Showing posts with label Employee Free Choice Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Employee Free Choice Act. Show all posts
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Secret Ballot Protection Act
Is this the new issue? Maybe, but it has less chance of becoming law in the next two years than the horrific Employee Free Choice Act ever had. This Red State poster wants to ramp up and bludgeon "teh unions" now that votes can be forced by anti-labor forces in the House. What a waste of time. Such legislation will not get through the Senate, much less past a Presidential veto. Realistic reform might take hold if rational discussions were undertaken by both sides. Yes, the penalties for flagrant violations of the NLRA should be enhanced, even where real remedies might chill an employer a bit in its efforts to remain non-union. But in return, big labor must be willing to back off card check and permit fair secret ballot elections to determine if an un-coerced majority of workers want a union or not. No union should be imposed on a workforce without majority support established by a secret ballot determination of the majority's will.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
EFCA's political death
Jane Hampsher at Firedoglake has a good post on the politics of EFCA, starring Harry, Arlen and Rahm.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
EFCA fowl (sic)
"Third generation union organizer" Mike Elk's piece confirming EFCA is dead started it by suggesting the EFCA battle is one with larger themes and objectives than, uh, EFCA. Then came the crying "fowl" in this post by J. Justin Wilson claiming the EFCA fight is war by proxy in "a larger conflict about political sway, public opinion, and economic ideology." One is forced to pause here and consider whether Wilson is referring to Galliformes or Anseriformes, or as is likely, neither, but I digress. Elk retorts at Firedoglake calling Wilson "the corporate version of that creepy hit man from No Country for Old Men." Elk's position? Wilson, tool of Wall Street, needs to continue destroying unions to continue destroying the economy. You can't make this stuff up . . .
Monday, October 5, 2009
Green, Inc., green Apple
The United States Chamber of Commerce has taken quite a hit for its less than green stance on global warming. Today Apple Computer withdrew from the USCC over its position on global warming. This Blogger has long been an Apple fan because it produces insanely great products. We rationally support the USCC on the Employee Free Choice Act [EFCA], but I have children and hope to have grandchildren and failure to acknowledge climate change and failure to support solutions is no longer a rational position, irrespective of assigned cause.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Union complains about lost election
AFL-CIO blog complains again EFCA is needed because unions cannot win secret ballot elections. Commenting on the Union's loss at Blue Diamond, the writer notes a "judge" ruled the election conducted was valid, even though the union claims the company acted unfairly. Claiming that unspecified wrongdoing went "unpunished" the blogger says this is why EFCA is needed. My goodness, the union lost the election 142-353. The articles in the click thrus do not describe employer conduct that is unlawful. According to NLRB statistics unions win 55-60% of the elections conducted. Its not the process, its the product. Informed employees reject unionization. With EFCA unions want to prevent a reasonable period of time to discuss issues before employees sign a card or cast a ballot.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
EFCA compromise?
Last week Senator Arlen Specter (D. Pa.) indicated he had worked out a compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act. No bill has been introduced and the details are sketchy. When I spoke at the LSU Labor and Employment seminar in March on EFCA, I predicted Labor, and its allies in Congress, could not succeed with card check recognition which deprives employees of a secret ballot election. Taking away a right to vote in a secret ballot election is a sound bite that resonates with the public and the politicians. The political solution to this impasse has already been served up by the "Bush" Board and it looks like Senator Specter is embracing that path. More after the jump.
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece has suggested that the Specter compromise involves card check with an opportunity for dissenting employees to file a petition for an election which would be held promptly.
DISCLAIMER: I do not favor the solution posted below. It is a devil's advocate articulation of labor's best approach.
This looks like the Dana/Metaldyne solution I argued was labor's best position to take for passing reform. In Dana/Metaldyne the NLRB changed the long-standing law concerning voluntary recognition of a labor organization by an employer. Because the National Labor Relations Act imposes a union upon employees even when they individually object to representation, it is required that the Union establish that a majority of the employees in collective bargaining unit desire union representation. The preferred method for ascertaining majority status is a secret ballot election. Its been that way for years. Unions have convinced a number of employers not to oppose unionization. In those circumstances a union can present to an employer evidence of majority status among the employers employees either by authorization cards or petition signed by employees. An employer may then voluntarily recognize the union based upon this showing of majority status.
The problem with this approach is employees often sign with the union without realizing the consequences. Often the employees are misled by union organizers. In a voluntary recognition situation there is also the possibility of collusion between the employer and the union. Moreover the consequences could be long lasting. After voluntary recognition, under the law that existed pre-Dana/Metaldyne, the union enjoyed an irrebuttable presumption of majority status for at least a year, and if a contract was signed, the presumption carried forward for the duration of the contract up to a maximum of 3 years. This period of representation could easily extend to 4 years or more from voluntary recognition. Recognizing this, the "Bush" Board in 2007 created a safety valve for dissenting employees allowing them to petition for a secret ballot election within 45 days of notification of the voluntary recognition. The Board would not conduct an election unless the dissenting employees could present evidence that 30% of the employees covered by the voluntary recognition expressed a desire for an election.
Labor was apoplectic at the decision. Its one of many likely to be challenged when President Obama's nominees to the Board are confirmed.
But there is a political opportunity for labor to get a lot of what it wants and provide political cover for its friends in Congress. Labor should embrace Dana/Metaldyne as the model for all initial representation questions. Agree to support a process in both voluntary and contested recognition scenarios. That way it is truly up to the employees as to whether a secret ballot vote is needed to determine majority status. If more than half of the employees sign union cards, all employees would be notified of that occurrence, and further notified of the right to request a secret ballot election if 30% of the affected employees indicate support for an election. Labor should embrace this approach as politically possible, and understand card check is not.
Labor's real issue is diminishing the time an employer has to communicate the adverse effect unionization can have on employees. This can be achieved by imposing a short period of time for dissenting employees to garner the 30% support for an election and a shorter time for the election. The real fight will be over how much time. The Dana/Metaldyne 45 day period is much too long to satisfy unions. If labor were to take this approach it would be far more difficult to prevent 60 senators from voting to kill a filibuster. This approach could more appropriately be called the Employee Free Choice Act.
Labor must recognize that to get reform it must concede on card signing to get a better recognition/election process. There is significant support for enhanced remedies for violations and likely support for mandating greater union access to employees at work. Even baseball style arbitration is possible, but only if Labor will compromise.
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece has suggested that the Specter compromise involves card check with an opportunity for dissenting employees to file a petition for an election which would be held promptly.
DISCLAIMER: I do not favor the solution posted below. It is a devil's advocate articulation of labor's best approach.
This looks like the Dana/Metaldyne solution I argued was labor's best position to take for passing reform. In Dana/Metaldyne the NLRB changed the long-standing law concerning voluntary recognition of a labor organization by an employer. Because the National Labor Relations Act imposes a union upon employees even when they individually object to representation, it is required that the Union establish that a majority of the employees in collective bargaining unit desire union representation. The preferred method for ascertaining majority status is a secret ballot election. Its been that way for years. Unions have convinced a number of employers not to oppose unionization. In those circumstances a union can present to an employer evidence of majority status among the employers employees either by authorization cards or petition signed by employees. An employer may then voluntarily recognize the union based upon this showing of majority status.
The problem with this approach is employees often sign with the union without realizing the consequences. Often the employees are misled by union organizers. In a voluntary recognition situation there is also the possibility of collusion between the employer and the union. Moreover the consequences could be long lasting. After voluntary recognition, under the law that existed pre-Dana/Metaldyne, the union enjoyed an irrebuttable presumption of majority status for at least a year, and if a contract was signed, the presumption carried forward for the duration of the contract up to a maximum of 3 years. This period of representation could easily extend to 4 years or more from voluntary recognition. Recognizing this, the "Bush" Board in 2007 created a safety valve for dissenting employees allowing them to petition for a secret ballot election within 45 days of notification of the voluntary recognition. The Board would not conduct an election unless the dissenting employees could present evidence that 30% of the employees covered by the voluntary recognition expressed a desire for an election.
Labor was apoplectic at the decision. Its one of many likely to be challenged when President Obama's nominees to the Board are confirmed.
But there is a political opportunity for labor to get a lot of what it wants and provide political cover for its friends in Congress. Labor should embrace Dana/Metaldyne as the model for all initial representation questions. Agree to support a process in both voluntary and contested recognition scenarios. That way it is truly up to the employees as to whether a secret ballot vote is needed to determine majority status. If more than half of the employees sign union cards, all employees would be notified of that occurrence, and further notified of the right to request a secret ballot election if 30% of the affected employees indicate support for an election. Labor should embrace this approach as politically possible, and understand card check is not.
Labor's real issue is diminishing the time an employer has to communicate the adverse effect unionization can have on employees. This can be achieved by imposing a short period of time for dissenting employees to garner the 30% support for an election and a shorter time for the election. The real fight will be over how much time. The Dana/Metaldyne 45 day period is much too long to satisfy unions. If labor were to take this approach it would be far more difficult to prevent 60 senators from voting to kill a filibuster. This approach could more appropriately be called the Employee Free Choice Act.
Labor must recognize that to get reform it must concede on card signing to get a better recognition/election process. There is significant support for enhanced remedies for violations and likely support for mandating greater union access to employees at work. Even baseball style arbitration is possible, but only if Labor will compromise.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
President Supports EFCA
President Barrack Obama in a speech given at the AFL-CIO convention, proclaimed "I stand behind the Employee Free Choice Act – because if a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union."
(sigh) Before a union can gain the right to represent workers it must have demonstrable support from a majority of workers. This is so because the union becomes the representative of not only those wanting it but also the non-consenting employees who do not. The card signing portion of EFCA is strictly about what method is permitted to establish majority status. The unions want a one-sided process where they can surreptitiously convince employees to "support" the union often using heavy-handed and abusive tactics to do so. The process is fraught with concern as to whether majority status is real or coerced. We have previously posted on this problem. More after the jump.
The public sees the card signing provision as taking away the right to vote in secret on an important issue. Many in Congress agree. Historically both the NLRB and the Courts have held a secret ballot election is the preferred method of determining majority status. The problem, says labor, is employer coercion in the election process. Labor's solution is to eliminate the need for an election. Their solution makes it virtually impossible to determine if a surreptitious card signing "majority" is both informed and not coerced. Another problem with card signing is that it is inevitably done over a period of time in any sizable workforce, and is based on the assumption that all of the signers of the cards continue to support the union indefinitely. Without a simple mechanism for employees to revoke their prior support, the union may be able to demonstrate majority status, where it does not and never did exist. A properly conducted secret ballot election determines as of the election day whether or not an uncoerced majority of employees eligible to vote actually support union representation. Implicit in the President's comment is the assumption that card signing is a valid way to evaluate the existence of majority support for union representation. We do not believe it is.
Senator Arlen Specter has recognized this problem and recently proposed an alternative bill which will provide for expedited secret ballot elections and stiffer penalties for employers coercive tactics. It is unlikely any serious discussion will occur on Capital Hill about EFCA in any form, until after healthcare has been decided, but Senator Specter remains a key player in finding a bill that will get past a filibuster. Labor has the President's strong support and a majority of the House and Senate supporting significant pro-labor changes to the existing laws.
(sigh) Before a union can gain the right to represent workers it must have demonstrable support from a majority of workers. This is so because the union becomes the representative of not only those wanting it but also the non-consenting employees who do not. The card signing portion of EFCA is strictly about what method is permitted to establish majority status. The unions want a one-sided process where they can surreptitiously convince employees to "support" the union often using heavy-handed and abusive tactics to do so. The process is fraught with concern as to whether majority status is real or coerced. We have previously posted on this problem. More after the jump.
The public sees the card signing provision as taking away the right to vote in secret on an important issue. Many in Congress agree. Historically both the NLRB and the Courts have held a secret ballot election is the preferred method of determining majority status. The problem, says labor, is employer coercion in the election process. Labor's solution is to eliminate the need for an election. Their solution makes it virtually impossible to determine if a surreptitious card signing "majority" is both informed and not coerced. Another problem with card signing is that it is inevitably done over a period of time in any sizable workforce, and is based on the assumption that all of the signers of the cards continue to support the union indefinitely. Without a simple mechanism for employees to revoke their prior support, the union may be able to demonstrate majority status, where it does not and never did exist. A properly conducted secret ballot election determines as of the election day whether or not an uncoerced majority of employees eligible to vote actually support union representation. Implicit in the President's comment is the assumption that card signing is a valid way to evaluate the existence of majority support for union representation. We do not believe it is.
Senator Arlen Specter has recognized this problem and recently proposed an alternative bill which will provide for expedited secret ballot elections and stiffer penalties for employers coercive tactics. It is unlikely any serious discussion will occur on Capital Hill about EFCA in any form, until after healthcare has been decided, but Senator Specter remains a key player in finding a bill that will get past a filibuster. Labor has the President's strong support and a majority of the House and Senate supporting significant pro-labor changes to the existing laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
