Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

[Lunar]

Like the feds getting involved here?

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/business_lobby_still_hates_the_employee_free_choice_act.php

Late last week, news hit that Democrats were striking the "card check" provision from the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). This is the infamous provision which sought to prevent secret ballot in union voting. You might think that businesses would now be willing to compromise to allow passage of a watered-down version of the EFCA. You'd be wrong.

Another portion of the EFCA would allow either party in a first contract dispute to defer to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for mediation after 90 days. That means that the federal government could ultimately decide issues like pay, pensions, health care and working conditions for private sector employees.

A few months back, when card check was still a hot topic, I remember speaking to several of the most prominent business lobbyists. They all agreed that there could be no compromise so long as the arbitration provision remained. According to them, this provision is just as harmful as card check.

Why's that? They complain that this provision amounts to taking management out of the equation. Because the federal government is so heavily lobbied by labor unions, those against the measure argue the unions would have a distinct advantage in achieving a favorable decision through such mediation. They also worry that federal mediators might not have the all industry knowledge necessary to rule in the best interest of businesses.

[Lief 🗽]

Why's that? They complain that this provision amounts to taking management out of the equation. Because the federal government is so heavily lobbied by labor unions, those against the measure argue the unions would have a distinct advantage in achieving a favorable decision through such mediation.

Oh no, those poor, innocent corporations, being out-lobbied by the mean old labor unions! Whatever will they do?!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why's that? They complain that this provision amounts to taking management out of the equation. Because the federal government is so heavily lobbied by labor unions, those against the measure argue the unions would have a distinct advantage in achieving a favorable decision through such mediation.

Oh no, those poor, innocent corporations, being out-lobbied by the mean old labor unions! Whatever will they do?!

[Lunar]

I just slapped on any old article, that's not really the emphasis of any sort of logical critique of the bill.  The question is whether or not the Federal government should create a contract for both the employees and the management should the two stall in their negotiations.  I think that's a fair one to address without sarcastically picking at the tangents. 

A Republican poster in another thread pointed out that in the eventual future, you'll have Romney [or whoever] cronies dictating these terms, which isn't necessarily good for labor.  On the whole, they probably benefit from the threat of government intervention, of course.

[Marokai Backbeat]

While it's probably true the Republicans and the corporate spokesmen (this may be redundant ) will try to corrupt those terms and twist them into the usual government take-over type rhetoric, I don't see what's so wrong about having some sort of government intervention when these types of major disagreements arise. I mean, as far as you've made it out to be here, this seems like a last resort measure.

Alot of these types of boards were done by Theodore Roosevelt, ironically. (You know how Republicans like to claim they're the party of Teddy? I think Romney's done it once or twice.) In the writing of my timeline I actually had to do alot of research about the events that went down during TR's administration, and the coal strike in the first decade of the 1900's (And read his auto-biography. Did you know TR contemplated sending the Army to run the mines if the owners refused to come to the table?).

The mine owners refused to listen to the miners, the miners refused to go back to work until they were recognized, and it took federal intervention to avoid major disaster and get the people working together again and to act like adults. In the end, major things like that don't happen on that scale most of the time, but I see no danger in allowing the government to come into a stalled out negotiation and say "You and you, grow up and act your age." etc etc, to solve the problems and get things moving again.

[Lunar]

Two questions jump out at me:

1) If it is just to be used in super-rare circumstances, and of issues of national importance, then why is this such an issue of debate?   Why is this the #1 issue that business wants to kill and labor wants to save, now that card-check is out of the way?

What about small and medium-sized businesses who reach an impasse with labor's demands after 90 days?  What is the incentive for labor to even negotiate honestly if they think they can get a better deal from government intervention, and vice versa for business?

2) How relevant is T.R., really?  I'm trying to think of major strikes, that the government could have intervened in...and the only thing that occurs to me is the Writer's Guild Strike that cost the city of L.A. something like $1.5 billion dollars.

A big frickin' deal.  No doubt.  But that strike only lasted 100 days, ]10 days past the point when the government would have intervened.  The strike ended without government interference in about the same time frame, and it's the only one that's ringing a bell.

However, of course, the threat of government intervention will be part of the negotiation process. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lunar, even before the Great Recession started, in most industries if a strike lasted 90 to 100 days, the strikers will find themselves replaced well before then by others willing to work for the wages and conditions offered by the employer, or that the employer has either shut down or relocated.  While the latter two conditions are likely to still pertain, unconsensual binding arbitration removes the threat of being permanently replaced that workers face if they strike, so even if the arbitration is scrupulously fair, its addition to labor law does represent a significant tactical advantage for unions.

[Nym90]

Labor unions have more influence with the government than corporations? Even with the current Administration and Congress, this is a laughably far cry from being true.

[Lunar]

.. if it's so laughable, why would Labor be fighting for it and Big Business fighting against it?  There's got to be a reason somewhere why labor wants federal intervention if negotiations are delayed.

[Nym90]

.. if it's so laughable, why would Labor be fighting for it and Big Business fighting against it?  There's got to be a reason somewhere why labor wants federal intervention if negotiations are delayed.

Well it will help to level the playing field somewhat; labor would like this, while business would prefer to keep their current large advantage. I was laughing at the idea that labor would actually have a greater amount of influence overall than business.