Employee Free / Forced Choice Act

Labor and Business go at it over NLRA Revisions

EFCA is proposed legislation that is now up for review in the Senate regarding revisions to the original National Labor Relations Act of 1935. There are already strong arguments that have been made from the left and the right regarding this act's potential impact on business and labor. Here is what some are saying.

Proponents (Labor: AFL-CIO, SEIU)

1. Will protect the middle class
2. Will stop corporate intimidation in organizing a union

Opponents (Conservative Think Tanks, Union-Busters: Heritage Foundation, Labor Relation Institute)

1. Will allow very small units in large organizations to run a "card check" certification, effectively unionizing a small subsection of a business without an election
2. Ends Union elections, and silences employees by banning elections
3. Will require an election to disband a Union
4. Will create more union employees that pay union dues, which will end up back in Democrats hands and make labor standards even more strict on companies, starting a cycle of more Democrats in Congress, less speech for companies and eventually, a Socialist State
   

And some other resources
Ed and Labor Committee Fact Sheet
Language of EFCA

The Issues at Hand
Card Check vs. Secret Ballot - The most hotly debated of all of the issues with the employee free choice act is that the NLRB would now be directed that,

"...whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection."

Campaigning when starting a Union - Unions are often not allowed to campaign on the companies' premises while the company can force anti-union meetings
Collective Bargaining - After an election is held and a Union established, companies can drag on bargaining indefinitely

So what does EFCA actually do?
It would revoke part of Taft - Hartley Act by freeing up the NLRB to recognize a collective bargaining unit with a majority instead of giving a company the ability to require an election after a majority has already been heard.
It would impose harsher penalties on companies that impose unfair labor practices such as intimidation and firing
It would end first-contract bargaining more quickly by requiring arbitration by an outside source when demands cannot be met on both sides within 120 days and lock that contract in effect for 2 years.
It would allow an organizing force to effectively organize a company's employees even before a company has an opportunity to add its opinion to those being weighed by the employees.
It will kill a lot of Union-busting companies by shortening their window of opportunity prior to an election.

At first, I was very skeptical about this bill and thought that I might end up being pulled to the right by it. I had read that it would only take 30% of employees signing a card to form a recognized union. I had read that employees would not be allowed an election and would be forced to use the card-check system. However, these things are not true and if you look at the actual bill's language, there is nothing even close to that in the bill. It will however, probably make it easier for employees to organize, and that will be a dangerous thing for companies and Republicans (as listed as #4 under Opponents, above) and luckily there is a very simple solution for that.

So the Opinion:
1. EFCA, as it stands, is a good bill. It's clean and will make it easier for employees to organize which is a good thing for those employees.
2. EFCA will not end Union elections, nor force public card-checks, but will allow for those who have already done a card-check with 50% or more (the same majority needed during the election) to be recognized. There is no reason to hold an election once 50% of workers have already voted in favor of something.
3. Campaign Finance needs to be changed before this bill is passed or soon thereafter. If there is anything that is wrong with EFCA, it is that the balance of political power in state capitols and D.C. will change and we will see an increase in Labor's power. It will swing the country as more employees are organized. Then paying dues, that money will go to more Pro-Labor Electeds and eventually to a Labor-controlled state. Maybe it's time, those of you on the right who have been anti-campaign finance reform, to reconsider as this is about to tip the balance pretty quickly and leave you out in the cold.

**UPDATE: From the Wall Street Journal, "The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act." Granted this article is really negative towards unions, but at least they figured out that it's not un-american...

-----
Today's List
2007 Votes for Cloture in the Senate

Independence in our Courts

No Introduction, let's just get into it, eh?

West Virginia judge benefits from massive 527 support and turns around to support 527's major donor in appeal.

It is interesting to me that there is so much concern for a justice's impartiality regarding decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court is discussing the issue as a case for determining when a judge should recuse themselves from a case that they may have some vested interest in. When you're talking about anyone who is relying on the campaign contributions of interested parties (read here: special interests) you will absolutely and always receive an elected official, be they of any branch of government, that is beholden to those that have put them into office. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment - so one does not have to campaign. The same is true for our congresspeople and our executives, you pay enough to get them elected and they give you a little bit of legislative pork.

Further, there are 39 states that currently elect judges at some level of the judiciary and many are claiming that judges should not be elected to insure impartiality. However, that is not the issue. The issue at hand is:
1. Yes, all people are provided a right to free speech
2. Yes, you can choose to exercise that free speech during a campaign
3. Yes, that can come in the form of a donation to a campaign
4. NO, that cannot come in the form of buying a seat

When an individual, organization or company is capable of spending $3 Million on a 527 organization that is trashing an individual running for office, that company should be censured and / or boycotted. However, it is not our place to say tsk-tsk to a company that is only acting within the rules that we have regarding elections.

And while it is a problem of our campaign finance system, it is also a problem of the electorate that listened to a narrow-viewed group of people that were running ads from a very particular slant.

So the Opinion:
1. Don't focus on recusal - that's not the whole issue, that's a symptom. The fact that this justice so badly judged the situation should mean his ass gets booted in the next election and it is an unfortunate circumstance of the situation. Instead, why not stop the process that leads to such partiality and limit 527 action / campaign financing by small groups with big mouths. Which leads to option 2;
2. Fix the campaign finance laws / Don't elect judges - preferably the first as that can also affect our purchasing of Governors, Legislators and other elected officials and electing judges is not entirely a bad thing as it allows for flexibility in the judiciary;
Or 3. Pray that voters spend a little more time looking at where a message is coming from - this is much less likely to come to fruition, so back to option 2.

-----
Today's Quote
"Even Sheep should have brains enough not to follow the wolf."
Joseph Goodfield