Employee Free Choice Act

[Frodo]

And a brief description of the legislation, from Wiki:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) (H.R. 1409, S. 560) is a pending piece of legislation in the United States. Its text states that it would "amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an easier 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 latest version was introduced into both chambers of the U.S. Congress on 10 March 2009.

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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.

The proposed legislation would also establish stricter penalties for employers who violate provisions of the NLRA when workers seek to form a union, and set in place new mediation and arbitration procedures for disputes.

[TeePee4Prez]

D-  Aye

[Franzl]

I - NAY

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye (D).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay(R)

Nothing like a payback to special interests groups from an administration who promised us a change from the way things were done in the past. This bill will destroy small business and I am sicking of Obama driving this economy further into the hole just to pay back the special interests who helped elect him.

[dead0man]

I - NAY

[Marokai Backbeat]

There's no real reason to vote against this other than "I hate unions."

Aye, of course.

[Franzl]

There's no real reason to vote against this other than "I hate unions."

Aye, of course.

I don't hate unions. I do hate potential intimidation.

[Marokai Backbeat]

There's no real reason to vote against this other than "I hate unions."

Aye, of course.

I don't hate unions. I do hate potential intimidation.

I very much doubt any potential intimidation would be worse than already existing intimidation from the businesses themselves and the negative effects that has.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Nay (I/O)

[Ronnie]

Nay (R)

[TeePee4Prez]

There's no real reason to vote against this other than "I hate unions."

Aye, of course.

I don't hate unions. I do hate potential intimidation.

I very much doubt any potential intimidation would be worse than already existing intimidation from the businesses themselves and the negative effects that has.

And you are not wrong on that.  Even worse unions that do exist are scared to death of losing their jobs.  I had to make a less than ideal career move because of a limp dick union that did nothing to help me and the culture of intimidation that prevailed.  And this was a government job too.  Let's just say the Bush appointed NLRB gave government managers free reign to f--k with people and those who complied got handsomely rewarded.   

[War on Want]

D-Aye

[Lief 🗽]

Aye (D). All this bill would do it put the union-owner influence on a level footing, so that workers get the chance to make a real decision.

[Lunar]

D - (Nay)

I mean, I don't have any problems with the idea of unions -- I think they should be free to form by anyone that wants to without a vote and attempt any negotiation they please.  And if the company decides to sign a contract, I see no problem with there being legal avenues to ensure a contract is enforced between parties, like any other contract. 

I see what the labor unions are complaining about -- that the current election-union system allows the company to fire unionizers, delay elections beyond reasonability, etc., and that's all silly and what not, but the solution of having 51% of the employees signing cards result in company-wide unionization seems significantly less fair.

[Associate Justice PiT]

D - (Nay)

I mean, I don't have any problems with the idea of unions -- I think they should be free to form by anyone that wants to without a vote and attempt any negotiation they please.  And if the company decides to sign a contract, I see no problem with there being legal avenues to ensure a contract is enforced between parties, like any other contract. 

I see what the labor unions are complaining about -- that the current election-union system allows the company to fire unionizers, delay elections beyond reasonability, etc., and that's all silly and what not, but the solution of having 51% of the employees signing cards result in company-wide unionization seems significantly less fair.

     I agree that a mere majority being able to enforce unionization is rather unfair, but it also seems like that would be more of an argument in favor of right-to-work laws than against the EFCA.

[Magic 8-Ball]

I: Nay

[Jake]

I wouldn't vote for it.

[opebo]

There's no real reason to vote against this other than "I hate unions."

Aye, of course.

I don't hate unions. I do hate potential intimidation.

Dude, workers are intimidated all day every day by their owners (and their overseers).

[Coburn In 2012]

Nay, R

[JSojourner]

Aye

[Nym90]

A majority of members being able to force unionization is no more unfair than a majority of Americans being able to force taxation.

In both cases the minority that doesn't want to pay still enjoys the benefits (the fact that unions exist at all helps all workers, even non-unionzed ones, as everyone's pay and benefits are higher because employers must keep them high in an effort to keep a union from forming).

The bottom line is that the choice we have is between management holding all the cards and labor being forced to accept management's terms, or the two being on a level playing field with labor and management both having a voice.

Any business owner or CEO who is looking at the long term future of his company and not just at the next quarterly earnings report or stock price understands this, and is willing to give labor a seat at the table and listen to its concerns. It's not just about fairness, it's about good business practice, too, though most shareholders don't care about the long term health of the companies that they own stock in, for obvious reasons, and pressure the CEO accordingly.

And yes, of course all organizations can be and are occasionally corrupt. I don't deny that for a minute, and it certainly applies to both unions and corporate CEOs alike. Management is allowed to campaign against a union on company grounds and on company time; labor should be permitted to make similar arguments in favor of one.

[Bono]

A majority of members being able to force unionization is no more unfair than a majority of Americans being able to force taxation.

In both cases the minority that doesn't want to pay still enjoys the benefits (the fact that unions exist at all helps all workers, even non-unionzed ones, as everyone's pay and benefits are higher because employers must keep them high in an effort to keep a union from forming).

The bottom line is that the choice we have is between management holding all the cards and labor being forced to accept management's terms, or the two being on a level playing field with labor and management both having a voice.

Any business owner or CEO who is looking at the long term future of his company and not just at the next quarterly earnings report or stock price understands this, and is willing to give labor a seat at the table and listen to its concerns. It's not just about fairness, it's about good business practice, too, though most shareholders don't care about the long term health of the companies that they own stock in, for obvious reasons, and pressure the CEO accordingly.

And yes, of course all organizations can be and are occasionally corrupt. I don't deny that for a minute, and it certainly applies to both unions and corporate CEOs alike. Management is allowed to campaign against a union on company grounds and on company time; labor should be permitted to make similar arguments in favor of one.

Which has nothing to do with this bill because unions are already elected by majority vote.

[Lunar]

A majority of members being able to force unionization is no more unfair than a majority of Americans being able to force taxation.

In both cases the minority that doesn't want to pay still enjoys the benefits (the fact that unions exist at all helps all workers, even non-unionzed ones, as everyone's pay and benefits are higher because employers must keep them high in an effort to keep a union from forming).

So is this true in any case where there is a danger of free-riderism?

Let's take the example of an environmentalist lobbying organization that succeeds, from the donations of its members, in curbing pollution in a way that in no way costs the taxpayers any money.  Should I be morally or legally obligated to contribute to them?

I'm not sure if I accept that the social contract automatically applies to the workplace...

[Nym90]

A majority of members being able to force unionization is no more unfair than a majority of Americans being able to force taxation.

In both cases the minority that doesn't want to pay still enjoys the benefits (the fact that unions exist at all helps all workers, even non-unionzed ones, as everyone's pay and benefits are higher because employers must keep them high in an effort to keep a union from forming).

So is this true in any case where there is a danger of free-riderism?

Let's take the example of an environmentalist lobbying organization that succeeds, from the donations of its members, in curbing pollution in a way that in no way costs the taxpayers any money.  Should I be morally or legally obligated to contribute to them?

I'm not sure if I accept that the social contract automatically applies to the workplace...

No, I don't support all workplaces being forced to unionize, of course. But allowing individual members to opt out would destroy the entire system, just as it would with taxation. If that's someone's goal, fine, but at least be honest about the motive.