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

Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act could have serious unintended consequences, according to a new study from Dr. Anne Layne Farrar. The paper, undertaken for the Alliance To Save Main Street Jobs (of which Associated Builders and Contractors is a member) specifically finds that the increased unionization that comes with EFCA’s effective elimination of private ballot elections will harm the economy and cost millions of jobs.

Specifically, the report finds:

• If an additional 3.9 million workers are organized under EFCA (a 3 percentage point increase over 2008), another 1.6 million workers will either lose their jobs or not be able to find new employment (a 1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate)
• If EFCA results in a 10 percentage point increase in organized workers, up to 5.4 million Americans will become unemployed — a 3.5 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate over current levels
• “The costs [of EFCA] should be carefully weighed against any purported benefits of passing the Act, all of which appear to benefit some groups at the expense of others. There is no coherent theoretical argument that explains how the higher costs, greater legal uncertainty, and expanded government intervention entailed in EFCA will improve overall social welfare.”

We agree. And editorial pages agree. The Tribune-Democrat in Pennsylvania has just published an editorial urging their own Sen. Arlen Specter to oppose EFCA. While the senator currently does not have a stated position, the paper argued:

Specter and others on the card-check bubble may be feeling pressure from union lobbyists who say that making such efforts easier would help balance a weak economy that is shedding jobs.

However, the more likely result is that broader unionization could force some small businesses out of the marketplace, and would force large companies – especially retailers – to reduce their employment numbers to offset added costs.

ABC continues to work to educate Members of Congress, reporters, and the general public about this job-killing legislation. But we need your help. Share the truth about EFCA.

The twitter world is experiencing a minor tweetfest on the effort to convince Americans that EFCA would actually be a net positive for the economy. Union groups are crowing that they’ve scratched together 40 economists saying as much (40 economists and a five-dollar bill will get you a cup of coffee in New York City). We have a pretty strong hunch that there’s plenty of academic research out there — published and not as yet — proving otherwise.

Here’s one reminder that EFCA will cost jobs:

These changes would tilt the balance of power in favor of unions, and come at the expense of workers, employers and the overall economy. We know from a substantial body of research that the key to a prosperous labor market is adaptability, both on the part of employers and employees. Indeed, a growing body of research confirms such flexibility in labor markets results in better job creation, investment and prosperity compared to more heavily regulated labor markets.

For example, Harvard professor Rafael Di Tella, along with his Princeton counterpart Robert MacCulloch, looked at 21 industrialized countries from 1984 to 1990 to ascertain the influence of labor market flexibility. They found that flexible labor markets enjoyed lower rates of unemployment, and in particular lower rates of longer-term unemployment.

What does that mean in plain English? Simple: EFCA will cost jobs.

Following the recent effort to bolster support for the Employee Free Choice Act, in which a union group recently ran an ad in the Washington Post saying that 40 economists actually think EFCA would help — yes, help — the economy, the H.R. Policy Association weighed in.

The group released an analysis (click here) that looked at government data and concluded:

Few would disagree that a strong middle class is a key public policy objective. However, government statistics confirm that changing the nation’s labor laws to increase union power is unlikely to have a positive impact on achieving that objective and may, in fact, negatively effect workers as illustrated by the collapse of the American steel industry in the 1980s and the challenges facing the U.S. auto industry today.