thetruthaboutefca.com | The Truth About The Employee Free Choice Act & Card Check

Shopfloor.org’s Carter Wood points readers to an important item regarding the binding arbitration provision of the comically misnamed Employee Free Choice Act.

Of particular note should be one attorney’s reminder of a 1970 law involving the National Labor Relations Board:

Allowing the Board to compel agreement when the parties themselves are unable to agree would violate the fundamental premise on which the Act is based—private bargaining under governmental supervision of the procedure alone, without any official compulsion over the actual terms of the contract.

Some think EFCA’s “card check” provision will be kicked to the curb, but the binding interest arbitration provision still violates basic common sense, as well as the intent of the National Labor Relations Act. The practical applications won’t be pretty, either.

An avid reader and friend of The Truth About EFCA points us to an alarming story…

A federal judge has ordered Illinois Central Railroad Co. to reinstate a conductor who spent 16 months in federal prison for embezzling union funds (United Transp. Union v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., N.D. Ill., No. 08 CV 4001, 3/16/10) …

Click through for the entire absurdity, Aside from being bothersome, why does it reach to the level of alarming? Simple: It shows how ridiculous an arbitrator’s decision can seem, and the so-called Employee Free Choice Act — even if stripped of the most notorious “card check” provision — carries language that would impose a government arbitrator into the labor-relations process. That spells trouble, and it’s yet another reason EFCA is the wrong track for America.

There’s a fantastic letter to the editor running up in Detroit that discusses the all-too-infrequently discussed binding interest arbitration provision of the Employee Free Choice Act. James Wahlman of Troy writes in:

Parties to first contracts could arbitrate their issues now, but rarely do, because they would be turning over their wages, benefits and working conditions to a third party who probably has little or no expertise in the parties’ business, no practical experience in their operations and, most important, will not have to live with the consequences of the decision.

The very important business of labor relations and bargaining is best left to the parties involved, no matter how imperfect the process may be.

Indeed, even the best-intentioned arbitrator can not know the full business needs of any firm or any single workforce. It’s like asking a general practitioner to do open heart surgery: you could get lucky, but more than likely the patient isn’t going to make it.

To leave an employer and employees in such a position as to have their interests superseded by a government bureaucrat is to totally abdicate business and moral responsibility.

Interesting news out of our friends at the Workforce Fairness Institute, which has released a new poll examining attitudes of Nevadans about card check and the tragically misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. The poll is of sufficient interest to garner the attention of the Las Vegas Sun, which reports:

The poll showed 57 percent of respondents oppose changing the way unions are organized and 64 percent oppose allowing mandatory arbitration to settle organizational disputes between workers and managers, as is proposed under the bill.

The poll also showed more voters would be less likely to support political candidates who support such changes.

The second figure — the one showing opposition to allowing the government to impose labor contracts on small business — is important because it shows that even if card check were dropped from EFCA, the bill would still be disastrous and unpopular.

Nevadans — well, most of them — know that EFCA is the wrong way to go. Check out this video from the state’s own Sen. John Ensign on why he opposes the Employee Free Choice Act.

One of four Democratic politicians hoping to fill the vacant seat left by the late Ted Kennedy has received a glowing personal portrait about his efforts to live up to Kennedy’s legacy, especially with respect to the sadly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act.

The Valley Advocate writes of Mike Capuano:

“I think that actually one of the problems in this country right now is that too few people are organized,” said Capuano, noting that the rise in union membership in the U.S. corresponded with the rise of the middle class—and the decline of unions with the decline of the middle class.

“I’m for whatever it takes to allow people their own choice whether to organize or not,” he said. In recent decades, labor laws have tilted too far in the direction of anti-union employers. “I’m just trying to level the playing field again.”

Well, we’ll gloss over most of that since it’s boilerplate talking points for organized labor’s head honchos. What we’re amazed by is the willingness to say one is “for whatever it takes to allow people in their own choice whether to organize or not.”

Certainly the Employee Free Choice Act’s two killer provisions — card check that takes away an employee’s ability to vote on whether or not to join the union and government-imposed contract arbitration which can take away the right to vote on a contract — actively work against allowing people their own choice of organizing and working conditions.

To take the claim a step further, if Capuano were really concerned whether people had the choice to not organize, wouldn’t he support a “right to work” law which would ensure that no employee were forced to pay a union for representation?

We certainly hope that is what Capuano means, but we certainly doubt it.

Richard Greeley, a legislator from Massachusetts, says card check doesn’t pass the smell test:

Here’s the point: The right for a private citizen to vote with a secret ballot, be it for a candidate for public office or whether or not to unionize, is the one thing that mitigates the physical and emotional intimidation tactics used by groups who wish to coerce the individual into voting how he doesn’t want to vote.

The unions can pester, harass and harangue the employees, often following and calling them at home, until they get them to sign the card. Fifty-one percent of the employees signatures gets the union in.
Once this “democratic” process has played out and the union is in place, both sides would have 120 days to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached, the government steps in as binding arbitrator. The great and powerful wizards of Washington will then decide all the terms of a two-year agreement with no vote from the company, or its employees. Harsh financial penalties for mistakes made during the union certification process will only be levied to the employers, of course. We’ve heard this before. “I’m with the government, and I’m here to help.”