• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employee Free Choice Act

Do you favore the Employee Free Choice Act

  • Yes, I am in favor, but with some reservations

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,863
Reaction score
60,285
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have been hearing alot on Employee Free Choice Act lately. Partly it is a local thing, being in Michigan where the auto industry is big, and partly on some of the cable news channels. I am wondering what people think about this.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act]Employee Free Choice Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his or her colleagues.[3] Once 30% of the work force in a particular workplace bargaining unit has signed the cards, the employer may decide to hold a secret ballot election on the question of unionization.[3] In practice, the results of the card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards.[3] If the employer decides to demand an election, and the majority of votes in the election favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees of that particular bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

If enacted, the EFCA would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards.[1] The EFCA would take away employers' present right to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check.[3][4] The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.[3][5]

For those who have never been through it, what basically happens in the process is something like this: Union decides or is invited to try and unionize a shop. Employees in the shop run around getting people to sign "cards" if they can get 30 % of those up for unionization to sign, they can submit the cards and ask for an election. Wiki says usually unionizers hold off till they get over 50 %, but I know from experience this is not exclusively true. The employer now can either give in and admit the union or demand an election.

The Employee Free Choice Act would change the rules so that if the organizers can get over 50 % of the effected employees to sign the "card", the NLRB will certify the union and the shop would then be unionized, with the only possible way to hold it off would be to get 30 % of those effected to petiiton for a secret ballot.

So, are you for or against this, and why?
 
Last edited:
The Employee Free Choice Act would change the rules so that if the organizers can get over 50 % of the effected employees to sign the "card", the NLRB will certify the union and the shop would then be unionized, with the only possible way to hold it off would be to get 30 % of those effected to petiiton for a secret ballot.

So, are you for or against this, and why?

This is the reason this bill stinks to high heaven.

If over 50% of the workers in a workplace truly want a union, the secret ballot poses no hardship. If over 50% of the workers do not want a union, requiring them to petition for a secret ballot is a hardship--particularly in a scenario where coercive methods were used to get signatures on the original cards (and coercive methods have been used by unionizers in the past, just as they have been used by companies to bust up unionizing efforts).

The secret ballot is the ultimate sanctuary for both sides. It eliminates the possibility of intimidation and reprisal on either side.

Calling this bill "free choice" is an obscenity, because it is anything but. By reducing the unionizing activity to the very public act of card signing, it throws open the door for abuse by both sides. Unionizers have every incentive to "persuade" employees to sign the cards, business owners and managers have every incentive to "persuade" employees not to sign.

Current law sets a very reasonable threshold of 30% to call the election--that union organizers hold back until they have 50% or more is a tactical choice on their part (a wise choice, at that). No shop that wants union representation is denied that representation under current law. This bill solves a problem that absolutely does not exist in this country.

This bill should be called the Employee Injury Maximization Act--because the one certain effect of this perversity will be to raise the frequency and severity of union-related workplace violence.
 
It requires a person to make a public statement for or against a position and introduces the strong prospect of coercion and intimidation from the employer for signing the check and from the union goon for refusing to sign.

How does the employee win if the result of union intimidation is unionization and how does he win if he willingly signs yet the unionization attempt fails?

The correct way to do this is to have (strange idea) secret ballots.

1) Unions should be required to get a minimum of 30% employer acquiescence, collected by an independent signing agency paid for by the union, which both collects signatures and verifies their validity without ever showing those signatures to either the union or the employer (this requires an element of trust, and there are ways to make this anonymous).

2) If the 30% mark is certified, then the election is held by traditional closed balloting procedures, and regardless of the outcome, the signature cards are destroyed, so neither employer nor union ever knows who to blame for any stage of the process.
 
This bill is extremely undemocratic. The name of the bill itself is Orwellian, since this is the exact OPPOSITE of free choice.

There is absolutely NO valid reason to do away with the secret ballot. None. All this does is allow union thugs to intimidate workers.
 
A person's vote for or against any ballot item should never be made public.
 
it is a good bill which could be made much more palatable with one modification

rather than allowing the union to be the recipient of the signed forms, the employees should be required to send their completed forms to the department of labor. neither the employer nor the union would know who did and who did not vote for a union election to be held

now, if the DOL receives 50% plus one ballot from the employees requesting a union, then those cards should be found the equivalent of an election ballot and the bargaining unit certified. the election is redundant at that point since 50% plus one is what is required to certify the work site a bargaining unit. sending the cards directly to DOL eliminates the union's ability to intimidate members into signing them. eliminating the need for an election with that 50% plus one showing eliminates the opportunity for the employer to retaliate against employees and adversely affect the election outcome
 
The factory I work in(when not laid off) had been the subject of an attempt by the UAW to unionize, so I got a good first hand view of the process. People have zeroed in on the big problem I see with this bill. The "card" signing part of the process is rife with abuse as is. For about 2 months, it was pure hell going into work. Unionizers in the shop had lists of who had not signed, and who refused to sign, and they made these lists public to every one in favor of the union. This led to lots and lots of harassment. Thankfully, the efforts of the union supporters, and the UAW itself left a bad enough taste with people that we voted down the union, and when they got a judge to decide that unfair practices where used in the process(telling people to get back to work is unfair) and forced another election, we voted them down again.
 
Sounds very familiar. My wife's company is non-union and will never unionize, but the employees are all treated wonderfully and there is no desire by any of them to go union. That doesn't stop the unions from terrorizing the shop constantly, they've had union members and leaders break into the building and steal computers (they were arrested when video cameras caught them doing it), slashing work truck tires (again, video cameras are your friend), etc. People who work there have been personally harassed, threatened and lied to by union organizers, but as soon as anyone complains, the union is fast to distance themselves from the "radical elements who act on their own"... yeah, sure.

I'll be the first one to say I want to see the day when all unions everywhere are shut down entirely.
 
Sounds very familiar. My wife's company is non-union and will never unionize, but the employees are all treated wonderfully and there is no desire by any of them to go union. That doesn't stop the unions from terrorizing the shop constantly, they've had union members and leaders break into the building and steal computers (they were arrested when video cameras caught them doing it), slashing work truck tires (again, video cameras are your friend), etc. People who work there have been personally harassed, threatened and lied to by union organizers, but as soon as anyone complains, the union is fast to distance themselves from the "radical elements who act on their own"... yeah, sure.

I'll be the first one to say I want to see the day when all unions everywhere are shut down entirely.

Yeah. Don't even get me started on the vandalism during the process we dealt with. We never could prove who did it, but it was mostly those against the union by about 4 to 1 who had their cars keyed.
 
Yeah. Don't even get me started on the vandalism during the process we dealt with. We never could prove who did it, but it was mostly those against the union by about 4 to 1 who had their cars keyed.

Like I said, video cameras are your friend. I forgot the time that there was a "union rally" going on outside and a rock came sailing through the front window, almost hitting the receptionist. The police showed up, nobody could prove who threw the rock and the union claimed it must have been someone not associated with the union. They had to replace the window via an insurance claim.

Yes, these are wonderful people, these union asshats. :roll:
 
Like I said, video cameras are your friend. I forgot the time that there was a "union rally" going on outside and a rock came sailing through the front window, almost hitting the receptionist. The police showed up, nobody could prove who threw the rock and the union claimed it must have been someone not associated with the union. They had to replace the window via an insurance claim.

Yes, these are wonderful people, these union asshats. :roll:

why does anyone feel the need to do this? If a shop doesn't want to unionize, why don't the unions just go to some other shop. It doesn't seem like THAT big of a deal to vandalize and throw rocks....
 
why does anyone feel the need to do this? If a shop doesn't want to unionize, why don't the unions just go to some other shop. It doesn't seem like THAT big of a deal to vandalize and throw rocks....

Unions are a business. A shady, monopolistic, thuggish business. And like any other business, they want as many customers as possible...in this case, dues-paying members. What they don't seem to realize is that their intimidation tactics might win them a few factories in the short term, but it alienates the public at large and makes it more difficult for them to win in the long term.
 
Ive not really had direct experience with this sort of thing, but to the best of my knowledge Unions aren't a big issue in the South as they are in the North.
I know some police departments in the north and midwest are able to unionize but I believe it is against our State Law here.

What do these union members get in return for paying dues?
 
What do these union members get in return for paying dues?

That's a very good question that workers should ask themselves.

In theory, they get the ability to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, more time off, and the ability to stick it to The Man. In practice, they usually don't get much of anything, except a new deduction on their paycheck for union dues.


Most unions don't do a damn thing...and the ones that do are even scarier, because they manage to destroy companies and muck up entire state economies. My home state, Ohio, is a perfect example of this. For decades, we've been one of the most pro-union states in the country...and as a result, we have one of the worst economies in the country, since no large business in their right mind would set up shop in Ohio.
 
Last edited:
That's a very good question that workers should ask themselves.

In theory, they get the ability to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, more time off, and the ability to stick it to The Man. In practice, they usually don't get much of anything, except a new deduction on their paycheck for union dues.


Most unions don't do a damn thing...and the ones that do are even scarier, because they manage to destroy companies and muck up entire state economies. My home state, Ohio, is a perfect example of this. For decades, we've been one of the most pro-union states in the country...and as a result, we have one of the worst economies in the country, since no large business in their right mind would set up shop in Ohio.

Im no expert at this sort of discussion, but...

Would it be safe to assume that Unions have part of the blame in why so many businesses are moving south where unions don't have a large foothold, and in turn why there is a large number of people migrating to the south to find jobs?
 
Im no expert at this sort of discussion, but...

Would it be safe to assume that Unions have part of the blame in why so many businesses are moving south where unions don't have a large foothold, and in turn why there is a large number of people migrating to the south to find jobs?

Yes to an extent I suspect. Leaving aside any question of actual costs to a business, unions provide an extra level of bureaucracy that businesses have to deal with, and getting away from that is seen by many businesses as a plus. At my job, which is nonunion, I could in theory be fired for just about any reason, or no reason. While in practice this is never used, it's a comfort for supervisors to know they could. Nonunion shops are more flexible from a management standpoint.

Unions do serve as a positive force at times, in fact I think most unions are generally positive for workers. They give workers a better negotiating position and provide an extra set of protections for a worker. They make workers feel more empowered, which is nice.

To illustrate this, going back to my experiences: the call to unionize happened after an incident where I work. A bunch of people(7 or 8) where going out to their cars and getting high on breaks on third shift. The company found out, and one day we came in, and about 20 people got immediately sent to do a drug test, and those who failed where summarily fired. A few stoners got scared that more drug testing was going to happen, and went to the UAW to ask if they could provide some protections from random drug tests without actual cause, and where told yes(not sure if they actually could or not but the UAW told them they could). The union protects the workers, and the employer does not want the workers to have that extra protection.
 
Ive not really had direct experience with this sort of thing, but to the best of my knowledge Unions aren't a big issue in the South as they are in the North.
referring to something as "the Union" in the south is not exactly great branding. especially if you want people to join it

I know some police departments in the north and midwest are able to unionize but I believe it is against our State Law here.
it is not against the law to form or join a union. 5 USC chapter 71 gives the unions the right of formation. in NC and a few other states, the state government has codified law stating that no state government office can participate in union activities. since it takes two to negotiate, that effectively eliminates the ability of the unions to be effective with governmental employers. NC has two (dis)organized teachers' unions ... but neither has any clout
there are strange exceptions. for instance, in charlotte, the city acquired the bus system from a private owner, but after it had been unionized. so the city of charlotte had to establish a quasi-governmental bureau to do nothing but serve as the laision for the unionized bus drivers in order to circumvent the state laws prohibiting state/local governments from negotiating with unions. the drivers have a right to, and have gone on strikes, to effect gains, despite being owned by the city

What do these union members get in return for paying dues?
collective bargaining regarding terms and conditions of employment
freedom from being fired a week before vesting in the company retirement program because otherwise the employer can - and often will - terminate that older worker anytime for any reason as an 'at will' employee
 
Unions are a business. A shady, monopolistic, thuggish business. And like any other business, they want as many customers as possible...in this case, dues-paying members. What they don't seem to realize is that their intimidation tactics might win them a few factories in the short term, but it alienates the public at large and makes it more difficult for them to win in the long term.

Which is why the unions try to gather massive power so they can force long-term contracts and not worry about what the public thinks. Unions buy politicians and keep laws off the books that would harm unions while pushing laws that make them stronger.

Like most businesses, unions only see things in the short term, they want immediate gratification even if it means ultimate failure somewhere down the road.
 
Im no expert at this sort of discussion, but...

Would it be safe to assume that Unions have part of the blame in why so many businesses are moving south where unions don't have a large foothold, and in turn why there is a large number of people migrating to the south to find jobs?

Yes, goonionization is one of the reasons businesses walk.

Excessive taxation is the primary cause, though.
 
Yes to an extent I suspect. Leaving aside any question of actual costs to a business, unions provide an extra level of bureaucracy that businesses have to deal with, and getting away from that is seen by many businesses as a plus. At my job, which is nonunion, I could in theory be fired for just about any reason, or no reason. While in practice this is never used, it's a comfort for supervisors to know they could. Nonunion shops are more flexible from a management standpoint.

Unions do serve as a positive force at times, in fact I think most unions are generally positive for workers. They give workers a better negotiating position and provide an extra set of protections for a worker. They make workers feel more empowered, which is nice.

To illustrate this, going back to my experiences: the call to unionize happened after an incident where I work. A bunch of people(7 or 8) where going out to their cars and getting high on breaks on third shift. The company found out, and one day we came in, and about 20 people got immediately sent to do a drug test, and those who failed where summarily fired. A few stoners got scared that more drug testing was going to happen, and went to the UAW to ask if they could provide some protections from random drug tests without actual cause, and where told yes(not sure if they actually could or not but the UAW told them they could). The union protects the workers, and the employer does not want the workers to have that extra protection.

Well then, I thought unions were supposed to negotiate fair pays and safe working conditions, why in the HELL would they claim they are going to do away with drug testing when it can create an unsafe working environment (ie. high auto manufacturing workers).
 
Well then, I thought unions were supposed to negotiate fair pays and safe working conditions, why in the HELL would they claim they are going to do away with drug testing when it can create an unsafe working environment (ie. high auto manufacturing workers).

The problem is, by and large every employee already has a guarantee of a safe work environment under existing labor laws, the unions don't have to do it. There was a time when it was necessary, it simply isn't anymore. Unions push for higher wages but only so people don't complain too much when their paychecks are raped for union dues. In the end, the union workers are no better off than the non-union workers, the unions just end up driving companies into bankruptcy because of the higher rates that must be paid for the same amount of work and a ton more headaches.

Ask GM how happy they are with their union contracts. Oh wait, they declared bankruptcy, didn't they? :doh
 
Ask GM how happy they are with their union contracts. Oh wait, they declared bankruptcy, didn't they? :doh

In fact, many talk radio folks (and I know we don't all like talk radio) have been stating for months (or years) that bankruptcy would be the best way to get the monkeys off of the companys' backs.
 
Additional question:

If 50%+1 "workers" in a shop vote to goonionize, does that mean the 50%-1 workers who declined will be forced to goonionize too?

If they are, does this not violate the freedom of association guarantee of the First Amendment?
 
Additional question:

If 50%+1 "workers" in a shop vote to goonionize, does that mean the 50%-1 workers who declined will be forced to goonionize too?

If they are, does this not violate the freedom of association guarantee of the First Amendment?
Indeed....for ought not the freedom to associate include the freedom to dissociate?
 
Additional question:

If 50%+1 "workers" in a shop vote to goonionize, does that mean the 50%-1 workers who declined will be forced to goonionize too?

If they are, does this not violate the freedom of association guarantee of the First Amendment?

some states do authorize an automatic check off. that requires the employees represented by the union to now be required to pay dues whether they agree to join the union or not
other states do not compel union dues to be paid by anyone other than union members. that allows "free riders" to be represented by the union - as the federal law requires the union represent all bargaining unit members. those employees realize the rewards of union representation without having to incur the cost. only dues paying union members are able to vote in the union elections, however
 
Back
Top Bottom