right to vote against their own best interests if they choose to.

[DireStrike]

8. It's not mandatory

If the union attempting to form decides they would like to use the secret ballot form, they are welcome to do so.

I do not know how the specifics work myself. But if unions want it, and big business hate hate HATES it, then I am for it.

[No Elephants]

27. IMO, the choice should be the individual worker's, not the union's..

[kenfrequed]

39. Uhm

Actually if you get 50% + 1 of the workers to sign cards, then the workers have decided.

[No Elephants]

43. I meant that it should be the choice of an individual worker whether to cast a ballot or

sign a card.

[kenfrequed]

48. Oh great!!!

Sure have a vote whether to have a vote or sign cards. But that puts you right back in the same vote to have a vote crap again. So basically you want the status quo?

Give management all the time it needs to get rid of those troublesome pro-union people for trumped up causes and intimidate the hell out of the rest.

If most of the workers sign cards, then they HAVE decided. Are you saying that somehow the individual worker can't decide whether or not to sign a damned card?

[No Elephants]

52. No, that is not what I meant either. Let's say my shop is deciding whether to go union. I can

indicate my "yes" EITHER by casting a ballot that says "yes" or by filling out a card that says "yes."

Maybe I am not understanding how the card vote works bc I voted by ballot. Do I turn in the card to management or straight to the union? If the latter, then I'm fine with only the card. My only issue with the card is that I don't want management to see how I voted.

[pberq]

62. The card goes to the union

I was involved in a card check recognition, and management never sees the card.

If management demands a count of the cards, they go to a neutral third party who is sworn to keep the info secret. The only thing that is passed on is whether or not a majority has asked for union representation.

[No Elephants]

67. Thanks. Then I have no problem with the cards.

[kenfrequed]

76. Sure...

but if they hire a professional strike-breaking group there are ways of guessing at who has signed and who has not. Plus they can just stall until they get enough intel to fire the leaders and frighten the rest.

[No Elephants]

78. Personally, for me, I don't care. My father and mother were union and I am union, full stop. At

some point, I became self-employed. Until then, I union, period. Full union dues (no wussy fee), union meetings, pickets in freezing weather, nights volunteering at the union newspaper--the whole nine yards.

For myself, I would put up with anything. But, for people who are more timid, it is to the benefit of the UNION, that the worker be protected as much as reasonable, especially the more timid ones.

As I have posted elsewhere on the thread though, when the rubber hits the road, you pick the union, period. Anything else is self-destructive.

[pberq]

79. And the EFCA remedies a lot of this

For one thing, once you get recognition by majority sign up, then there WILL be a contract. This is not the case now. Management can stall and stall. A large percentage never get a contract, even after a large majority has requested union recognition and recognition has been granted.

Under EFCA, it will go to binding arbitration if there is not a contract in a certain amount of time.

[kenfrequed]

65. Look...

If you have never been part of a vote/drive to unionize then you are not aware of all the hoops you have to jump through and all the time it takes to set up an election to determine unionization.

You don't just get to have a vote whenever you like. You have to get signatures first, which the employer gets to look at and since there is no union at that time, most employers will find excuses to fire those that came out for it as well as those that organized the movement to unionize.

Meanwhile they will fly in expensive union busting security and PR people to crush it. Pretty democratic of them eh?

[pberq]

71. Exactly.

And the anti-union forces out there would have us believe that these are free and fair elections!

More like a free license to fire, harrass, intimidate, coerce, and even physically beat up employees (this happened at the Smithfield plant in NC).

But, heck we don't want to get rid of the secret ballot now do we?

[Doremus]

11. Not only that but the votes are often delayed for long periods

to allow the aforementioned coercion to take place.

It gives management time to build dossiers on pro-union workers so they can fire them for trumped up reasons before the vote.

Current methods are stacked too far in the oligarchs' favor ... much like everything else today. This bill will even the playing field a little bit.

[byeya]

32. It takes a lot of time and money to get these "show of interest"

cards signed and then it takes forever{seemingly} to have a vote scheduled. When I helped form a small national union, we spent a fortune{for us} to get the cards delivered and signed and then, and only then, can a vote be contemplated.
The coworkers have indicated by signing the card they want a contract. Why place another roadblock and give management a chance to intimidate and worse?
You still have to negotiate the NLRB{in the private sector} and the FLRA{in the public sector} and spend more time and money. In our case, management was able to get the board to toss the cards so I went from president of the recognized union{without a contract yet} to president of a much less effective professional organization.
If the majority who signed the cards could have gone directly to the bargaining table, our professional lives would have been greatly enhanced.

[pberq]

58. Please see this link for full info on EFCA

We all owe it to ourselves to be fully informed on this important legislation.

See this page for starters. It has massive amount of info on EFCA. Start with the link on the left side that says, "what is the Employee Free Choice Act?"

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/index.cfm#qp

[anonymous171]

10. Call your congresspeople! Tell them to vote yes! nt

[mzmolly]

13. A kick for America's working

class. :kick:

[w4rma]

14. This is one of the most important bills that Congress will ever take up.

This bill, or a similar one, should have been passed a hundred years ago.

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. K&R And it had better pass.

There are no excuses on this one. And we can't do without it, especially now.

[RedCloud]

16. Union busting states will terrorize this...

with misinformation and scare tactics.

[LynnTheDem]

17. "to restore workers’ freedom..."

UH OH!!1! Doomsday!!1!

[PaddyBlueEyes]

21. Any Dem congressperson or senator that doesnt support this

should be targeted in the next primary they have. I know I wont be supporting them....

[readmoreoften]

24. I'm with you.

In fact, I'll work against getting them elected. I don't care if the opposition is worse. I'd rather have a real enemy than a pretend friend, thank you.

[fascisthunter]

77. absolutely

[Norrin Radd]

22. kr

[bdamomma]

30. make a call to your Senators to pass this bill.

[No Elephants]

45. Congressional Rep also. It's been introduced in both houses.

[FailureToCommunicate]

33. Thanks for posting this! Go Sen. Tom Harkin! He has worked tirelessly for ADA

and disability legislation, as well as union rights over many years. I remember when he was the all-but-certain VP choice as Al Gore's running mate. Just before Gore picked Joe Lieberman (!??!)
Unions=Strong America!
Buy (& fly) Union!

[emmadoggy]

34. K & R for my Senator!

[pleah]

35. K&R

[teamster633]

36. After having to endure all these years in the rEpublicon

armpit of New England, it was so nice to receive the e-mail from our new Democratic Senator, Jeanne Shaheen, that she was a co-sponsor of the EFCA. I'm pretty certain that our 2nd term Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter, has indicated her support as well. No question in my mind that Sununu and Bradley would have been no votes. Good riddance to bad trash.

UNITE

[Nye Bevan]

40. I guess I'm in a minority here but I am a little uneasy about moving away from the secret ballot

Just as I don't necessarily want all my coworkers to know who I voted for in a Presidential or Congressional election, I don't necessarily want them to know which way I voted in a union campaign. I understand that there are some problems with the secret ballot process right now but forcing everyone to vote in public seems like a bit of a blunt instrument to address this. It seems to me that it would be better to clean up the secret ballot process (perhaps by increasing penalties on management for interference or coercion) rather than throwing away the principle of the secret ballot.

[No Elephants]

55. I like the idea of secrecy too, but I think you have to find a way to guaranty secrecy while

also guarantying freedom from intimidation.

[pberq]

61. I'm sorry, but you haven't heard the full story

There is a lot of misinformation and propaganda out there.

PLEASE take a few minutes and read about what EFCA really does:

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/index.cfm#qp

See the link on the left that says, "What is the Employee Free Choice Act?"

In a nutshell, the EFCA does NOT take away the secret ballot. It merely gives the choice to employees, rather than to employers. Don't you think employees should have the choice, rather than having it dictated by the employer?

Also, NLRB elections are not like elections as we know them. It gives the employer opportunity to harrass, coerce, intimidate and threaten employees into voting against the union. Does that seem like a free and fair election?

[Enrique]

88. under EFCA, you can have the secret ballot election if you want it

and enough of your coworkers (1/3) want it. By the way, you DON'T have it now necessarily. If your employer wants to certify the union without the election they can just certify it based on the petition.

Now the choice is the employer's. With EFCA, the choice will be with the workers.

[Fluffdaddy]

54. We need AL FRANKEN'S VOTE.........NOW!!!!

[fascisthunter]

56. the argument against the Employee Free Choice Act

is trumped up shit about union members "possibly" intimidating others to blah blah blah... This trumped up shit argument is from the corporate media and the right wing itself.

Meanwhile there is a real need for unions because workers have historically been intimidated by their bosses and unable to demand fair wages with benefits.

[No Elephants]

64. There is a need for unions bc otherwise management will exploit workers. That's what they did

before unions and that's what they will do if unions disappear. And not only as to wages, but as to safety issues, etc. (Until OSHA catches up with them, anyway--which is never, under the likes of Bush.) Anyone who does not know that needs to study some history.

However, it would be nice if there were a way to protect both unions and privacy. If there isn't though, choose union every time.

[guitar man]

72. K&R

We must pass this. It's got Wal Mart shaking in their boots, that alone is enough to tell me it's the right thing to do.

[No Elephants]

82. Recommended