Five Things to Know about the Employee Free Choice Act

Today, the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in Congress. Want some great reasons to support this bill that you've been hearing so much about? Here's five. (And if you already support it, please contact your Members of Congress and ask them to do the same.)

1. Because more jobs should be good jobs.

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last year, it's no surprise that millions of Americans are out of work, losing their health care or their retirement money, or are otherwise in financial straits. Times are tough. And who's taking this economic crisis on the chin? Well, we are, of course.

Four million people have lost their jobs since the recession began in December 2007. It's not for lack of trying. In terms of productivity, people are working harder than ever-- but American workers still haven't gotten a raise. And while jobs and wages are down, the cost of living continues to rise: The average cost of family health insurance plan will go up to $24,000 by 2016. $24,000!

The Employee Free Choice Act says that workers should have the ability to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits--like affordable quality health care.

2. It's good for the economy.

One of the biggest reasons for our current economic crisis? People literally don't have the cash they need to buy goods and services--which would in turn help the economy. Higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. According to a February report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, unionization could pump more than $49 billion into the economy.

But don't take it just from us. Last month, forty leading economists, including three Nobel prize winners, took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post offering their reasons for supporting the bill. In the ad, they argued that one of the main reasons for our economic slump is the "erosion of workers' ability to form unions and bargain collectively," that shifted the wealth of our country from "broadly-shared prosperity" to "growing inequality."

3. Barack Obama loves it, and so do most of you.

Not to mention Joe Biden, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and majorities in both houses of Congress. And according to recent polling, 73% of the public supports it. Just last week, speaking in front of a labor gathering, President Obama vowed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, stating,

"I have every confidence that if we are willing to do the difficult work that must be done, we will emerge from these trials stronger and more prosperous than we were before. And as we confront this crisis and work to provide health care to every American, rebuild our nation's infrastructure, move toward a clean energy economy, and pass the Employee Free Choice Act, I want you to know that you will always have a seat at the table."

What's not to love about that?

4. Because CEOs should be helping workers, not hurting them.

Want to get really depressed about your paycheck? Compare it to a CEO's. As a testament to the growing income disparity between CEOs and the workers they employ, look no further than Wal-Mart's former CEO, Lee Scott. Scott earned $15,000 an hour in 2007 while Wal-Mart workers earned just $10.68 an hour. On average, CEOs earn 344 times what their typical employee makes.

And yet, when Goldman Sachs received $10 billion in Wall St. bailout funds, they turned around and spent $6.5 billion on bonuses! If the Employee Free Choice Act passed, workers would have more of an opportunity to share in the prosperity they helped create.

5. Because the other side is really scary.

Or at least, they're trying their hardest to scare us. The corporate interests opposing the Employee Free Choice Act have warned of everything from rioting in the streets to, literally, Armageddon if the bill passes. For a sense of just how extreme the other side has gotten, check out our "scary movie" video here:

Corporate interests are bent on lying about the Employee Free Choice Act - they'd have you believe that the bill means the end of the secret ballot - but nothing could be further from the truth. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives employees the choice to join unions - not the employers. Right now, workers can join unions through majority sign-up or a secret ballot election, and they can do so under the Employee Free Choice Act, too. The only difference is it will be the employees' choice, not the employers.

But don't take it from me - watch Rachel Maddow destruct this argument:

If you're as fired up as we are, go to SEIU.org and sign up to help. It's time for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Comments

[omegapoint]

If you're not pro union then you're a patriot to nothing but yourself. If your business is successful the only right thing to do is share the profits with your employess ...all of them, BUT when times are hard then concessions are only reasonable. To the extent you think of labor/working people as a commodity you're a creep and the enemy.

[fino]

Under current law, there's too much opportunity for employers to coerce employees to vote against a union. Under EFCA as currently proposed, there would be too much ability for union proponents to coerce employees to vote for a union H

ow feasible is it for an individual employee who doesn't want a union to say no to a bunch of co-workers "asking" them to sign a card or be considered a scab? What real "choice" do employees have for a secret ballot when they have to publicly declare they want one? Seriously.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Fix the problems with the current law, don't just shift the problem from one side of the table to the other.

[wes ben]

Finally, a like minded soul...I couldn't agree with you more. This is bullsh*t...either way, it is the employee who is caught in the middle and I assure you, we don't want to be harassed by the company nor the union.

[faicole]

Out of all of the points this article makes, I just want to focus on this one. The CEO of Wal-Mart make $15,000 per hour. How can a corporation justify a salary scale where the lowest wage is around $8.00 per hour ($2.00 per hour above legal minimum) and the highest wage is $15,000 per hour? If he made - let's say $5000 per hour, which is still a decent earning in my book could Wal-Mart pay the line workers more? After all the cashiers, stock workers, custodians, floor staff, etc. are the face of the company and do the grunt work that make the store what it is. Is the CEO that much smarter than the floor manager or crew supervisors that a salary like this can be justified? Maybe if people at the CEO/Directors levels made less.....

[Articulator]

I believe if unions become too strong they can cause problems by lessening productivity and competitiveness, if they become too weak then companies abuse their workers for the sake of executive and CEO bonuses and America is hurt by a reduced middle class. Twenty years ago unions were very strong but they have been taking a beating continually since then. In the face of all the productivity gains of at least the last decade (leading to less pay and benefits and less time with the family for the American worker), it is now time to stand up with those hard working Americans. There is not one course of action that is correct all the time, the correct course of action depends on the current state, too much of anything is not good. The current economic problems are certainly not due to labor unions - that argument cannot even be attempted. It's like the guy who cant get his lawn mower started who keeps trying to adjust the choke, at some point you have to start looking for another reason why the mower wont start, it's not the setting of the choke. It's time to stop bashing the hard working American workers.

[faicole]

HuffPost's Pick

There are many issues included in this article that I could comment on. However, the one that really sticks in my craw is that the Wal-Mart CEO made $15,000 per hour. What labor does one perform that garners this kind of wage in a "free-market" economy? Is her REALLY that much smarter or harder working than the managers on the sales floor?

Let's say he earned $5000.. an hour instead, would that allow the average wage of the sales/cash­ier/stock/­custodial staff to have a better standard of living? Maybe they could work full time instead of part-time? Maybe they could have better benefit packages that include affordable health care and pensions? After all, aren't the people on the front lines the real face of the company? How can some people defend the CEO getting $15,000 per hour yet act like the front line workers should be satisfied that they get more than a share cropper's pittance? $15,000 per hour?!?! And the minimum wage is $6.25 per hour.....

[VikingQuest]

"Is her REALLY that much smarter or harder working than the managers on the sales floor?"

I would say yes, the CEO is.

That doesn't mean I believe he is worth that much money but personally don't really care and would never go out of my way to defend it.

The man made what $23 million last year? I know the whole "Wal-Mart" is evil thing sells on this board but how is that different than a movie star or athlete's pay?

[faicole]

I don't know who the "the man made $23 million last year" is. Again, my question is, based on his physical and mental ability, what makes his labor worth that much? Let's look at the whole picture. In the US, there is a finite amount of money that our goods and services brings into the economy. In order for a CEO to make $15,000 per hour millions of Wal-Mart employees have to make a minimum wage. However, the CEO can't run all the cash registers, stock all the shelves, scrub all the floors, provide all the customer service etc. It take the labor of a LOT of people to make Wal-Mart a place that average consumers want to go. Average workers could afford a more decent standard of living if the CEO types were willing to pay themselves a PROPORTIONATE wage. $15,000 per hour is not in proportion to any wage of any worker I know!

The fact that so many people like yourself don't care reveals a moral bancruptcy that is destroying our society. This is the attitude that says "greed is good", the "market" will take care of things, as if the "market" isn't controlled by people. Until and unless people who provide the labor, make the goods, and provide and services are valued and not USED like so much economic fodder for millionaires our economy will be in just the shape we find it in today.

[PinkysBrain]

So tell me, why would a union organizer ever push for a secret ballot if the card check goal was so much easier to attain? Obviously the option for the secret ballot is still there, but why employ it when the alternative is so much easier? It's tantamount to digging a hole with your bare hands when you have a shovel lying around waiting to be used. If employer intimidation is the problem during the time between authorization and voting, then shorten the time. To pretend that the vast majority of unionization drives would involve anything other than a signed card is gullibility at its finest. Let's not create a system that can be abused by an unscrupulous union organizer.

[SeattleKurt]

Employer intimidation doesn't occur just between the time between NLRB authorization and voting. It occurs as soon as they think workers are considering to form into a union.

[rancone]

"Let's not create a system that can be abused by an unscrupulous union organizer."
No
Lets keep the current system - and tell me why we should all bow down to the concentration of wealth.
what ...

[kozy]

There are so many disconnects between mangement and employees its hard to know where to begin. So, I'll mention just one. Most businesses do not have money coming in from their products and sevices steadily by the hour, the week, or even by the year. Their profits are irregular, running losses one month, a gain the next two months, a big loss during the next four months, a small gain during the next seven months, etc.,etc. So, if they pay employees by the hour (rather than, say, a percentage of the money an employer takes in, or pay by the job) the employer never knows how much he can pay the next six months or a year in advance. It all depends on the whims of the market and its business competition. Therefore, you have a lot of instatbility -- hiring, firiing, going out of business, re-starting business -- all because an employer is trying to juggle steady expenses for wages going out, against irregular amounts of business (and money) coming in. Steady pay against feast or famine money coming in. That problem needs to be solved first between employers and employees. And then I have about 50 more I could mention.

[Yermammy]

They don't deserve to be in business then. Don't pay the work; go by the wayside. Pure free market or isn't that what conservatives love?

[racom]

The lamest excuse imaginable. So the poor company doesn't know how to run a business and wants to penalize its employees by holding them in uncompensated servitude. What about the free market that works so well for you business folks? Kinda like supporting state rights until it doesn't fit your biased purpose and then you ignore your own fast held principles.

[rancone]

Lame

But the "management" can be paid 1,000 times more than the worker because ______?

beyond lame

[TRUTHDOG]

I dom't believe I've ever read such a high percentage of pro-rightwing posts on HuffPo as I have on this subject of EFCA. Seriously- Doesn't this look more like a typical AOL board than a HuffPo ? GHEESH !

[Yermammy]

They actually think they're going to sway people. That's the idiotic part about it! LOL!

[Baltotoast]

Can someone out there who is pro EFCA please tell me, with analytics, not bombast, how the EFCA will create jobs? I find that claim truly befuddling.

[Biffmeister]

Where does it say this?

[Baltotoast]

Read the headline - "Because more jobs should be good jobs"

[SeattleKurt]

A larger organized workforce will put more pressure on Congress to get rid of the free trade agreements that have taken jobs offshore.

We could also change our health care system to help make us more competitive globally.

[Baltotoast]

Ok, so we want EFCA, but we also need isolationism to make it work.

What do you think the chinese will do will trillions of dollars of US Debt if we take that course?

These arguments would be laughable if they weren't so sad.

[mikekopac]

just ask the first Henry Ford...he knew well paid workers could buy cars. and He paid his wokers a wage they could use to buy the cars they made.

more well paid workers will have A DRAMATIC EFFECT on our economy. Middle class workers spend their money thus creating a circle of economic growth

[rancone]

& this is an historic fact about Ford - an analytic

[Baltotoast]

OK, lets take the modern Model T - semiconductors (or software, or networking) - why is their no labor union in any of these industries?

[eilish]

The only comment I ever give about EFCA is this: My husband was a member of the IBEW for 43 years and counting even into retirement. The IBEW forced my husband's company to bring their hourly paid workers from serfdom into comfort. My husband had annual raises of at minimum 3%, production bonuses annually, paid education, fair chances for advancement, great health care including dental, vision, and mental health. Vacation and sick time were very generous and cumulative. Worker safety was paramount and individually rewarded. My husband served as union steward and negotiated on behalf of employees who had grievances with the company - and rarely lost. We have, thanks to the union, a solid retirement plan not affected by markets, health insurance that includes dental free for life, and several employee perks. His company is a resounding success, winning several JD Power awards and a host of community service awards. They have suffered no ill effects from the union, and certainly aren't going broke.

[VikingQuest]

"My husband had annual raises of at minimum 3%"

So he got a raise based on time served instead of work done? That doesn't seem right.

[hjfraser2002]

I am sure he did the work also. What is wrong with getting a raise based on the cost of living raise?

[Biffmeister]

Tell us why it doesn't seem right.

[Yermammy]

Cost of living, genius. It'll come to ya tomorrow.

[rancone]

hey he got three % - and the bosses got less than 3 % - I don't think so.
and the stock holders got less than 3 % - I don't think so

what isn't r"right" about shared prosperity?

[Yermammy]

I was with IBEW local #21. They took care of us and if they weren't there, AT&T would have ate our lunch. The only people that are against unions are A)greedy sweatshop owners or B) secretly paid more than the other workers (brown nosers/ snitches) or C) profoundly retarded (and they'd need a union the most).
THAT'S THE ONLY THREE POSSIBILITIES. STOP LYING SO CALLED "CONSERVATIVES".

[howcome]

Will unions ever have merit review? will unions , specifically SEIU allow highschool and college kids to work without paying obscene dues and fees with no benefits?

[Yermammy]

You pay dues; you get benefits. What's wrong with you?

[kmacwayne]

5. THE OTHER SIDE IS SCARY

Again, someone is trying to scare you - literally - they'd tried to scare us on the economy too. And it's working - you are eating it up hook line and sinker.
What is scary is how GM is failing because it cannot afford to pay the union demands AND it's management must be some of the worst ever. So rather than let them fail, now the US TAXPAYER, that's me and YOU are going to keep those outrageous pensions afloat. Let me ask you - why is it fair for these guys to retire with a pension, then work again and get another pension, while some of us, MOST OF US have only one career and one pension - DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THE UNION IS NOT JUST AS INSIDER AS WASHINGTON?

Now you are proposing TWO LAYERS of innefficient power grabbing money sucking management to stand between you and your employer - The federal government and the union. Come on folks - wake up and smell the coffee.

[neodiehl]

Weak

[Yermammy]

Yes, you're right. Extremely lame and pathetic.

[Biffmeister]

I do smell something, nonsensical argument aside, but it's not coffee.

[vietveter]

GM is failing because the folks that make the decisions decided to concentrate on high margin vehicles like SUVs and let Toyota , Nisan and Honda run away with the smart customers.

[kmacwayne]

TO use Goldman Sacs bonus with bail outs funds really cracks me up - IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS DUMB ENOUGH TO GIVE THEM THE MONEY - THEY DESERVE TO GET THE SHAFT - You see, they way it should have worked was, SACS should have been allowed to fail - Businessess with better management, and moral management always prevail and would have been able to better run what was left of them - IF YOU CONTINUE TO REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR, YOU WILL CONTINUE TO GET IT
so please don't tell me that "see - they'll all crooks" - that's like saying all Democrats are crooks because of Waters, DODD, RANGEL, GEITNER, FRANK, etc are crooks.

YOU ARE BEING LIED TO

[kmacwayne]

4. CEO'S SHOULD BE HELPING EMPLOYEES
When a CEO runs a successful business that grows, provides jobs and provides job promotion within a company to THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK HARD - he IS HELPING his employees.

DO YOU THINK CEO"S HATCH FROM EGGS????? WHERE DO YOU THINK CEO'S come from - planet EVIL???

COME ON! Smart business owners know how to treat an employee well - so well, that most employees would rather keep the money they earn, than give it to some union boss so they can VACATION AT THE FOUNTAIN BLUE IN MIAMI.

Growing up in a family business, started by my dad, a successful CEO who came from a poor cotten farming family in Oklahome, not from an egg or evil planet - BELIEVED IN HIS PEOPLE - he believed that if you treated the employee right, they would treat his business right - a business he started in his back yard while working his regular job.
YOU ARE BEING LIED TO BY THESE UNION FOLKS - SOunds to me like the union is like the government, looking for ever more power and ever more money -

[Biffmeister]

What's the name of this business?

[TRUTHDOG]

Shangri-La Inc. They're a widget manufacturer for the fifth dimension.

[kmacwayne]

3. OBAMA LOVES IT
This is a reason someone should vote for card check? Obama loves it? Are you people stoned? Is there anyone willing to think for themselves?

[VikingQuest]

Agreed.

[Biffmeister]

Millions of us thought for ourselves on November 4. Our guy won in part because he supported American workers in contrast to the inept anti worker republicans. You apparently don't remember the past eight years. Were you stoned?

[Yermammy]

Yes. That's why we're ignoring you. Give it up, silly. No dice.