The Employee Free Choice Act

[Ziggy Stardust]

Last week, the latest version of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was formally introduced to both chambers of Congress (though there is a history to the bill that stretches back, I believe, to 2007). This week, more or less, begins the serious consideration of the legislation. The Republicans, of course, are steadfastly opposed to EFCA, as it reverses the general trend of taking power away from the unions that has existed since the late 1970s in this country. The conservatives absolutely despise the idea of unions having any sort of leverage over management. Now, this is not a subject I know a whole lot about. When I was in high school, I was very anti-union, largely because the prevailing sentiment at the time had a conservative bent. Since then, I have begun to reconsider those beliefs after becoming more acquainted with the facts. However, I am by no means an expert on business, unions, or related subjects. I am writing this post to express my perspective on the EFCA and the debate surrounding it. I am hoping that it will stimulate some sort of discussion, and that members who have more experience with these subjects will be able to refute or support my points.

Now, let's start with the Act itself. The text of the bill (the version online is not the current one under review by Congress, just for the record) states that its purpose is "to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes." The specific provisions of the National Labor Relations/Wagner Act that the EFCA is targeting are those related to secret ballots (9c). Currently, if employees wish to join a union, they are required to initiate a card check. In this, they request blank cards from an existing union, and collect signatures from employees who support the measure. Once 30% of the work force has signed the cards, a secret ballot election may be held to decide whether or not there will be unionization. If the majority of the votes favor the union, it is recognized by the National Labor Relations Board. The Board will not recognize a union that is selected by any method other than this secret ballot.

The theory behind this system is that the secret ballot will best represent the desires of the employees via a method that should protect them from coercion by either union bosses or management itself. However, in practice this is not how it operates. Even if every single employee of an institution sign cards affirming that they wish to be a part of the union, the company can refuse to recognize, and insist that a secret ballot be initiated, in accordance with the Wagner Act. That is, it operates as a stalling tactic. The company becomes aware that its employees are seeking unionization. It insists on the secret ballot, forcing the employees to start from scratch. During this time, even though the ballot is technically secret, the company knows what the employees are trying to do, and can take measures to prevent it. Employees who actively support the union have a 20% chance of being fired, and as many as 25% of all employers facing a legal organizing drive have fired at least one employee who is a supporter. Secrets work both ways; the company has an easy time hiding its tactics. The employer controls the information workers can receive, hold anti-union meetings during work hours, spy on their employees, harass or threaten organizers, and generally do everything they can to work against the ballot. The union itself, on the other hand, is heavily restricted by the Wagner Act in how extensively it is allowed to even communicate with the employees.

For reference, according to the EPI, more American workers are interested in unionization than ever before. In fact, since 2002, it is the majority. According to the Boston Globe, in 2007 only one in five secret ballot petitions resulted in a union contract.

Now, the EFCA does not do away with the secret ballots (despite the oft-used Republican rhetoric that this is 'stripping workers of their right' to a secret ballot; it does no such thing). And, in fact, contains no measures to restrict the actions of management in case of a secret ballot. However, it adds an "out," where if a majority of the employees signed cards during the card check process, the National Labor Relations Board can legally recognize the union. If the workplace is split, the secret ballot will take place. However, if the employees speak overwhelmingly in favor, they can essentially overrule the management. The bill also has provisions relating to securing the union contract, but I will not go into those for the moment.

Opponents of the bill say that this gives undue power unto union organizers. Since it is not secret, it allows the organizers to put pressure on their co-workers to sign, whether or not they agree. This is a legitimate claim. However, since the procedure is not secret at this stage, the employers are equally able to campaign against the unionization, and with far more resources and influence than the organizers themselves. There is also the argument that this forces small businesses to turn over crucial management decisions to federal arbitrators. However, I find it unlikely that a business small enough to be negatively effected in such a way is going to be facing this sort of unionization situation (I can't find any hard facts to support this assertion one way or the other; thoughts?). There are also some stories floating around relating to a letter to the Mexican government signed by several Democratic senators. However, it is not relevant to the facts of the EFCA issue, and so I am ignoring it.

Conservatives are already claiming that this will impact the economy negatively. Doctor Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist from the apparently non-partisan LECG consulting, has claimed that an increase in 1.5 million union members will result in the loss of 600,000 jobs. That is, a one percentage increase in unemployment for every three percentage increase in union membership. I haven't had time to slog through the 45 page paper, so I cannot speak to the accuracy or verifiability of these figures. However, it is, so far that I have encountered, the only remotely convincing argument against the EFCA. The idea that it is stripping the employees of their rights is utterly unfounded; all it does is streamline the process if the majority of employees agree. While it is true that during that preliminary phase union organizers could artificially inflate the number of signatories, there is nothing prevent the employers from engaging in their customary anti-union strategies, which are highly effective (as noted above). The claims about government intervention destroying small business are vague, and I have yet to find figures that would support that assertion.

Thoughts?

[Darth Wong]

I'm not against unions in general, but I am against public-sector unions, because they negotiate with a party which is unlike a private industry employer, and can simply force the citizenry to pay for whatever they negotiate with the union. Normal unions are more keenly aware of the possibility of bankrupting their employer, but public sector unions always negotiate with the understanding that their employer can simply raise taxes or float debt in order to pay for whatever they demand, thus allowing them to harden their position.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm with Mike. In general though, ground-level public organization is terrible need of being shored up in the U.S., with predictable results since the 1970s. I support the EFCA, because we need to reverse the right's clear message that the only acceptable form of community and local organizing and lobbying is the church. As for the rest, send in ten bucks and vote .0002% of your life (if you vote at all). That's how real democracy and liberty works, I swear.

[Darth Wong]

I would also add that while I'm not against unions in general, I would have to say that the bigger a union gets, the more problematic it becomes. Public-sector unions add a whole new wrinkle because of the fact that their income is derived from coercive sources, but the really big private-industry unions are dangerous too. While I am often accused of being "partisan" (the most overused and empty-headed accusation in politics), the fact is that I'm perfectly willing to look at ideas if they make sense, and the dangers of these big unions are real, even if it's conservatives who are warning about them.

The UAW is a perfect example: they have essentially destroyed the domestic auto industry, and the "talking points" they floated in their defense are a joke. Unions are important for protecting workers against predatory employers, but who protects against predatory unions?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I would also add that while I'm not against unions in general, I would have to say that the bigger a union gets, the more problematic it becomes. Public-sector unions add a whole new wrinkle because of the fact that their income is derived from coercive sources, but the really big private-industry unions are dangerous too. While I am often accused of being "partisan" (the most overused and empty-headed accusation in politics), the fact is that I'm perfectly willing to look at ideas if they make sense, and the dangers of these big unions are real, even if it's conservatives who are warning about them.

The UAW is a perfect example: they have essentially destroyed the domestic auto industry, and the "talking points" they floated in their defense are a joke. Unions are important for protecting workers against predatory employers, but who protects against predatory unions?

The UAW needs to be broken. Maybe if the other members of the domestic auto and industry chain were also unionized, than The One Big Union would not be able to exploit all the other workers in its economic area of influence due to their lack of organization and power? The biggest problem with the UAW is all the other poor workers and consumers have no power. So they become just another oppressive minority with their disproportionate and inequitable exercise of power.

[KrauserKrauser]

Exactly how would the UAW allow the other companies unionize unless they could control it? Fighting a big union by creating a bunch of smaller newer unions seems a bit retarded, especially given that UAW would simply lobby for absorbing the union (Not that I know what I am talking about wrt unions absorbing other unions).

How is unionizing the entire auto industry going to do anything to break the back of the UAW?

The biggest problem with the UAW is not whatever the hell you just said, they're gigantic, corrupt and no one has the balls to take them down.

[Darth Wong]

If there were competing unions and employees could freely choose which union they belonged to (as individuals, not just as entire plants which are forced to join as a bloc), that would do serious damage to the UAW. The UAW's chief negotiating power is its monopolization of labour in a given region: its ability to declare that if they say the word, all of the employees will stop work and the employer has nowhere else to go. Employees who won't join are bullied into obedience with threats of violence and destruction of their future job prospects.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Exactly how would the UAW allow the other companies unionize unless they could control it? Fighting a big union by creating a bunch of smaller newer unions seems a bit retarded, especially given that UAW would simply lobby for absorbing the union (Not that I know what I am talking about wrt unions absorbing other unions).

How is unionizing the entire auto industry going to do anything to break the back of the UAW?

The biggest problem with the UAW is not whatever the hell you just said, they're gigantic, corrupt and no one has the balls to take them down.

Oh please. You'd oppose the EFCA with some Limbaugh brush, tarring all unions with the teachers' Unions and the UAW. The U.S. is the only industrialized developed nation without a labor-based (at least in name) political party, and it shows in our history and culture today. Saying all unions and unionization in general is bad because of the teachers' unions and the UAW is like saying capitalism is bad because Bernie Madoff could game it. A more generalized unionized American labor force would provide at least some popular organization distinct from the Establishment political parties and the churches, and might have been able to do something to retard the deliberate dismantling of domestic industry and the decline in the quality of life and equitable distribution of wealth since the 1970s. They're not a one-size fits-all solution, but when I look at the U.S. and then at more unionized, labor-friendly developed nations, I see a systematic pattern of atomization and pro-wealthy public policy which has destroyed almost everything in the United States that was productive or that was democratic. We live in a shockingly undemocratic, economically insecure nation, and the zeal to destroy organized labor at all costs by the American right was part of that.

I'm sure you believe all will be better if we just all individually learned to work hard to rely on only ourselves like the 1950s, and then America will win, because those private jobs always - just always, because it just is true - come back. The problem is we're all lazy and everyone wants a handout. None of those things ever happened in the 1950s, and we beat back the Bear without any taxes. And everyone went to church. Ahh, the good old days.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not against unions in general, but I am against public-sector unions, because they negotiate with a party which is unlike a private industry employer, and can simply force the citizenry to pay for whatever they negotiate with the union. Normal unions are more keenly aware of the possibility of bankrupting their employer, but public sector unions always negotiate with the understanding that their employer can simply raise taxes or float debt in order to pay for whatever they demand, thus allowing them to harden their position.

As I said in the OP, I do not know a whole lot about organized labor (the only union I am involved with is the Freelancer's Union, which is more of a non-profit entity that calls itself a union than an actual organized labor force), so I had always been under the impression that public-sector unions are essentially toothless, and allow the "employer" to do whatever it wants without much negotiation. Are you saying that the reality is more or less the opposite? Or am I misinterpreting the issue?

[Questor]

I think that with public sector unions, things vary quite a bit from chapter to chapter, and from union to union.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not against unions in general, but I am against public-sector unions, because they negotiate with a party which is unlike a private industry employer, and can simply force the citizenry to pay for whatever they negotiate with the union. Normal unions are more keenly aware of the possibility of bankrupting their employer, but public sector unions always negotiate with the understanding that their employer can simply raise taxes or float debt in order to pay for whatever they demand, thus allowing them to harden their position.

As I said in the OP, I do not know a whole lot about organized labor (the only union I am involved with is the Freelancer's Union, which is more of a non-profit entity that calls itself a union than an actual organized labor force), so I had always been under the impression that public-sector unions are essentially toothless, and allow the "employer" to do whatever it wants without much negotiation. Are you saying that the reality is more or less the opposite? Or am I misinterpreting the issue?

The Ontario Teachers Union has a one hundred billion dollar pension fund.

[Aaron]

The Ontario Teachers Union has a one hundred billion dollar pension fund.

Are you fucking serious? That puts their recent threats to strike in a whole new light, children first indeed.

[Darth Wong]

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/408941

A typical teacher retiree will have worked for 26 years, and will expect to collect pension for 36 years. Oh yeah, they lead such a hard life.

[Aaron]

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/408941

A typical teacher retiree will have worked for 26 years, and will expect to collect pension for 36 years. Oh yeah, they lead such a hard life.

Thanks Mike. This makes our pension plan look like a bloody joke, you'd have to get quite high up in the enlisted ranks to get 40K a year as a pension.

[Broomstick]

If there were competing unions and employees could freely choose which union they belonged to (as individuals, not just as entire plants which are forced to join as a bloc), that would do serious damage to the UAW. The UAW's chief negotiating power is its monopolization of labour in a given region: its ability to declare that if they say the word, all of the employees will stop work and the employer has nowhere else to go. Employees who won't join are bullied into obedience with threats of violence and destruction of their future job prospects.

Not just the UAW - as a non-union construction worker/contractor I have occasionally come into conflict with the unionized version. If the local trade unions don't have the power of the UAW to intimidate, threaten, and extort it is largely because they aren't as large and well-funded. Personally, I think having both tends to keep the worst tendencies in check. Union wages enable non-union employees to demand higher wages than they might otherwise get. Non-union workers prevent unions from having a monopoly on labor.

[Stark]

Are you fucking serious? That puts their recent threats to strike in a whole new light, children first indeed.

It's similar in AU also; many branches of public service have excellent wages, benefits etc, but they still strike because a) they can, b) they'll win and c) they're greedy as fuck. I've looked over the union newsletters that talk about what 'needs to be done' and all the ways they're hard done by etc, and it's nearly as bad as the sort of thing Aerius talks about with his union.

[Lonestar]

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/408941

A typical teacher retiree will have worked for 26 years, and will expect to collect pension for 36 years. Oh yeah, they lead such a hard life.

In the US you qualify for a Federal Pension after 20 years working for the government(as a Military dude or civil servant...as opposed to contractor). You have to get extremely high up the chain of command to make decent bank, and most uniformed guys who leave the service at 20 years(as a E8-O5) simply go get another career anyway. Pension isn't enough to live on unless you're a Flag Officer(which means you may be a "analyst" on the news anyway) .

These teachers can retire after 26 years and not have to get another job to retain their standard of living?

[Ekiqa]

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/408941

A typical teacher retiree will have worked for 26 years, and will expect to collect pension for 36 years. Oh yeah, they lead such a hard life.

Thanks Mike. This makes our pension plan look like a bloody joke, you'd have to get quite high up in the enlisted ranks to get 40K a year as a pension.

The reason it is so high, is that the teachers got control of their own pensions, and INVESTED it.

It has NOTHING to do with being a public sector union.

The federal government employee's have the WORST pensions in the country. The Feds use the pension payments from the employees as a fund for running the government. Any attempt by the unions to gain control of the fund is squashed.

Once again, the Teacher's Plan is an investment by the teachers, with NO government control over it. The government just ponies up its part of the funding, much like any other company. If the Ontario government had control over the plan, it would be like the federal or auto plans, which are BILLIONS in the hole, because they were raided by the employers.

If not for public sector unions, public sector employees would have no health insurance beyond OHIP, or whatever province they live in, no pension, no pay raises that are anywhere near equal to cost of living increases, etc...

Why are you annoyed that an employee gets a 2% raise when the inflation rate is higher? If not for his union, it would be lower, and even still, the government has several times legislated its own way.

[Aaron]

The reason it is so high, is that the teachers got control of their own pensions, and INVESTED it.

It has NOTHING to do with being a public sector union.

The federal government employee's have the WORST pensions in the country. The Feds use the pension payments from the employees as a fund for running the government. Any attempt by the unions to gain control of the fund is squashed.

Yeah, thanks for the reminder. IIRC it was Mulroney that raided the CF pension to pay down a portion of the debt.

Once again, the Teacher's Plan is an investment by the teachers, with NO government control over it. The government just ponies up its part of the funding, much like any other company. If the Ontario government had control over the plan, it would be like the federal or auto plans, which are BILLIONS in the hole, because they were raided by the employers.

If not for public sector unions, public sector employees would have no health insurance beyond OHIP, or whatever province they live in, no pension, no pay raises that are anywhere near equal to cost of living increases, etc...

Why are you annoyed that an employee gets a 2% raise when the inflation rate is higher? If not for his union, it would be lower, and even still, the government has several times legislated its own way.

Why am I annoyed at the teachers? Because they pull the same fucking shit every time, "we're doing this for your kids, don't you want to close the funding gap?". I don't begrudge anyone a raise, hell I'd love it if my pension went up more than the projected cost of living each year but be fucking honest about it.

Edit: And BTW I am very pro-union, I would have loved to have had one in the military so we wouldn't have gotten fucked constantly with raises, pensions, time off and a whole list of other shit. I just prefer them to be a little more honest.

[MKSheppard]

Last week, the latest version of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was formally introduced to both chambers of Congress

Is that Card Check? Or whatever it's called now? I love how Secret Ballots are vital for electing our leaders and for deciding unionization in Mexico, but is apparently evil for determining if your workshop unionizes.

[Mr Bean]

[
Is that Card Check? Or whatever it's called now? I love how Secret Ballots are vital for electing our leaders and for deciding unionization in Mexico, but is apparently evil for determining if your workshop unionizes.

I'm confused Sheppard are you trying sarcasm because it comes off like you did not read the OP. So the standard is secret ballot is legal now and if this bill fails it still legal just the only option.

So sarcasm fail?

[Ekiqa]

Yeah, thanks for the reminder. IIRC it was Mulroney that raided the CF pension to pay down a portion of the debt.

snip

Why am I annoyed at the teachers? Because they pull the same fucking shit every time, "we're doing this for your kids, don't you want to close the funding gap?". I don't begrudge anyone a raise, hell I'd love it if my pension went up more than the projected cost of living each year but be fucking honest about it.

Edit: And BTW I am very pro-union, I would have loved to have had one in the military so we wouldn't have gotten fucked constantly with raises, pensions, time off and a whole list of other shit. I just prefer them to be a little more honest.

Actually, its not you I'm so annoyed at, its Mike, with his anti-union, anti-government worker stance.

My father works for the feds, his pension is 2% per year worked, of the average of the last 3 years worked. Really piss-poor. And no bonuses, despite the fact that he's saved the government and the taxpayer his income value dozens of times a year.

[aerius]

Oh boo-hoo, that's roughly the same pension my dad gets from Ontario Hydro. Add in old age security, subtract out the union dues & other costs & deductions, and the fact is the net pension income will be very close to the net income earned while he's working. Same thing for me, same thing for my wife, in fact I'll likely make more money when I'm retired than I do now. Yeah, I'm really gonna suffer in my old age. No worries on inflation either since they're all indexed pensions.

Government workers, and I include myself in this, are fucking spoiled, and we have no idea how good we have it. I've worked in private industry, I know how good the government is in comparison, I'm in full agreement with Mike that anyone who thinks the government worker contracts aren't good enough is a fucking whiner.

[Ekiqa]

So at most 60% of what you make now is equal to what you make now.

You do realize that there is no actual pension fund for federal government employees? And that this government that we have is looking at giving everyone pay cuts, and is targetting women as well?

[Glocksman]

Last week, the latest version of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was formally introduced to both chambers of Congress

Is that Card Check? Or whatever it's called now? I love how Secret Ballots are vital for electing our leaders and for deciding unionization in Mexico, but is apparently evil for determining if your workshop unionizes.

As a ground level grunt in the UNITE side of the UNITE HERE (we're in the process of splitting up, ironically enough given the union's name) let me offer my $0.02 USD.

The problem with the current system is that it gives the employer several months to conduct intimidation campaigns against union supporters before the election is held.

The organizers I've spoken to say that they'd gladly forgo 'card check' if we could get snap elections within seven days of the NRLB being notified that a sufficient amount of workers had signed union cards.
That sounds reasonable to me.

For a little background on my union, let me offer my current wage and benefit package.
I make $12.80/hr as a certified Powered Industrial Truck (that means I'm OSHA certified to operate forklifts, VNA turret trucks, tow motor trucks, and pallet rider trucks) operator at the local TJX distribution center after 13 years of employment.
Unlike a lot of unionized workplaces, our contract only specifies a base wage and a general raise to be granted every June 1 of each year.

To simplify it, a co worker who was hired when the plant opened makes $5 more an hour than I do, despite the fact that we both perform the same job simply because he was hired in 1986 instead of 1996.

IOW, he'll always make that amount more than I do because of the way our contract is structured.
Do I voice my opposition to the seniority based pay scale?
You're goddamn right I do and I've made a lot of enemies because of it.
I've also made a lot of allies.

Local union politics aside, the reason I support my union has little to do with the pay scale and everything to do with the good health insurance we have because of the union.

Due to my heart problems I'd probably be fucking dead by now if I didn't have my 'gold plated' HMO that paid for my valve replacement and pacemaker.

Given the USA's lack of a decent UHC scheme, I literally owe my union my life.

While there are people in my union's regional leadership I don't trust any farther than I can throw the Crown TSP I drive, overall the union has been a net positive for the majority of the workforce.