Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Congress: Pass Employee Free Choice Act [Orwellian]
Human Rights Watch ^ | January 27, 2009

Posted on 01/28/2009 9:24:30 PM PST by Steelfish

US Congress: Pass Employee Free Choice Act Proposed Law Protects Right to Organize, Bargain Collectively

JANUARY 27, 2009

Download the report "The Employee Free Choice Act: A Human Rights Imperative"

Weak US labor law effectively denies millions of workers the right to form a union and bargain collectively. Congress should bring worker protections closer to international standards by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

Carol Pier, senior researcher on labor rights and trade for Human Rights Watch (Washington, DC) - US lawmakers should back a proposed law to strengthen protections for workers who are trying to organize a union and bargain collectively, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 12-page report, "The Employee Free Choice Act: A Human Rights Imperative," details how US labor law facilitates abuses and violates international standards. Human Rights Watch has in the past extensively documented systematic interference with the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively in the United States.

"Weak US labor law effectively denies millions of workers the right to form a union and bargain collectively," said Carol Pier, senior researcher on labor rights and trade for Human Rights Watch. "Congress should bring worker protections closer to international standards by passing the Employee Free Choice Act."


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 111th; efca; secretballot; unions; unionvote

1 posted on 01/28/2009 9:24:31 PM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

i’m still a newbie on a lot of political topics but tell me
does this mean secretarys in the gov’t sector and private sector have a right to form a union?


2 posted on 01/28/2009 9:29:30 PM PST by MissDairyGoodnessVT (Scooters work good in Vermont snow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Orwellian is a good description. This includes the private ballot alterations that protected somewhat against union thuggery. How small of an employee number base is affected by this?


3 posted on 01/28/2009 9:30:20 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

This law takes away the secret ballot from workers voting on whether or not to unionize...leaving them open to intimidation.


4 posted on 01/28/2009 9:32:13 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT

It makes it harder to fire employees, regardless of the cause. It takes away the right to a private ballot in union voting (gives unions more power). It is very bad for business in general. Another step towards socialism IMO.


5 posted on 01/28/2009 9:33:25 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmost

i was only using “secretarys” as an example it could be any class of workers and yes it is another step towards socialism
it takes away the work ethic.


6 posted on 01/28/2009 9:37:31 PM PST by MissDairyGoodnessVT (Scooters work good in Vermont snow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights
The Employee Free Choice Act would strip workers of their fundamental rights and leave them more vulnerable to pressure than before.
7 posted on 01/28/2009 9:37:55 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT

I haven’t read the updated version, but as of last year it was any business with over $50,000 in sales unless it’s retail then it needs to $500,000. You could get together with a few fellow employees and form a union in fifteen minutes if this passes in congress.


8 posted on 01/28/2009 9:43:16 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Anything Human Rights Watch says you can believe pretty much the exact opposite is true.


9 posted on 01/28/2009 9:44:32 PM PST by smokingfrog (T.A.R.P. = Viagra for politicians and you get screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT

“i’m still a newbie on a lot of political topics but tell me
does this mean secretarys in the gov’t sector and private sector have a right to form a union?”

Simplistically, it’s the elimination of private voting.

Consider when you go to your town hall to vote for the President (other).
Do you want to raise your hand or vote in a private booth (anonymously, without intimidation).

The application is being put forth to business/union.


10 posted on 01/28/2009 9:46:02 PM PST by This_far
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: This_far
Simplistically, it’s the elimination of private voting.

That is exactly why the Pubbies need to introduce a bill to eliminate the right to a private vote in federal elections. Of course it would never pass but the point is to highlight what the Employee Free Choice Act would represent.

11 posted on 01/28/2009 9:55:19 PM PST by torchthemummy (My apologies if this post retreads on ground already covered!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: This_far

vote in private!


12 posted on 01/28/2009 9:58:32 PM PST by MissDairyGoodnessVT (Scooters work good in Vermont snow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT

no matter how bad it is, it can always be worse.
This definitely makes things worse.


13 posted on 01/28/2009 10:22:09 PM PST by genghis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT
"does this mean secretarys in the gov’t sector and private sector have a right to form a union?"

It means union mob bosses can openly keep tabs on how their victims vote. Do the wrong thing and that nice little car you just paid off will need new tires or a new paint job. Or, if you don't listen, you may get to have a friendly "chat" with a few of the organizers in an ally who will help you understand how it is in your best interest (and your family's) to "participate". Get the picture? Think I'm kidding? I grew up around The Motor City.

14 posted on 01/28/2009 10:24:34 PM PST by uncommonsense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Well well well - this is sure to stimulate the economy I think they should go for it/sarc...


15 posted on 01/28/2009 11:25:53 PM PST by Lilpug15 ("I Call Him the Forgotten Man - He works, He votes, He generally prays - but He Always Pays": Sumner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Did someone mention Orwellian?

The Employee Free Choice Act would strip workers of their fundamental rights and leave them more vulnerable to pressure than before.


16 posted on 01/29/2009 12:49:34 AM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: allmost
You could get together with a few fellow employees and form a union in fifteen minutes if this passes in congress.

Should employees be able to get together as a group and bargain collectively?

17 posted on 01/29/2009 1:03:40 AM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gogov
There was a quote I had run across years ago, it's here on FR somewhere, that said that the best way to pass a bill was to name of the bill as the opposite of the intent.
This one would be...Employee Free Slavery Choice Act
Employees would end up being slaves to and for the Unions.
18 posted on 01/29/2009 1:15:24 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gogov

To an extent yes. I don’t think that all practices regarding businesses such as a sole proprietorship or partnerships etc. should be dictated by the employees. That is just reckless and would put many small businesses out of business. A ten person company where eight of them are on strike for more benefits, vacation pay, scheduling changes, etc. would go out of business very quickly with the legal options accorded to unions.


19 posted on 01/29/2009 1:17:00 AM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Everyone already has the freedome to enter into collective bargaining agreements. However, currently they vote on it via secret ballots, and generally when people are free to make the choice in private they decide against unionization. This will eliminate the private ballots and allow the thugs to increase the voting via intimidation.


20 posted on 01/29/2009 9:02:11 AM PST by CSM (I’m jubilant! Now that the Dems are completely in charge, we can FINALLY blame THEM for everything!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmost
To an extent yes. I don’t think that all practices regarding businesses such as a sole proprietorship or partnerships etc. should be dictated by the employees. That is just reckless and would put many small businesses out of business. A ten person company where eight of them are on strike for more benefits, vacation pay, scheduling changes, etc. would go out of business very quickly with the legal options accorded to unions.

If I am working in a company and decide to get together with my fellow workers as a formal group to approach the boss about pay or working conditions, you don't think I should be able to do that?

21 posted on 01/29/2009 3:03:10 PM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Employees would end up being slaves to and for the Unions.

Does the bill restrict employees from forming as their own collective bargaining unit or does it say they can only do so through an NRLB recognized union?

22 posted on 01/29/2009 3:05:21 PM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gogov
Does the bill restrict employees from forming as their own collective bargaining unit or does it say they can only do so through an NRLB recognized union?

You'll have to do a little shuffling between H.R.800 for the 110th Congress and H. R. 243 for the 111th Congress

All of the old bill is available and the only similarity so far is...
SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended...
The old bill had an additional section...
SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended...

This is the text of the new bill...
SEC. 2. INITIAL CONTRACT DISPUTES.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended...
Keep in mind the fact that the bill can change over time as there were 4 versions of Bill Number H.R.800 for the 110th Congress. I'm pretty sure they'll get to adding in the other sections of the old bill and bringing the new wording in line to match the old one over time as is usually done when passing bills from one Congress to another.

Now, I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass, but why don't you read it for yourself and answer your own question.

And just in case link jumping is too much trouble...
(h)(1) If, not later than 60 days after the certification of a new representative of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, the employer of the employees and the representative have not reached a collective bargaining agreement with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, the employer and the representative shall jointly select a mediator to mediate those issues on which the employer and the representative cannot agree.
(2) If the employer and the representative are unable to agree upon a mediator, either party may request the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to select a mediator and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall upon the request select a person to serve as mediator.
(3) If, not later than 30 days after the date of the selection of a mediator under paragraph (1) or (2), the employer and the representative have not reached an agreement, the employer or the representative may transfer the matters remaining in controversy to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for binding arbitration.'.

23 posted on 01/29/2009 4:28:16 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gogov
You know what, I was fixin' to rant on you hard just for general principle because you've been here for so long and yet you asked a question that simply looking at the text of the proposed bill would've answered! I have, however, changed my mind and have deleted what I was going to post.
If you need some help in learning how I went about finding what I linked to then let me know as I would be glad to help you. If we're not informed then we are at a disadvantage and if we don't know how or where to get the information we need then we'll forever be stuck in a rut.
24 posted on 01/29/2009 4:53:16 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Thanks for sparring us the rant. This is a forum for conservative view points.


25 posted on 01/29/2009 5:02:58 PM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gogov
This is a forum for conservative view points.
So where was yours? All I saw was a question you could've answered for yourself.
26 posted on 01/29/2009 5:08:16 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Now, I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass, but why don't you read it for yourself and answer your own question.

Yea, good idea. Let's not pool our resouces. Let's all run down the same path, spend the same time reading the same thing and not trust each others anaylisis of the issue. Why didn't I think of that? FR, close up shop.

FR aint what it used to be. Just turning into blather and less and less a resource.

27 posted on 01/29/2009 5:10:28 PM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gogov
Thanks for sparring us the rant.
Thanks for sparring sparing...
Were you looking for a fight and it came through as a Freudian slip?

us me the rant.
Are there more than one of you?

28 posted on 01/29/2009 5:13:27 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gogov
Let's not pool our resouces.
I don't see you bringing any resources! You chose to siphon off of me, you leech!

Let's all run down the same path, spend the same time reading the same thing and not trust each others anaylisis of the issue.
It has nothing to do with trust and you should make your own analysis by first coming to your own conclusion. You could very well disagree with any analysis I would make and then where would you be? Still stuck in a rut?

FR, close up shop.
A perfect example of what I was just talking about. You came to a conclusion, told me of your analysis of the situation and I couldn't disagree more. I think FR should stay open so that we can educate, and learn from, each other. Can't do that if FR is shut down, can we? Or is that what you really want?

FR aint what it used to be. Just turning into blather and less and less a resource.
Oh, please, don't throw that crap at me when I bent over backwards to provide you with the necessary information for you to make your own analysis of the issue and draw your own conclusions to finally enable you to find the answer to your question.

Loosen the grip on your panties. You've twisted them into a hard, tight wad.

29 posted on 01/29/2009 5:28:44 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I don't see you bringing any resources! You chose to siphon off of me, you leech!

I've been contributing for eight years. I'll take your post as friendly ribbing.

30 posted on 01/29/2009 5:35:10 PM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Save it.


31 posted on 01/29/2009 5:36:03 PM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Were you looking for a fight and it came through as a Freudian slip?

Nope, just a typo.

32 posted on 01/29/2009 5:36:53 PM PST by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gogov

It happens constantly and small companies that cannot afford it can not often comply. Having been on both ends (run a business and worked at plenty of places where I wanted better pay etc., I do see both sides) I know that an employee has the right to find new employment and the employer has the right to find new employees. This legislation throws hurtles at small businesses which many cannot handle. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Labor laws currently afford employees with many options, safeguards, and recourses, varying by state. I don’t see how someone can think that a few employees hired at a small company automatically have the right to take it over. That is socialism. It does not work.


33 posted on 01/29/2009 8:09:20 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gogov
Is gogov.com your website?
34 posted on 01/30/2009 6:52:26 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Steelfish
First up, unionize WalMart. Then move to unionize every business in America. Burger joints, restaurants, convenience store clerks, everything.
39 posted on 01/30/2009 7:52:40 AM PST by RetiredArmy (Oscuma is a Chicago gangland punk, street thug. Simple as that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

And with the new bill Obama signed, allowing anyone to sue their employer for all past wages they did not get compared to a higher paid fellow worker, should be the final nail in the coffin of all small business, or people trying to start one.

Watch unemployment to go over 20% by 2010. Even beyond the 21% it reached during the Carter years.


40 posted on 01/30/2009 7:56:42 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (WHAT? Where did my tag line go? (ACORN))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson