State Laws Allowing Majority Sign-up for Unions Shows why "Employee Free Choice Act" is Fair Option for Workers
Ignoring Evidence of Majority Sign-up Success in the States: Yet the anti-union lobby in Washington, D.C. has been churning out propaganda about the supposed horrors of coercion workers would face by unions if the Employee Free Choice Act was enacted. They inevitably tell hypothetical stories about what could happen -- but studiously ignore the fact that states around the country already allow groups of public and private employees to form unions through majority sign-up procedures without any evidence of the coercion they conjure up.
Just to reinforce the lack of evidence of union coercion, a new report from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was released this week examining the whole history of majority sign-up in that state. The report found that between the years 2003 and 2009, 21,197 public sector workers used majority sign-up procedures allowed by state law to form unions with only one complaint about union coercion filed during that whole period -- and even that complaint was dismissed as without merit by the state Labor Relations Board.
In fact, across the country since 2003, half a million workers have formed unions using majority sign-up procedures, either under state law or through voluntary agreements made with employers, and there is no significant evidence of union coercion under the process. If there was, you can bet the anti-union lobby would be citing those problems every day, yet instead they attempt to ignore the existing success of majority sign-up procedures for workers who have access to them.
Coercion by Employers under Federal NLRB Procedures: Compare this to the existing National Labor Relations Board process where an estimated one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign. A 2000 Human Rights Watch report said the failure to protect workers under U.S. election procedures was so profound that the so-called
secret ballot election" process failed to meet international human rights standards. Just this week, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released an animation illustrating how brutal present NLRB procedures are for workers.
Promoting Freedom to Form Unions: Given the benefits of unionization in raising wages, spreading majority sign-up at both the federal and state level to put more money in household budgets and stimulate the economy should be an imperative for all elected leaders.
State laws allowing majority sign-up for groups of public and private employees have been enacted in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. Examples of these statutes include Oregon Revised Statutes, 243.682 for public employees and New York Chapter 31, Article 20, Section 705covering both public employees and a number of private industries.
So you've got one system -- NLRB elections with a demonstrated history of massive, overwhelming employer abuse -- and another system -- majority signup operating in many states with no evidence of any of the abuses alleged by opponents. If it works in the states, why not bring its benefits to more employes?
Thanks, Nathan. Where have you BEEN? This is the kind of stuff that needs to get out there and is sorely missing.
The Labor Movement's campaign for EFCA has been really, really weak, especially in rebutting the coercion charge.
Their TV ads have been milquetoast fluff except for the latest Wall St. one, which was pretty good. I don't get the sense that they think they've needed to wage a PUBLIC campaign at all for EFCA, but they do.
May 7, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a great and wonderfully informative post.
This report reflects simple common sense. After all, it's not unions that can fire you. It's not unions that can cut your pay, change your hours, or shift you into a different job. It's not unions that have the power to make every minute of your working life a living hell.
Of course, theoretically, management doesn't have that power either when it comes to union organizing. But they use it anyway, knowing the odds are they won't face any consequences whatsoever and that if they do, it will be years later and a tiny cost of doing business.
Anyway, it's critically important to keep calling out the anti-union right-wing on their repeated lies.
May 7, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even assuming this study is completely on the up-and-up (and given the funding, among other things, I have my doubts), I still don’t think it undercuts the specific claims on union coercion or the larger claim that a secret ballot election is the best method to determine employee free choice on the question of unionization. Here’s why: (1) the government of Illinois does not have to compete in either the national or international marketplace — in the private sector, the main opposition to unions is that they hinder the ability to compete, particularly in those industries where jobs can be outsourced or competitive products imported. Contrast that with the public sector which has neither competitors nor any profit motive whatsoever. Employees generally resist unionization when their employers credibly make the case that they will be better off without a union — when that doesn’t happen, the conditions that lead to union coercision are not present, so the lack of it is unsurprising; (2) Relatedly, unions are not stupid — if you can make a case to an employee that you have nothing to lose by joining the union (i.e., job security is a non-issue) there is no need to be coercive. It’s only a test if unions acted this way when pitted against and employer who was interested in remaining non-union. Heck, I bet most Illinois government employees (correctly) assumed their bosses were happy to have them be unionized.
All that said, I don’t think real hard ball tactics are nearly as likely to occur under a card check regime as a more banal peer pressure to sign the card. The point is that the employee has to make his or her decision in public, and may simply get tired of saying no or just not want to be hassled any more. It doesn’t have to be 2:00 a.m. visits in order to subvert the free choice aspects of having a secret ballot election on a date certain, and then having the question be settled.
To give credit where credi is due, however, I do think it's alot more honest to admit that card check/majority sing-up will, in fact, mean the end of the secret ballot -- and argue why that's OK, as Nathan does here -- than to keep insisting, all evidence to the contrary, that EFCA actually doesn't end secret ballot elections. I realize that the secret ballot option will technically remain on the books, but the sheer dishonesty of that line of argument was hurting labor with the public and members of congress, not to mention distracting labor from making these kinds of arguments. This new honest approach may be too late, but I think it is a much better argument in support of EFCA. (I just disagree.)
May 7, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Under EFCA, all it takes for an election is 30 percent of the workers to want one. How does that "mean the end of the secret ballot?"
May 7, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moose
To answer your question takes some explanation, but people on both side who know what they are talking about will confirm it. Here goes: Yes, EFCA would leave in place the current method for a union to become certified via a secret ballot election. These elections are triggered when the UNION (it must be a labor organization) files a petition -- with the petition they are required to submit a "showing of interest" with at least 30% of the employees, usually in the form of cards signed by the employees indicating a desire for representation. As a practical matter, unions do not petition for elections today unless they have at least 51% of the cards signed, and often more, since they know the company will voice its opposition and convince some employees to vote no (and, yes, some employers will do so illegally, but the 1-in-5 fired claim is preposterous).
Now, as you know, EFCA will permit a union to skip the election process completely and become certified simply by submitting signed cards of 50% plus one of the employees. This is the "majority sign-up" method that Nathan is defending here as not leading to union coercion. The entire premise of the campaign for EFCA has been that employers are largely evil and/or otherwise willing to lie cheat and steal to win elections -- in short, that the entire election system is broken. That's why -- labor says -- we need EFCA to get around this sham elections dominated by one side. Now, given those facts, how many unions with majority support are going to petition for an election and how many are going to simply take automatic certification by submitting the cards? It is a no brainer (which qualifies me to answer! -- old joke, sorry.) There simply won't be any election petitions because it's not the employees who decide, it's the unions.
May 7, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I'm assuming when you call yourself "Labor Lawyer" that means a lawyer AGAINST labor?
But aren't you arguing against yourself here?
Employers don't have to be "willing to lie, cheat or steal" in order to keep unions out. There are ways of "persuading" workers that a union isn't in their best interests (even though in virtually all cases it is). They can convince them that they won't be able to keep the entire work force if a union comes in and pushes for higher wages, better benefits or a safer workplace. They can threaten to take their business off-shore. They can appeal to their loyalty, even though loyalty is not always a two-way street. There are any number of ways management can coerce workers without actually "lying, cheating or stealing".
I think your arguments are specious at best. You go the other way, seeming to assume that there are no circumstances under which workers might actually need a union. "Free choice" means just that, and anything we can do to make sure there are no obstacles, either in choosing or in defeating a union, is worthy of consideration.
May 7, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paging bslev.
(A union layer)
May 7, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but the 1-in-5 fired claim is preposterous"
Actually, not so much, based on personal experience. The "1-in-5" refers to union organizers or activists, not employees. The link Mr Newman provided contained this from CEPR:
This report updates...the index of the probability that a pro-union worker will be fired in the course of a union election campaign, using published data from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It also takes into consideration the increase in card-check organizing campaigns that began in the mid-1990s and adjusts the index for this factor.
By 2007, pro-union workers involved in union election campaigns faced about a 1.8 percent chance of being illegally fired during the course of the campaign. If we assume that employers target union organizers and activists, and that union organizers and activists make up about 10 percent of pro-union workers, our estimates suggest that almost one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign. Since 2000, illegal firings have marred over one-in-four NLRB-sponsored union elections, reaching 30 percent of elections in 2007.
May 8, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon guys - unions represent only about 7% of the workforce. The vast majority of non-union members don't want to belong to a union.
Why are we talking about this again? Just because Specter is now a democrat?
May 7, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona:
Yes, I represent management, but we're still generally called "labor lawyers" due to the subject matter, I guess. As to your points: (1) I was not saying that employers must be willing to "lie, cheat or steal" to win elections -- they don't have to do those things, and my clients have won dozens of elections the right way, by convincing employees that the promises unions made to get them to sign a card are illusory and that it's not in their best interests or the company's for the employees to bring in (and pay, via dues) a third party to bargain with the company. (2) The point I was making is that we know with a very high degree of certainty that there will not be secret ballot elections on the question of unionization if EFCA passes. I was characterizing the labor side's argument, made again above, that the election system is broken because employers don't abide by the rules -- this is strong evidence to say the least that unions will have absolutely no interest in filing election petitions when they can avoid the whole process that they have been decrying as fixed and proceed directly to certification through card check. Indeed, this is the way the system is supposed to work under EFCA, and I was simply noting that I think EFCA proponents are better off embracing this truth and trying to convinve people that that would be a better (or at least acceptable system). Nathan is doing just that in this post by trying to counter one argument against card check, which is that it would lead to union coercion. I just don't think the study of state employees is on point, for the reasons in my post above. (3) I don't assume that there are no circumstances under which employees would be right to select a union. Where there is racism among management or other intractable treatment issues, or where the wage and other compensation issues lend themselves to effective collective bargaining (state government is a good example), I can see why employees would vote for an effective union. But I am definitely with you on the principle that it should be by free choice -- I just think a private ballot is a better way to determine that choice than seeing who gives in to the peer pressure to publicly sign a card.
May 8, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is signing a card "public"? The entire workforce wouldn't know who signs cards and who doesn't. The cards go to the union.
There is nothing coercive about card check. It is still "majority sign-up". If the majority choose not to sign cards, there is no union.
There is going to be campaigning on both sides of the issue, of course. But it shouldn't be the employers who hold all the cards--so to speak.
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/why-majority-sign-up-is-needed.html
May 8, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...they don't have to do those things, and my clients have won dozens of elections the right way, by convincing employees that the promises unions made to get them to sign a card are illusory..."
I CALL BU!!SH*T.
The "union avoidance" law firms employ the SAME basic strategies in virtually ALL their campaigns--often in the same sequential order.
These excerpts from "Confessions of a Union Buster" by Marty Levitt explains it best:
The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack. The law DOES NOT HAMPER THE PROCESS, rather, it serves to SUGGEST manoeuvres and DEFINE STRATEGIES...
Levitt’s first union-busting campaigns introduced him to the most “common strategy among management lawyers.” First, Levitt tells us, “Challenge everything ... then take every challenge to a full hearing ... then prolong each hearing” as long as possible, then “appeal every unfavorable decision.”
According to Levitt there was method to the madness. “If you make the union fight drag on long enough, workers...lose faith, lose interest, lose hope.” Taking away people’s hopes, their aspirations for a better future – that was Levitt’s JOB.
For union busters, like Levitt, the NLRA is a "union buster's best friend".
According to Levitt, "in its complexity the nation's fundamental Labor law presents ENDLESS possibilities for delays, roadblocks, and manoeuvres that can undermine a union's efforts and frustrate would be members."
This is what is at stake here for the anti-union contingent--keeping in place the MOUNTAINS of obstacles BUILT INTO a PERVERTED system, not "workers rights".
Prove me wrong.
May 18, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's public in the sense that I can walk up to you in the break room and ask you to sign a card in front of a bunch of union supporters, and if you oppose the union (or haven't made up your mind) you have to publicly refuse or sign it in a way that doesn't reflect your free choice. The reason we have secret ballot elections is to prevent this kind of thing and protect the privacy of people's choice. Now, you may argue that there won't be coercion and as I said, I tend to agree that there won't be much physical coercision, but I think there will be peer pressure and I think there will be people who sign union cards having heard only one side of the story, which, even if it is a free choice, may not be the best way to go about this.
Interestingly, as much press a card check gets, the real problem with EFCA is the mandatory interest arbitration for intial contracts, which involves a radical departure from our whole system of good faith bargaining between companies and unions.
May 8, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explain, please. I don't know what you mean here. Are you saying that when enough workers sign cards the union is mandatory, and that's a problem? That could be, but there still comes the point of "good faith bargaining", as there is in any other union shop. Negotiation is not a bad thing. Most lawyers understand the need for negotiation. It's how we get things done.
Company owners/managers aren't necessarily bad people, but they are in charge. They have total power over everyone who works there unless the workers are represented and protected in some way. Our current labor laws don't cover all situations, as you probably know. (If they did we wouldn't need unions or anti-union lawyers.) The idea that labor benefits from representation is not subversive. Nor is it anti-business. It's just plain common sense.
Business owners join any number of organizations in order to maintain their own posture in the business world. They discuss ways of keeping labor working without expecting too much. They discuss ways of increasing the bottom line without giving much thought to how it affects the people who work for them. They work together to keep wages and benefits low.
In short, they ORGANIZE in order to figure out ways to keep their workers working and their profit margins high.
And they have the ability to hire lawyers who laughingly call themselves "labor lawyers", as if they were actually advocates of labor.
This is why we need unions.
May 8, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two things:
First, I really, really doubt that "Labor Lawyer" is really a lawyer for labor.
Second, the fact that NO union has ever been certified at a Walmart in the US is a clue that the current system isn't working.
May 8, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Dick. "Labor Lawyer" has said he works for the company and not the workers. Cruel joke, eh?
May 8, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, I have not hidden the fact that my firm represents the company side in labor relations matters. Calling myself a "labor lawyer" may sound funny, but it is established practice. Tax lawyers don't always represent the IRS, and environmental lawyers work on both the environmentalist and industry sides (I won't call them "anti-environmental lawyers", but some do).
Second, Ramona asked me to explain about EFCA's mandatory arbitration. Currently, once a union is elected, the parties are obligated by law to bargain in good faith on a collective bargaining agreement. This agreement sets the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The law has always been -- since the original Wagner Act under FDR -- that neither side must agree to any proposal made by the other. The idea is that the duty to bargain in good faith will lead to a just resolution, when paired with the union's right to strike and the company's economic weapons (lockouts, but mainly the ability to weather a strike). This will lead to the economically most efficient contract, where a union (through an legally protected threat to withhold labor) uses its true market strength to obtain the best deal it can get. EFCA effectively overturns this whole system and allows the union, after a brief negotiating period of 90 - 120 days to bring in a third party arbitrator who will decide for the parties what the CBA will say. There is no guidance as to how this will work, but obviously this is going to lead to "contracts" that, in the short term may be very advantageous to labor (since these arbitrators will be inclined to make concessions to labor that the companies themselves would never do), but which could be disastrous in the long-term. Companies say they will be forced into uncompetitive health plans, wage scales and work rules that neither side has agreed to. To be fair, really, nobody knows exactly what will happen, but the key is that the government-paid arbitrator will come in and dictate wages, hours and everything else. That is a radical change that is wholly unjustified by the current situation, in my view. I think a good compromise would be: keep the current "bargain in good faith" system, but if a company is found to have violated that (i.e., engaged in bad faith bargaining) then use this as an available remedy.
May 8, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I don't see a negotiating period of three to four months as "brief". If nothing has been worked out by then, chances are they're at a stalemate and something needs to happen.
Why is it obvious that any government-provided arbitrator will automatically side with labor? "Companies say they will be forced into uncompetitive health plans. . . .etc" sounds like the usual fear-mongering to me. Nothing indicates that what you say is true.
Let's be fair. The companies don't want to give an inch more than they absolutely have to. They want to dictate what "have to" constitutes, and it's not hard to understand why they feel that way. It's their company, after all. But it's also fair to say that labor has taken a beating over the past 20 years or so. When there are jobs to be had, wages are pathetic, health care is non-existent or expensive, and there are no pension guarantees anymore.
Business has had a free ride and now it's time to get back to reality. A strong economy requires healthy workers who receive paychecks that reflect a living wage. It may seem counter-intuitive to insist on better wages when times are bad, but you can see how it's turning out when nobody has any money to spend.
(When Henry Ford instituted the $5 a day wage and shocked the business world, he wasn't doing it out of any sense of altruism. He increased the assembly lines and made instant car buyers out of his workers.)
May 8, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Ramona, however I do agree that 3-4 months is unrealistic, considering that in many instances negotiators for both sides may only meet as seldom as 2-3 times a MONTH. Many times negotiators may haggle over the language in a contract clause, or even a single sentence or word in that clause for the majority of several sessions. I see a longer bargaining period before arbitration being implemented, if and when the bill is passed. (I think it will, just not in it's current form.)
May 9, 2009 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Labor Lawyer, you wrote:
Interestingly, as much press a card check gets, the real problem with EFCA is the mandatory interest arbitration for intial contracts, which involves a radical departure from our whole system of good faith bargaining between companies and unions.
As much press as the "secret-ballot" gets, the problem is not with the election itself, but what occurs before and after the election. Unions generally "win" more elections than they "lose"--Unions won 1195 representation elections, or 55.7 percent in fiscal 2007.
US labor law currently permits a wide range of employer conduct that interferes with worker organizing. Enforcement delays are endemic, regularly denying aggrieved workers their right to an “effective remedy.” Sanctions for illegal conduct are too feeble to adequately discourage employer law breaking to deter violations.
Unfair union election rules allow employers to engage in one-sided, aggressive anti-union
campaigning while denying union advocates a similar chance to respond and banning union organizers from the workplace or even from distributing information on company property. If confronted with clear evidence of employee support for a union, employers can force a formal election and manipulate the often lengthy pre-election period to pound their anti-union drumbeat and, in many cases, violate US labor laws, confident that any penalties will be minimal and long delayed.
Workers who overcome these obstacles and successfully form a union may still be unable to conclude a collective agreement, in large part because weak US labor law provisions fail to meaningfully punish illegal employer bad-faith negotiating or to adequately define good-faith bargaining requirements.
Penalties for breaching US labor law are so minor that employers often treat them as a cost of doing business—a small price to pay for defeating worker organizing efforts. Under US labor law, an employer faces no punitive penalties and few, if any, economic consequences for violating workers’ right to freedom of association. Instead, in most cases, a guilty employer must simply complete a two step “remediation process”: restore the status quo ante by recreating working conditions prior to the violations; and post a notice conspicuously in the workplace, such as on a lunchroom or kitchen bulletin board, promising to stop and not repeat the unlawful conduct.
Under this scheme, in addition to hanging the requisite notice, an employer who fires, demotes, or suspends a worker for organizing must merely reinstate that worker to her previous post and pay back wages, minus income earned in the interim. In many cases this ends up amounting to no more than a few thousand dollars, which many employers treat as a cost worth bearing, even repeatedly, to ensure that worker organizing campaigns do not succeed.
The law’s meager penalties are further weakened by endemic enforcement delays. According to the most recent annual report of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the US agency charged with enforcing labor law, workers wait an average of roughly nine months between the time they file unfair labor practice charges against their employer and an administrative law judge issues a decision in their case; they wait an average of over three years between the filing and a decision on any appeal to the full Board in Washington, DC.
Employers often initiate and take full advantage of such delays, in many cases heeding the explicit advice of anti-union consultants. Employers file appeals to the courts, regardless of their merits, rather than complying with administrative orders to reinstate illegally fired workers or bargain collectively. Years more are thereby added to the protracted enforcement process.
Such lengthy delays often render it difficult, if not impossible, even to restore the status quo ante. For example, workers fired for union activity rarely want their jobs back after years of litigation, having found new work in the interim. Likewise, a notice posted by an employer years after illegal conduct occurred is rarely seen by the affected workers whose rights were violated; most have left their guilty employer years earlier.
Furthermore, the NLRB has shown itself largely unwilling to use the means at its disposal to most effectively protect workers’ rights. It has a discretionary tool to help mitigate the devastating impact of paltry labor law sanctions and long enforcement delays in the most egregious cases, but that tool rests largely idle. Under US law, the NLRB may petition a federal district court for a “10(j) injunction” to stop alleged illegal employer activity in especially serious cases. The Board rarely files such petitions, however, filing only 19 in fiscal year 2007. As a result, flagrantly anti-union employer activity is allowed to accomplish its goal of derailing worker organizing efforts while legal cases are pending: organizing drives whose leaders have been fired dissolve for lack of direction; workers
scared by illegal threats of employer retaliation abandon union formation efforts.
The situation is markedly different when it comes to protecting employers. US labor law requires the NLRB to seek a “10(l) injunction” when faced with particularly egregious charges of unfair labor practices against a union. Thus, although both 10(j) and 10(l) injunctions are designed to “insure that an unfair labor practice will not succeed because the Board takes too long to investigate and adjudicate the charge,” US law only requires the NLRB to prevent the illegal conduct from “succeed[ing]” when the rights of employers, rather than workers, are at stake.
The Employee Free Choice Act would strengthen the penalties for unlawful anti-union conduct during organizing drives and first-contract negotiations. The Act would increase the amount due to workers fired, demoted, suspended, or otherwise discriminated against for their organizing activity, increasing the current “make-whole” remedy by requiring payment of “2 times that amount as liquidated damages.” The Act would also institute civil fines, payable to the US government, of up to $20,000 per violation for willful or repeated illegal conduct. In addition, the Act would eliminate the discrepancy between the treatment of workers’ and employers’ alleged serious labor law violations by requiring the NLRB to seek a 10(j) injunction if it reasonably believes that an employer engaged in unlawful anti-union activity that “significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees” in the exercise of their right to organize and bargain collectively as set forth in US law.
****Much of what I have posted here is taken from a report titled The Employee Free Choice Act A Human Rights Imperative" ****
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/efca2009_web.pdf
May 9, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
US labor law declares that it is the policy of the United States to “encourage[e] the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.” To these ends, the law establishes workers’ right to “bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” and bans employers from refusing to negotiate with such representatives. Specifically, employers are required to “meet at reasonable times” and negotiate in “good faith,” defined as “the obligation ... to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement, and a sincere effort ... to reach a common ground. ”Unfortunately, the promise of these provisions is often undercut in practice, largely due to weak remedies for violations and unclear standards for proving bad-faith bargaining in court.
Under existing US law, if an employer is proven to have engaged in the common practice of illegal “surface bargaining”—negotiating with no desire to reach an agreement—the remedy required is more bargaining: the employer must post a notice promising to refrain from further bad-faith bargaining and is ordered back to the negotiation table where the cycle of bad-faith bargaining can repeat itself, lasting in some cases for years. Because there are no significant negative repercussions for illegal conduct in this scenario, there is little incentive for intransigent employers to comply with the law. As a result, many workers who face prolonged “surface bargaining” end up abandoning the negotiating process and their union, driven by their employers to surrender their right to freedom of association.
US employers also can evade even the minimal consequences of surface bargaining by exploiting a pernicious legal loophole. US labor law fails to establish concrete criteria for demonstrating the “present intention” and “sincere effort” to reach a collective agreement required during good-faith negotiations. Without such criteria, proving violations is extraordinarily difficult. Employers regularly take full advantage. Advised by expert counsel, employers often go through the motions of good-faith bargaining to create the appearance of lawful conduct while, in reality, they have no intention of ever concluding a contract.
The Employee Free Choice Act would not attempt to clarify US labor law’s amorphous definition of good-faith bargaining, but it would at least help prevent it from continuing to undermine workers’ rights. The Act would allow workers negotiating their first collective contract to seek mediation after 90 days if the negotiations are not progressing satisfactorily. If mediation failed after 30 days, the dispute would be referred to arbitration, leading to a binding contract. (The parties could mutually agree to extend the initial bargaining and subsequent mediation periods.)
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/efca2009_web.pdf
May 9, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Earth Bound, thank you SO much for that clarification. I understand now why early arbitration is necessary.
Since the Chamber of Commerce and other Big Guns are backing the fight against EFCA, I wonder just how much the bill will be watered down before it actually becomes law?
We need media backing--or at least honest reporting. Rachel Maddow is about the only one who spends any time either explaining the law or refuting the liars.
Keep up the good work. I'll do what pitifully little I can, as well.
May 10, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcome, Ramona, and don't sell yourself short--"I'll do what pitifully little I can, as well"--You're doing pretty good from where I'm standing!
Rachel is great, have you checked out The ED Show (Ed Schultz, M-F 6 PM MSNBC). Started a little slowly & clumsily at first, but has really picked up steam lately. His show the other day on Single-Payer KICKED SERIOUS A$$!
May 11, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Earth Bound, I do watch the ED Show and I like what he has to say. He's for the worker--how refreshing--but I wish he would tone his vocals down a little. He's a radio personality and he seems to think he has to shout and do those exaggerated facial thingies and it's getting irritating, even to me, who is all for him!
I wish he and Rachel would have union spokespersons on more. They have plenty to say about it but rarely ever a forum.
What has happened to Ron Gettelfinger or Virg Bernero? They're nowhere to be seen any more. I wrote a piece on Bernero in February, here:
http://ramonasvoices.blogspot.com/2009/02/sol-save-our-labor.html
We need VOICES out there!
May 11, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
...I wish he would tone his vocals down a little. He's a radio personality and he seems to think he has to shout and do those exaggerated facial thingies and it's getting irritating, even to me, who is all for him!
LOL! How true! It's like he's trying to outdo Glen Bleecchh and his "rubber-faced buffoonery". {Memo to Ed: Draw the line at CROCODILE TEARS & FAKE PATRIOTIC BLUBBERING.)
Thanks for the link, Ramona, GREAT site!
Virg ROCKS! He really took apart what's his face on FAUX NOISE, ERR, Fox News. Twas a thing of beauty.
Gettelfinger's got HUGE problems...GM's a MESS--doesn't look good.
May 13, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The silence from "Labor Lawyer" re: what Ramona and I have posted is DEAFENING.
Just sayin'...
May 13, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Labor Lawyer" wrote:
"...they don't have to do those things, and my clients have won dozens of elections the right way, by convincing employees that the promises unions made to get them to sign a card are illusory..."
I CALL BU!!SH*T.(see previous post May 18, 2009 8:17 AM)
Prove me wrong.
May 19, 2009 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you say something "LL"???
May 21, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink