We all knew it was coming, the question was how long it would take to become a reality. The misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act of 2009” was introduced earlier this week. And my only surprise at H.R. 1409 is that Frank Kratovil’s name isn’t on it as a co-sponsor (at least not yet. The unions do have to get what they paid for last year.)
In a nutshell, what EFCA2009 provides is the opportunity for unions to twist the arms of workers so they sign a card claiming their support for a union shop. Once the union gets 50% plus 1 of the eligible employees the union is allowed in. For their part, the unions claim that management attempts the same sort of dirty tricks but in neither case should a secret ballot be influenced. Apparently unions want to reduce their chances of losing since they only win these elections about 2/3 of the time.
Because the bill has 222 co-sponsors, there’s little chance of it being stopped in the House – in truth, there’s little chance Frank Kratovil will be strongarmed into going into the record as voting for it unless there’s a procedural need to do so. Certainly he knows that the First District would probably rather see good right-to-work legislation than live by the EFCA2009.
Where this bill may be killed is in the Senate – that is if the GOP sticks together and sells its case to the American people. In all honesty we’re probably not ever going to get a significant portion of the hardcore union vote anyway so there’s little to lose by stopping H.R. 1409 dead in its tracks.
On the other hand, by allowing the plunder of small businesses by union locals thirsty for new sources of revenue from the dues they collect (much of which is immediately funneled into the coffers of the Democrats) the GOP puts itself at a severe monetary disadvantage by not stopping this bill. With President Obama already overturning a number of business-friendly provisions enacted under the Bush Administration there’s little doubt that EFCA2009 is yet another payback to Big Labor – one that could yield an even greater dividend than bailing out the United Auto Workers provided.
The group Americans for Job Security has set up a Facebook site to oppose the EFCA2009 initiative, and I encourage those Facebook members who believe that a worker’s right to a secret ballot should remain in place to join. Otherwise you may arrive at work one day to find Guido and Lefty waiting at the time clock with a paper for you to sign.
The GOP is on a diet to become the fact free party.
EFCA does not remove the secret ballot. The current union process already uses the card signing process to initiate the effort. Currently, if 30% of employees sign cards, then they can hold an election. Under EFCA, if more than 50% sign cards, there is no need for an election. However, workers still have the option to hold a secret ballot election.
Read something other than a GOP doomsday article here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2213352/?from=rss
Right. If the workers are being intimidated into signing the cards, do you not think Guido and Lefty wouldn’t be smart enough to make them waive the right to a secret ballot as well?
Shore Things, your article doesn’t back up your point. In fact, it says that EFCA would essentially end the secret ballot.
As you say, if 50% of workers sign a card, a union would be organized. The workers could have an election but such an election is not mandatory. Without mandatory elections, there is no way to ensure that those who signed the cards did so free of coercion and intimidation. Putting the decision to hold elections into the hands of unions is a good way to make sure that workers are forced to join unions they don’t desire. That’s the whole reason Big Labor is pushing for this bill. Their ranks are declining as workers opt out of unionization. This bill would rig the process to inflate unions’ membership and fill their coffers.
I’m not really a big fan of unions. The current state of the auto industry can be blamed mostly on the unions.
The point is that the basic process of starting a union remains unchanged. Get 30% to sign, hold an election. The other side could argue that the 50% rule removes the opportunity for the employer to intimidate workers to vote no.
There is also this factor from the article:
Under card check, a majority of all employees is needed for unionization. With an election, only a majority of voters is necessary.
It could be argued that it would be harder to get 50% of all employees to sign cards than to get a majority of voters.
The Republican argument that EFCA does away with the secret ballot completely is not true. It just adds more options. You can spin it any way you want.
Unions membership has grown dramatically in only one sector as of late, that of government. This is another reason (aside from pork) why the costs of governance is going up. I say it’s all pork, and is it needed? Not hardly!
In 2008 our Prez received over $200 million from unions. It’s payback time, nothing more , nothing less.