Live: Employee Free Choice Act Hearings

Paul Pimentel from the Sheet Metal Workers, otherwise known as Paul VA,  is blogging live today on the Employee Free Choice Act hearings now under way on Capitol Hill. The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800), supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, would level the playing field for workers and employers and help rebuild America’s middle class.

The following is a summary of comments from committee members and witnesses in regards to today’s Education and Labor hearing on the Employee Free Choice Act.

The committee chairman, Rep. George Miller, began the hearing by discussing how every working person deserves a free and uncoerced choice over whether or not to join a union. He continues to remark that if a majority of employees in a bargaining unit wish to join a union, there is no reason they should be hampered in doing so.

He describes how there is a need for a major change in majority sign up where employer veto power over worker’s rights to choose is eliminated.

He furthers the point by expressing the problem with how many unscrupulous employers are blocking the way to a “prompt and expeditious” first contract.

Miller takes a pre-emptive shot at the naysayers who are looking to continue the precedents set by our nation’s broken labor laws.  He states there will be concerns about secret ballots and that it is an issue of significant disagreement - but that the record will show that there is no secret but long and negative history of coercion under the status quo. Under the present manner there is an extremely coercive environment and and that the secret ballot concludes a system which is patently unfair.

The ranking Republican member, Phil Kline promises that he will disagree without being disagreeable but he cannot disagree more with this bill. He reads off from some prepared text stating that this bill is anything but free choice and that the current system is thoroughly monitored.

His argues furthermore by essentially placing the right to a secret ballot above that of free speech and asks the committee not to discuss whether or not being a member of a union is better for employees. Has some concern about how this will turn into an exposition of how unions are better for workers which he states should be discussed another time by the committee.

He brings up examples of workers who supposedly do not want union benefits but refuses to give their full names and only gives their initials and state of residence.

He claims that nobody should know how you vote when you’re organizing, but does not cite any examples of how one on one meetings are used by union avoidance experts to determine this under duress.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (2)