What Your Boss Won't Tell You

Yesterday, the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in the House and Senate. It's being supported by, among others, millions of American workers who would like a union - and with it a union contract. It's being opposed by CEOs who you can be sure all bargained for a contract before they ever set foot in their corner offices.

This law is the most important piece of labor legislation in decades and a critical component in the effort to restore our economy.

In recent years, Americans have worked harder than ever and yet they have shared in less of the wealth they created. Worker productivity is up, and yet real median household income is down. Simultaneously, CEO pay has risen to as much as 400 times more than average worker pay.

The Employee Free Choice Act would bring common sense to the workplace. The law states that if a majority of employees sign up to form a union, they get one. It also simplifies dispute resolution in first contract negotiations, and enacts tougher penalties on employers if they unfairly interfere with union organizing.

Despite lies being spread by CEOs, giant corporations, and chambers of commerce, the legislation would not eliminate the secret ballot election. There are currently two ways to form a union: secret ballot and majority sign-up. After the Employee Free Choice Act passes, there still will be two ways to form a union: like now, secret ballot and majority sign-up. The critical difference will be that the workers, rather than the CEO, will decide which method to use. Under current law, employers are free to ignore majority sign-up and demand a secret ballot election.

In trying to protect the status quo, opponents of the legislation wave a flag of democracy and equate the law with an attack on a system in workplaces that is just like our political elections. The problem with that argument is that workplace secret ballot elections do not in any way resemble elections for our local, state, or federal elected officials.

In most secret ballot elections, employers regularly coerce workers to vote against the union. In 25 percent of all campaigns, employers illegally fire pro-union workers. Employers delay the election date in order to buy time for outside "consultants" to intimidate their employees. The employer has access to a worker five days-a-week and has massive economic leverage.

By comparison, union organizers have little leverage and can campaign only during work breaks or after hours.

While employer intimidation and retaliation is technically illegal under federal labor laws, the protections are difficult to enforce in practice. Employers are advised by lawyers on how to avoid punishment. When they are punished, they are generally only required to stop the practice. Intimidating and even firing workers is standard operating procedure and there's little reason under current law for an employer to do otherwise. The legislation would strengthen penalties for this behavior.

Even calling the secret ballot process an "election" stretches the meaning of that word pretty far when you consider the employer's power to influence the vote.

If we play along with the phony "democracy" message being offered by the anti-Employee Free Choice Act crowd, trying to form a union via secret ballot election would be like trying to run for a seat in Congress but not being given equal access to call the voters, mail them campaign literature, or talk with them face-to-face. Moreover, it would be like running against an opponent who controls the voter's ability to put food on his or her table. What is democratic about that?

The truth about those who oppose the legislation is that they really don't want to pay decent wages, offer good benefits, and guarantee a safe work environment.

Ten years ago, workers at a Goya Foods facility in Miami voted to form a union with UNITE (a predecessor union of UNITE HERE). These workers have won every single legal decision, yet a decade later the company still refuses to recognize the will of their employees. When the Employee Free Choice Act is passed, if an employer and a union cannot agree on a first contract within 90 days, either party can refer the dispute to federal mediation -- and if that does not work, the dispute will be referred to arbitration.

If we make it easier to form a union, we can rebuild our economy from the bottom up. We can stem the tide of workers losing their jobs, their health care, and their retirement benefits. With a union wage, workers will have the ability to spend money on every Main Street in every town across this country. It's those dollars that keep our economy going. When we pass the Employee Free Choice Act we will strengthen the middle class and grow our economy.

If Americans can join a church or temple, join a political party, get a credit card, or get married by signing their name, it is ridiculous that they can't join a union in exactly the same way.

To join the fight for Employee Free Choice visit UNITEHEREforChange.org

Comments

[ramjet50]

There are many Democrats, blue & yellow who don't like or want unions. The reason why is because corporate America has dominated the discussion, I was in a union for 15 years, I am now out, but trying to unionize the shop I am in. To those in the "green" community(blue & yellow) who say, "I have read the NLRA, and still disagree with EFCA," you are but a unknowing shill for most Chambers of Commerce. EFCA will not hurt businesses, it might even help some. The opposition to change is the definition of conservative. The change WILL be good, but change it is nonetheless. Unions do not ruin businesses, bad businesspeople ruin businesses. It is time to resurge the middle class.

[MoogsMom]

If you read the actual language of this bill you will see that it does NOT give employees the right to choose whether they want a secret ballot election. If 50% + 1 employees sign authorization cards, then the NLRB "shall NOT direct an election" - even if someone asks for one. "(6) ... If the Board finds that a majority of the employees ... has signed valid authorizations ... the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the ... labor organization as the representative...." (edited to fit here).

That means that 49% of the affected employees may not only disagree, they might not even know that they will be represented by a union until it is a fait accompli, simply because they were never asked to sign a card. Imagine if 49% of Americans woke up one day to find that we had a new President, but they were never asked to vote.

Under EFCA, if 30% to 50% of employees sign cards, then the union organizers decide if they want to seek a secret ballot election. But they never have and never will. Union organizing handbooks instruct them to have 70% signed cards before seeking an election. Why would they risk an election when cards are valid for a year? They would just keep trying to get a majority to sign.

The truth is, we are very left leaning people in our house, but this law is, quite frankly, a ruse.

[saturn90]

Someone on here, think Jim R, said he would not support EFCA until it had a secret ballot for a Decert election and EFCA does not change the current rules for a Decert election which do require a secret ballot election. One more thing that is falsely being stated by some of the Southern Senators is that it would force people to pay Union dues who do not want to. In these Southern States where Right-to-work laws are on the book and where these Senators are from this is a flat out lie. EFCA does not change the States Right-to-work provisions which give a worker the right to choose not to belong to the Local Union and to choose not to pay dues and further more the Union still has to represent that worker if they have a need for any representation.

[commenter100000]

I agree with many of the comments posted - am very much a Democrat, and no fan of evil CEOs, however the current American labor unions seem no different than the people they rail against. They seem to be just a parallel power structure more interested in their own agendas than fighting for what is actually good for employees. As a manager, I actually had our union fight AGAINST us giving pay raises to our employees because we were offering to do it in response to rapid market changes that happened between contract periods so they could not take credit. I don't see how giving people like that any more power is in our country's best interest ...

[GrahamInCanada]

What you said makes no sense, and if it makes no sense it is not true.

As a manager in a unionized workplace, you cannot make any changes, positive or negative, to the contract, without negotiating with the union.

What you described was an attempt by management to discredit and bypass a union by acting as if the union did not exist, and bribing employees with some small amount in a sophomoric move to divide and conquer. Telling was your impugned motive of the union: to get credit. As management in a union environment, you share credit with the union for each and every contract, and if you are trying to demonstrate to your employees that you, as a manager, will be more generous to your employees without a union, you should not be at all surprised if your employees and union call you on it.

By all means, no union when confronted mid-contract by an employer gushing with glee at unexpected profits and wanting to increase the labor cost above and beyond the contract would fail to negotiate such an increase. Try it, you'll see...

[The Ghost]

If the middle class has no expendable income the economy will STOP. Get real.

[JimR]

This is from another poster, but I agree with the sentiments 100%. (Sorry, I don't recall the screen name, I would like to give that poster credit.) By the way, I have belonged to 2 different unions in my career so far, for a total of roughly 15 years.

"I'm a Democrat through and through but EFCA should never be passed. It's counterproductive to labor relations - it will only drive management further away from labor when both should be attempting to appear as honest brokers with each other. Instead of passing EFCA, which would eliminate secret ballots in the process of unionization and, most egregiously, would mandate a renegotiated contract within 120 days of unionization; Congress should pass a law that demands that the secret ballot be instituted in union DEcertification in order to level the playing field. And do away with the mandatory arbitration. This is nothing but payback to unions for their political donations (and they deserve it in a way because union volunteers absolutely drive Democratic campaigns, not to mention they bust their butts all day at their jobs to make the products and deliver the services that Americans want) but in the end it's just bad policy. I do think that the playing field is uneven and tilted toward management but instead of giving labor the same dirty tricks that management has, they should take management's dirty tricks away."

[slarabee]

The EFCA is not about allowing unions to engage in dirty tricks. To fully understand the purpose and scope of the bill one must read the EFCA and the NLRA because the EFCA is only an amendment of the NLRA which remains in full force and affect.

The purpose of the EFCA is to give the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) http://www.nlrb.gov/ the teeth it needs to prevent employer "dirty tricks".

I encourage everyone here to read both the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/national_labor_relations_act.aspx and the full text of EFCA http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.800: before commenting here.

I think this issue is important enough to warrant reading it all so we understand it. American labor deserves at least that much.

[JimR]

I've read it, thanks. I just disagree with your assessment.

[The Ghost]

fiddlestix.

[JimR]

You must have spent hours on that comprehensive analysis.

[Steve Maritas]

Employee Free Choice Act Now Launches Website to Educate Public on Card Check Legislation

The Truth About EFCA.Org is part of a multi-faceted new media campaign slated to help shed light on the "card check" issue and expose some of the misinformation being spread by corporate front groups who oppose the EFCA and who try to continue their control and lavish life styles. Besides tracking the latest news on EFCA, the www.TheTruthAboutEFCA.Org website contains a link to our blog with contributions from EFCA bloggers and special guests.

Website: www.TheTruthAboutEFCA.Org


For More Information on EFCA please visit our websites and blog

http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org

http://efcanow.blogspot.com/

http://efcaunionbustingclub.blogspot.com/

http://www.FreeChoiceActNow.Org

http://www.LaborUnionResources.Org

For more information on Employer FEAR, Coercion and Intimidation Union Busting Tactics Press Below

http://efcanow.blogspot.com/2009/02/just-say-no-to-employee-free-choice-act.html

[Aldyth]

Your first two links don't work. It sends me back to Huffington Post.

I'm a Democrat who doesn't support EFCA. I've followed links that people who support it have posted. Those links are supposed to tell me how it still provides for a secret ballot. I haven't ready anything that tells me that it will guarantee a secret ballot. Until a secret ballot is guaranteed, I can't support it.

[LeftRight]

First, the secret ballot that you are so concerned about is the problem now, because the employers are tying things up delaying that secret ballot while they do everything in their power (legal or otherwise....) to ensure that a union is not voted in.

Second, the secret ballot is not GUARANTEED NOW!!! There are two ways to form a union in a non-union shop right now. You can either get at least 30% to sign the cards and that will result in a secret ballot, or you can get 50%+1 to sign the cards, and there's a union. The problem is that it's the EMPLOYERS choice which option is used. The EFCA will still allow BOTH to happen, but the choice will be the EMPLOYEES, not the EMPLOYERS!!!

Third, I can understand one real concern, if you are not in the 50%+1 group, and don't want a union, you shouldn't have to have one just because the majority of your coworkers want one. There's a simple solution to this. Place a provision in the bill which would forbid closed shops. That way if you choose not to be a member of the union, you will not have to be, but if you want to be, you CAN be!!

[RandVictims]

If you believe that, you haven't read the bill.

[slarabee]

it is a glitch in the Huff Po comment system that does that sometimes. It adds the huffpost link to the link. Kind of frustrating. I think it happens when people put "http:" on the front of a link.

www.thetruthaboutefca.org

www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org

[slarabee]

or maybe when they don't (I am laughing at myself now : )

http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org

http://www.thetruthaboutefca.org

[slarabee]

Yep that's it. you have to have the "http://" on the front of the link or the system amends the comment by adding part of the link to the article being commented on.

[Donkslayer]

Unions might be a fine way to make sure the wealth is spread during times of economic boom....but what do you think is going to happen companies who are already laying off workers now have to pay more to their current employees? Anyone?

[LeftRight]

That would actually HELP, because with more people with more money, they will be creating more demand, which is the only way to make companies hire people!

[RandVictims]

That means less will go to lazy, elitist executives and select "shareholders" who don't spend more than 1% of their windfalls the U.S.

These companies threaten to close-up, then I say they should do it and then we'll start fresh with small businesses not corrupted by the Corporatist Ideology of the past 30 years. If they want to move out of the U.S., more power to them. That way, they can quickly realize how good they have it in America even WITH the checks and balances they're bitching about.

The medicine will taste a little bitter for the 1%, but it's better than the masses going into a French Revolution because a small percentage of corporate raiders won't stop bleeding the taxpayers.

[KillTheMessenger]

I don't have to guess. I used to live in Germany and I have seen it.

:-)

[Danigirl65]

pssstt - something else your boss won't tell you - the enormous difference between his paycheck and yours.

In 1940, 1/2 of executives made 56 times the average worker - in 2004, 1/2 of executives earned more than 104 times the average workers pay. In 1950, the top 10% of executives earned 74 times the average worker - that gap was at 120 times in 1990 and at 350 times in 2004- based on an average worker salary of 40,000 that would put the execs pay at $14,000,000 per year for high end execs or a paltry 4.1 million for the lower 1/2.

[KillTheMessenger]

I know a lot of executives (CEOs included), none of them makes more than 10 times average and most make less.

Looks like I only know the loser half.

:-)

[marxmarv]

Global average, or the average of the people under them?

[howcome]

Something the Labor leaders won't tell you,,, the huge number of working Americans who are against this bill...Check it out

[slarabee]

Untrue. Check it out.

[LeftRight]

Yeah, less than 25%, compared to more than 70% in support of it!

[petejo]

the bill is going to come up because of labor's influence in the democrat party and the democrat majorities.

i think to be fair any bill, if we have to have one, should provide for decertification by the same mechanism--i.e., a card-signing without the UNION'S chance to campaign.

[slarabee]

Business already has the ability to de-certify without a vote and only signatures that is part of the problem.

[LeftRight]

First, it's the DEMOCRATIC party, not the Democrat party!

Second, it's already that way, if the employer can get 50%+1 to sign to decertify a union, then they can do so, without EVER talking to the union about it.

Third, during the sign up time, do you REALLY think that the employer isn't able (and willing....) to come talk to you, to try to "convince" you to not accept a union???

[marxmarv]

Talking Points Bingo 1-B: "Democrat Party"

[petejo]

the employee free choice act is the first thing from obama i disagree with.

the price of american labor is already too high in world markets for us to be competitive. i would argue the reason why unions cant get representation to the degree theyd like to is they are no longer relevant in many situations. working conditions and pay have improved, and unions represent another bureaucratic layer to getting things done and cost dues.

actually, the current method of a secret ballot is the PERFECT way to handle such an important issue. union representation is at least as essential as who's to represent a citizen in government, and we determine that by secret ballot. a campaign period at work before the secret ballot gives time for both sides to present their arguments and some time for cool thinking to prevail. in my experience, unions have equal access to the workers and peer pressure from co-workers to join is more intense than what one gets from the employer. a secret ballot is the best way to vote your conscience without jeopardizing your relationship with your co-workers or your employer. if a union cant win in a secret ballot election, they dont deserve to represent the workers.

[slarabee]

You are so wrong. Wages in the US have stagnated since the 1980's and are now dropping. Yet the purchasing power of the US dollar is half of what it was in 1985. That means that my first factory job at ETM in Grand Ledge MI which still pays starting at around $10 per hour is now worth less than $5 per hour.
You really don't know what you are talking about. You are obviously not a working person so stay out of it.

[JimR]

And you don't know what you are talking about. When I was in a union in the late 80s, the workers were extremely well-paid. Some were making as much as $90,000 a year with overtime. The company was forced to look for ways to automate more to reduce labor costs, because they were unsustainable. Guess what? They found a way.

[BLinCincinnati]

"the price of american labor is already too high in world markets for us to be competitive."

So, you think we should pay everyone even less? Let me channel Jon Stewart in saying "FUCKYOU"

[slarabee]

Thank you very much.

[SonofLiberty1]

So what else won't your boss tell you?

Until legislation is passed to stem the tide of Outsourcing...

You Boss or rather your CEO can sell your entire office and send your job
and your fellow officemates...

to Inida, or Manila or wherever he wants to.

It happened to me it sadly could happen to you.

[slarabee]

I am right there with you brother. Still the EFCA is a good thing.

[marxmarv]

Actually, I owe a fair amount of my business to the sad quality of offshore software development.