New compromise measures supported by Diane Feinstein and Arlen Specter may pave the way for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
With 900,000 union members in the state of Pennsylvania, the Arlen Specter firewall appears to be crumbling. He knows he can't win a Democratic primary in Pennsylvania without labor, and they have made it clear that their support is contingent on his vote on Employee Free Choice.
Which is why Penny Pritzker and fellow billionaires are getting nervous, publicly breaking with the White House and President Obama over his support for the bill.
The "centrist" Dems of the Senate, led by Tom Harkin, know they won't be able to shrug and say "what can we do, we only have 59 votes" much longer. They have thus been trying to write an acceptable compromise so the party's progressives (including the unions) don't decide to stay home when Specter and others need their help in the 2010 elections.
According to the National Journal:
[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.
As Harkin says, the Feinstein compromise has the advantage of "protecting the secret ballot, so people can do it in private," which neutralizes that particular right-wing criticism of the bill.
The other bone of contention has been arbitration clause of the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter himself supports "last best offer" arbitration. It's also called "baseball arbitration," and has incentives to get both parties to quickly make their best, most reasonable offer. Bill Samuel of the AFL-CIO says "we're open to that."
Labor will no doubt be disappointed with such sacrifices to the bill, but if it means getting something passed, they will probably be happy to make these concesssions which satisfy the demands of critics like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Michael Bennet, Mark Udall and Ben Nelson.
George McGovern was recently dis-invited from the Progressive Magazine's 100th anniversary event because of his outspoken opposition to the bill on behalf of his good friend Rick Berman. If McGovern is interested in reclaiming his reputation among progressives as something more than the pawn of a right wing astroturfing scumbag, he now has the opportunity to acknowledge that these compromises would satisfy his concerns.
Follow Jane Hamsher at firedoglake.com and on Twitter
Casino dealers at The Wynn Las Vegas voted to organize over two years ago, but still have no contract.
Casino dealers at Caesars Palace voted to organize over one year ago, but still have no contract.
Why do these employees who overwhelmingly chose to organize still have no contract?
1-Because both companies want to be able to seize and control the tips earned by these employees and then redistribute the proceeds to whoever they want, including management, while they continue to pay the dealers the Federal Minimum Wage and pay their managers $35-40 per hour PLUS the tips earned by the dealers
2-Because NEITHER company wants to recognize "seniority"
3-Because NEITHER company will agree to "just cause", even with many things agreed to by the union that would not be able to be grieved, such as fighting and stealing, and the companies want to be able to continue to fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want, no questions asked.
Under the current system, management alone has the right to impose impasse and whatever they want in a contract. Does a union have that right? No.
Keep the secret ballot election. Those who need to be organized will do so. But what employees who organize need most is "binding arbitration".
With all the laws protecting employee rights what function do unions serve? All I see is that every industry where Unions are involved fall behind non-union organizations.
Examples: The Post Office (use Fedex), Public School Teachers(go Private, Pres Obama did), Auto Workers (we all know how that is working) etc....
Can anyone provide an example of a union organization where the company/industry thrives and succeeds as a result of the union?
This is after both sides have presented their side. So they now want to eliminate the secret ballot, and replace it with a mail-in card. Of course if management is aware, management will still want to present its side, which means if they plan to intimidate they still will (which, by the way, is already illegal).
So this "compromise" only addresses the union's wishes if management can be taken by surprise, and not allowed to present its side. That is the true desire of the unions in this bill. They are only winning a small majority of elections these days, not 100%. So they want to restrict the other side from participating. This is akin to the way they have elections in Russia and Iran: only "approved" candidates are allowed to run!
If the unions are allowed to do a "stealth" campaign, as they desire, then there is no free choice.
if you eliminate a waiting period and a secret ballot, there is no free choice.
Why any Democrat, who supposedly wants to help the little guy, would support the Eliminate Free Choice Act baffles me. Workers should not be forced into unions.
Can the union come onto the property and hold mandatory meetings? No way. The Union officials are banned from the property.
What are the penalties for ULP's filed against an employer? Post a notice saying they won't do it again? Well, after they lie and intimnidate the employees into voting no to organizing, who cares about some placard? The employees have already lost their election haven't they? Illegal to intimidate? LOL!
Why any AMERICAN continues to become enslaved by their employer baffles me.
The ONLY way to protect worker's rights is through a SECRET ballot. Sorry, but this "compromise" is a travesty. The EFCA (Eliminate Free Choice Act) deserves to go down in flames.
Now if we can get "cram-downs" back in the home mortgage legislation, 2009 will begin shaping up as a good year.
A secret ballot serves all parties well, and should be preserved.
Just because progressives (and I count myself among them) are starting to get the upper hand does not mean that we should abandon core principles. Remember, we will not always be in control - if we establish loopholes for ourselves what we are really doing is establishing loopholes for the conservatives when they regain control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhzVIHnfp50
http://abolishthesenate.org/
In our Union campaign in 2007, I had one guy tell me that he knew the Post Office was turning over his information to the company and was very worried about it after he mailed in his authorization card. Paranoid? Maybe so, but...the persuasion of cash can be a powerful tool.
What we need from the EFCA may not be the "card check", but we DO need "binding arbitration". Without binding arbitration, the employer will negotiate for years until impasse is reached and then implement whatever they want, thus defeating the whole purpose of organizing.
Keep the secret ballot election, but ELIMINATE the 34+ days from the time of filing to the election date and replace it with a FIVE DAY period. This way management ca not hire outside "persuaders" to come in and then force the employees into mandatory meetings where they will be lied to and intimidated. Where I work, they even threatened to have the green cards taken away from those who have them and who vote "yes" for the Union!
1. Consult and hire a labor law attorney, so they DON'T engage in the illegal activity you describe. It can take a week or two just to do that.
2. Research the union contracts in place with competitors, so they know what unions are offering.
3. Communicate their perspective.
That said, 30-45 days is enough time.
What really needs to happen is to tighten up the law so that if management communicates, it is recorded, and threats are prosecuted. If the laws aren't tough enough now, then tighten them.
But let's apply the law both ways.
Where I worked, outside, hired thug/union organizers surrounded a female co-worker on her way to her car after work, demanding she sign a card. She tried to get by them; they blocked her way. She said she did not want to sign a card. They said "We know where you live. You can't hide from us. We know where your kids go to school." She signed.
During our union campaign and AFTER the union filed for an election, I witnessed many dealers being individually taken into the managers office, then about 10-15 minutes later they were coming out looking very shaken. Of the few who were still brave enough to speak, they told of the intimidation they were subjected to inside of the office, where there were up to four managers who were pressuring them and threatening not only their jobs, but also their right to live in the USofA.
On the flip-side, there was only one employee (out of 600) who complained about being harrassed by a union supporter to sign a card. Their complaint was lodged with management because they didn't want to sign a card and they were asked in front of other employees to do so. They were NEVER asked to sign a card again. That same person has now asked the union to help them after they were recently written up for an attendance infraction at work.
As far as the time needed to reasearch what union contracts are at their competitors, you mean to say they don't already know and will only investigate after a union election is filed for? No wonder foreign companies seem to have an edge on American companies.