Posted on 02/07/2009 2:41:51 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Obama administration will make every effort to pass a key piece of pro-union legislation. The bill has a misleading label: The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). In the interest of truth in advertising, the bill should be called, "The Employee Intimidation Act." Why? Because one of the features of the EFCA, should it become law, would be to do away with traditional secret-ballot elections which are now used to determine whether or not employees in an enterprise want to be represented by a union.
Here is how union elections work currently.
---------------------------------------------------------
Suppose Company A has 75 assembly workers, and they are not members of a union. The union, let's say the United Steel Workers, in an attempt to unionize these workers, sends paid organizers and local employees sympathetic to the union to talk to the workers, often after work or during breaks. The union's goal is to have workers sign authorization cards. Once at least 30 percent of the workers in the plant sign those cards, the cards can be presented to the employer. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal governmental entity, then conducts a secret-ballot election, usually, within a month and a half after the presentation of the cards. If a majority of those in the plant vote "for" the union, the union becomes the representative of all the workers in that unit.
----------------------------------------------------------
That, in brief, is the current system. There are two features which Obama and union advocates don't like. First, the NLRB election is held only after the business gets an opportunity to present its side of the story to workers who have often only heard the union's side. Secondly, an employee's decision, for or against unionization, is kept confidential.
What Obama and the unions are asking for is to supplant the secret-ballot election with what is called a "card check." In other words, when over 50 percent of employees have signed authorization cards, the union must be recognized by the employer. No secret-ballot election would be conducted.
What this invites is the pressuring of workers and a denial of their private right to free choice. Here is one possible scenario:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Employees are walking out of the plant at the end of a work day. A group of employees who favor the union walk behind their buddy "Joe," who is not convinced of the need for a union. They pressure Joe, saying that he certainly does not want to be considered an "employer lackey." They continue until, in an effort to get them off of his back, Joe signs an authorization card. Or, imagine a "home visit" with a well-trained union organizer and a local employee. Once again, in front of other family members, the organizer tells Joe that he certainly does not want to stand in the way of higher wages and better working conditions. In the worst documented cases, the organizers may threaten workers or imply that if they do not cooperate, when the union gets in, the employee will lose his job.
----------------------------------------------------------
Unions say that the current system gives employers a chance to convene closed-door meetings with workers in which the employer provides them with anti-union propaganda prepared by high-paid consultants. Of course this argument ignores similar activities conducted by well-financed and professionally skilled union organizers.
The existing system of secret balloting, if not perfect, does provide employees with a chance to express their decision about unionization, free from the pressure of either the employer or the union. Think of it this way. Suppose someone proposed to hold national presidential elections by means of such "card checks," and dispensed with the secret ballot. Using such a system, that would mean that if John McCain presented more signed authorization cards than his opponent, Obama, he would have become president. No secret ballot; no sanctity of the voting booth. How would such a plan be greeted? Citizens would regard it as preposterous — an outrage! Then why is taking away the privacy of a worker's choice about unionization any less outrageous?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. John A. Sparks is dean of the Alva J. Calderwood School of Arts & Letters at Grove City College, Grove City, Pennsylvania, and teaches business law and Constitutional History. He is a Fellow for Educational Policy at the College's Center for Vision & Values. This column is printed with permission.
This is a travesty.
It's just these sorts of things that will punish existing industry and make sure no new industry is created.
Oh, unless there's a World War.
This is a travesty”
Supporters are claiming that they “only” want to do this where there are 50 or more employees.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you herein the N Nevada high desert.
They will take this right down to a Mom-Pop outfit, with no employees.
A dagger will soon go through the heart of the opposition, talk radio.
Kristallnacht.
What you have here is the top leadership of the AFL-CIO (and its affiliates) writing off their Half billion dollars worth of campaign help to Obama and his running dog lackeys.
This legislation will do nothing. Their failure to get Daschle appointed is a major embarassment. They can't even get a Leftwingtard "progressive" appointed over at Labor Department. Plus, they're giving up the conduct of the 2010 Census to Mexican apparatchiks in the pay of the Obama machine.
I'd say the biggest single problem with unions is their total lack of executive talent at the top. These guys are DOLTS.
What you have here is the top leadership of the AFL-CIO (and its affiliates) writing off their Half billion dollars worth of campaign help to Obama and his running dog lackeys.
This legislation will do nothing. Their failure to get Daschle appointed is a major embarassment. They can't even get a Leftwingtard "progressive" appointed over at Labor Department. Plus, they're giving up the conduct of the 2010 Census to Mexican apparatchiks in the pay of the Obama machine.
I'd say the biggest single problem with unions is their total lack of executive talent at the top. These guys are DOLTS.
“They pressure Joe, saying that he certainly does not want to be considered an “employer lackey.”
It’s even worse. If they don’t pressure him and he refuses to sign a card and the Union wins anyway, they will know after the fact which of the employees was against the union. It won’t be pressure but retribution which will follow.
That's because they're nothing more than another arm of the democrat party. Like any other politicians, they don't need to be smart. They need to be venal and duplicitous, which makes them effective parasites on the productive sectors. And once they infect an industry they're almost impossible to eradicate without killing the host.
This issue was one of the most important ones, in the recent Presidential win. It is very worrisome, since unions are basically anti-labor-market-competition and for them — it’s all about “me”, “exploitation,” and screw-the-consumer-&-taxpayer, the end users, full-steam-ahead.
These bullies will pull every trick in the book to harass honest, peaceful, competitive workers into “organizing” to achieve run of the mill, mundane, protectionist ends. Cowardly bastards.
I hope National Right to Work gains supporters, people contribute and they can help the country fight these a—h-les.
Agreed. I work on a college campus. The freaking unions insinuate themselves into every corner of decision making - hiring, curriculum, etc. They can’t settle for controlling pay, benefits & work conditions.
The pay scales & seniority arrangements they have secured for themselves are so far removed from peaceful markets, from routine supply and demand activities, and merit (consumer-based) pay, it’s maddening.
No matter what you say to them, they act like petulant 3 year olds - “I want, I want, I want!” Like, the idea of peaceful, VOLUNTARY free trade in labor markets is completely out of the question — that’s for ADULTS, not for these greedy, cowardly grasping bullies.
Compulsory - FORCED unionization, — the total elimination of vibrant dynamic COMPETITION in input markets — that’s the Stalinist goal, here.
How can this happen, in a country of freely interacting individuals?
Absolutely. See posts #10 and #11.
These groups want to fast track us to a 100% Centrally Planned economy.
“Anyone who says that economic security is a human right has been too much babied. While he babbles, other men are risking and losing their lives to protect him. They are fighting the sea, fighting the land, fighting disease and insects and weather and space and time for him while he chatters that all men have a right to security and that some pagan god -Society, the State, the Government, the Commune- must give it to them. Let the fighting men stop fighting this inhuman earth for one hour, and he will learn how much security there is.”
- Rose Wilder Lane, 1886-1968
It should be called: Free Employee Choice Act Legislation or FECAL
After all, it is a fecal matter.
When have we had someone, anyone get rid of or even reduce a government run program? Newt tried and he was run out of town and the R's that signed onto that pledge choose power over principle. Most of them have been run out of town too.
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.