SEARCH
Employee Free Choice Act: Keeps the Secret Ballot, Adds Another Option |
|
 |
|
Some people just don’t get it. Sen. Norm Coleman (R) from Minnesota is one of those who don’t get—or purposely misrepresent—the Employee Free Choice Act. The measure, which passed the House in March and now is in the Senate (S. 1041), would strengthen workers’ freedom to form and join unions.
Earlier this month, we shared how union members met up with Coleman as he headed for a speaking engagement at the University of Minnesota campus. When workers asked him to support the Employee Free Choice Act, the senator said he could not back the proposed law. We just got the video from the event.
In his exchange with union members, Coleman repeated the incorrect canard that:
This act takes away the right to a secret ballot.
Wrong. The Employee Free Choice Act does not take away the ballot-election process (which all-too often is controlled by the employer). The act would add another option, the majority sign-up process, in which workers seeking to form a union could sign cards indicating their desire to do so. Majority sign-up is much faster than the government-run balloting process and leaves less time for employers to harass and intimidate workers so they will back off from joining a union.
Watch the video and you’ll see how Coleman insists, over and over, the Employee Free Choice Act takes away the right to a secret ballot, despite union members telling him it does not.
Maybe he had only one talking point.
13 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The following is an e-mail of response from representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina concerning the employee free choice act. I found it interesting the his response was very similar to that of Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Basically, showing that this is some sort of standard response, possibly coached to them by their big money corporate buddies….you think?
Dear Brian ,
Most Americans understand the fundamental fairness and rightness of a secret ballot. They understand that one’s vote is a right and when it becomes public, a person can be subject to intimidation and coercion. So it is no secret I opposed H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. The bill reached the floor on March 1, and it passed on a vote of 241-185.
The Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate the rights of employees to vote by secret ballot in union organizing elections. Instead, under the act, unions could organize a workplace through the card check system in which employees are asked to sign cards if they want a union in their workplace. Such a system allows union organizers to intimidate and coerce “holdouts” and to divide a workplace. As the director of the National Right to Work Committee said, we would expect unions to make a more persuasive case, rather than coercive one, that workplaces need their representation.
The act also would impose stiffer penalties on employers who violate union protections under the law, and force contract negotiations into binding arbitration if the employer fails to agree on a contract with a newly formed union within 90 days. Those provisions would guarantee an upper hand to unions at contract negotiations who could make outrageous claims for wage and benefits increases, knowing that arbitrators will likely “split the difference” with management.
The Employee Free Choice Act is presently under consideration in the Senate, and there is no indication that the Senate will address the matter quickly. I’d encourage you to contact your United States Senators with your concerns. If unions are necessary, they need to make their case with facts and reason. No one should be intimidated into signed a union card that everyone can see. South Carolina is one of the least unionized states in the country with strong right-to-work laws that help create jobs at a time they are leaving high-cost unionized states. In a global economy, we need to remain competitive and innovative and unions in the past have been an impediment to workplace innovations and technology. On the other hand, if employers do not show proper regard for their employees, unionization will grow.
Thank you again for contacting me. For more information on this and other issues, visit the Fourth District’s Web site ( http://www.inglis.house.gov ).
Best regards,
Bob Inglis
Senator Coleman’s response feigning concern over the secret ballot system is a coached response for an excuse not to vote for the bill. Probably some sort of Replican strategy to help out the big money corporate buddies. His pledge to sit down to discuss possible violations of a workers right to organize is very hollow. Likely, a worker would get about what they got in the video. A coached excuse and a couple of handshakes. I received a response from Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina which basically used the same excuse not to back the bill. Citing that it would take away the workers right to a secret ballot. It is rather obvious that these politicians are siding with the employers rather than the laborers on these issues. I have sent a rather lengthy response to Rep. Bob Inglis, even going as far to say that the south’s “right to work” concept is their answer to the abolishment of slavery. Giving workers the right to work for low wages, little or no benefits, little or no job security, no representation or voice in the workplace, etc. The e-mail from Inglis is as follows (pasted from my email account):
Dear Brian ,
Most Americans understand the fundamental fairness and rightness of a secret ballot. They understand that one’s vote is a right and when it becomes public, a person can be subject to intimidation and coercion. So it is no secret I opposed H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. The bill reached the floor on March 1, and it passed on a vote of 241-185.
The Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate the rights of employees to vote by secret ballot in union organizing elections. Instead, under the act, unions could organize a workplace through the card check system in which employees are asked to sign cards if they want a union in their workplace. Such a system allows union organizers to intimidate and coerce “holdouts” and to divide a workplace. As the director of the National Right to Work Committee said, we would expect unions to make a more persuasive case, rather than coercive one, that workplaces need their representation.
The act also would impose stiffer penalties on employers who violate union protections under the law, and force contract negotiations into binding arbitration if the employer fails to agree on a contract with a newly formed union within 90 days. Those provisions would guarantee an upper hand to unions at contract negotiations who could make outrageous claims for wage and benefits increases, knowing that arbitrators will likely “split the difference” with management.
The Employee Free Choice Act is presently under consideration in the Senate, and there is no indication that the Senate will address the matter quickly. I’d encourage you to contact your United States Senators with your concerns. If unions are necessary, they need to make their case with facts and reason. No one should be intimidated into signed a union card that everyone can see. South Carolina is one of the least unionized states in the country with strong right-to-work laws that help create jobs at a time they are leaving high-cost unionized states. In a global economy, we need to remain competitive and innovative and unions in the past have been an impediment to workplace innovations and technology. On the other hand, if employers do not show proper regard for their employees, unionization will grow.
Thank you again for contacting me. For more information on this and other issues, visit the Fourth District’s Web site ( http://www.inglis.house.gov ).
Best regards,
Bob Inglis
Great post! The vid is quite good in showing how Norm just sticks to his right wing talking points no matter what. I’ve added this excellent piece of smack about Norm to the
Norm Coleman Weasel Meter
http://www.mnblue.com/norm_coleman_weasel_meter
Thanks!
The Big E
i submitted 2 comments where r they?
Come on! I have previously addressed in a comment on this blog why the Big Labor claim, without additional explanation, that the EFCA “allows secret-ballot elections” is misleading at best. No one has offered a substantive response to my comment. Instead, the blog goes on making the same misleading claim. So I will make the same point, again and again, until it is honestly addressed.
The fact of the matter is, if the so-called “EFCA” passes, and a union collects cards from 50.1% of workers in a “bargaining unit,” the union will get certified as the “exclusive” bargaining agent without an election, even if 10%, 30%, 60%, or 90% of the workers sign a petition objecting to certification without an election.
In such a case, workers won’t be able to file for a decertification election until years have passed.
The EFCA “allows” elections only when union officials find them convenient. Union PR on this point is extremely disingenuous.
Stan Greer, Newsletter Editor
National Right to Work Committee
Talk about “disingenuous.”
In Stan Greer’s “hyopothetical” scenario 50.1% of a workforce would file for union certification while at the same time, 90% would be filing against certification.
This would assume that 80% of the people who filed for a union turned around at the same moment and filed to get rid of the union they just completed filling out a card to certify.
Interesting. I had also received a form letter response from my Representative but just presumed it was from the same old Boehner I’ve always known about. Imagine my surprise to be the exact words of his reply to me about this issue.
I knew the Republicans in Congress were mind-controlled or in collusion, but I never knew how much. This is something everyone needs to jump on, and not just for the Republicans — I’ve a feeling my Democratic Senator just sent me a Party Form Letter.
Like I said “right to work”, what a phrase…….wonder who Mr. Greer is rubbing elbows with on this issue? WHO DOES YOUR COMMITTE REALLY REPRESENT MR. GREER? “right to work” what a joke…..”right to work” for low wages, “right to work” for little or no benefits, “right to work” with no voice in the workplace in order to address working conditions,”right to work” with no job security,”right to work” with limited ability or protection to address safety and health issues…….”right to work” under the wing of fear of getting fired over unjust cause with no representaion…..oh yeah, buddy…….”RIGHT TO WORK” UNTIL THEY FIRE YOU FOR EVEN WHISPERING ABOUT UNIONIZING!!!!!!! GIVE ME A BREAK MR. GREER!!!!!!!!……..You obviously are out of touch with the realities of the average american worker or the rampant injustice we have commonly suffered for a long time now. It’s propaganda like yours that will drive this country right into another “great depression”. Maybe you should pay a visit to some of the average workers in america with no union representation and take a real good look at their quality of life. Why don’t we compare notes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics? What do you say? Or do you want to insist on your theoretical empty hooplah? or maybe you should take another look at the U.S. Constitution which allows us the freedom to assemble or the national labor relations act section 8 which is supposed to allow us the freedom to unionize and protect us from retalitation for participating in union related activities. Why do I get the feeling you are on the wrong website? Maybe you should go check our unionbusters.com………get a grip, will ya?
Here are some general Bureau of Labor statistics for you Mr. Greer, why don’t you keep some of these issues in mind before you spew your union bustin propoganda again?
Let’s start with a statistic concerning comparative wages shall we?; “In 2006, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $833, compared with a median of $642 for wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions. The difference reflects a variety of influences in addition to coverage by a collective bargaining agreement, including variations in the distributions of union members and nonunion employees by occupation, industry, firm size,or geographic region. (For a discussion of the problem of differentiating between the influence of unionization status and the influence of other worker characteristics on employee earnings, see “Measuring union-nonunion earnings differences,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1990.)
NOW let us take a look at some statistics representing the damage that anti-union propaganda and anti-union government policies (official and un-official)have done, especially under the Bush Administration; “The number of persons belonging to a union fell by 326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million. The union
membership rate has steadily declined from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available. About 1.5 million wage and salary workers were represented by a union on their main job in 2006, while not being union members themselves. Slightly more than half of these workers were employed in government.”
MAYBE we should compare the lowest union membership rates to the most povery stricken states in the union? Let’s start with this statistic, shall we?; “Among the five states reporting union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2006, North Carolina and South Carolina continued to post the lowest rates (3.3 percent). That’s a big surprise…….No wonder Rep. Bob Inglis isn’t pro-union. They have practically shut-out the unions……….
MAYBE more clear definition of the national labor relations act is needed?; What is the National Labor Relations Act?
Congress approved the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 to encourage a healthy relationship between private-sector workers and their employers, which policy makers viewed as vital to the national interest. The NLRA was designed to curtail work stoppages, strikes and general labor strife, which were viewed as harmful to the U.S. economy and to the nation’s general well-being. The NLRA extends many rights to workers who wish to form, join or support unions, also known as labor organizations; to workers who are already represented by unions; and to workers who join together as a group (two or more employees) without a union seeking to modify their wages or working conditions, which is known as protected concerted activities.
The NLRA also extends rights to employers, protecting commercial interests against unfair actions committed by labor organizations, and extends rights to labor organizations, protecting organizational and collective-bargaining representative interests against unfair actions committed by employers.
The NLRB’s Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act presents a summary of the Act in clear, easy-to-understand language.
The Act outlines basic rights of employees as follows:
To self-organization.
To form, join, or assist labor organizations.
To bargain collectively for wages and working conditions through representatives of their own choosing.
To engage in other protected concerted activities with or without a union, which are usually group activities (two or more employees acting together) attempting to improve working conditions, such as wages and benefits.
To refrain from any of these activities. (However a union and employer may, in a State where such agreements are permitted, enter into a lawful union-security clause).
IT AMAZES ME THAT SO CALLED “RIGHT TO WORK” ADVOCATES BELEIVE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO LIMIT EXISTING LEGAL RIGHTS!!!!! I DON’T SEE ANYTHING IN THIS ACT STATING THAT THE EMPLOYERS HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTROL OR DICTATE THE METHODS BY WHICH A UNION IS FORMED BY THE WORKERS. IT’S A SHAME THAT WE HAVE EXISTING LEGISLATION OF THIS CALIBER AND “THE POWERS THAT BE” CONTINUE TO MANIPULATE AND CONTROL OUR LEGAL RIGHTS. EMPLOYERS HAVE CONTINUE PINPOINT, TEST, AND EXPLOIT EVERY POSSIBLE LOOPHOLE THEY CAN CONCEIVE IN THIS ACT TO UNDERMINE EXISTING UNIONS AND WORKERS INTERESTED IN UNIONIZING.
KEEP UP THE FIGHT BROTHERS AND SISTERS! DON’T GIVE UP! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!
Here’s some more info for ya pal! per the AFL-CIO WEBSITE; “Some 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could, based on research conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in December 2006. But when workers try to gain a voice on the job by forming a union, employers routinely respond with intimidation, harassment and retaliation.
During union election campaigns, management routinely coerces employees to convince them not to choose union representation. According to a survey of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election campaigns in 1998 and 1999 by Cornell University scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner, private-sector employers illegally fire employees for union activity in at least 25 percent of all efforts to join a union.
Employees not fired fear losing their jobs if they support union representation. According to the Bronfenbrenner survey, management forces employees to attend group anti-union presentations in 92 percent of all union campaigns. Brent Garren, senior associate counsel for UNITE HERE, told a House subcommittee this past September that 79 percent of workers agreed workers are “very” or “somewhat” likely to be fired for trying to form a union.
The Employee Free Choice Act would reform the nation’s basic labor laws by requiring employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers sign cards authorizing union representation. It also would provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes and establish stronger penalties for violation of the rights of workers seeking to form unions or negotiate first contracts. The act had bipartisan support of 44 senators and 215 representatives in the 109th Congress, and the AFL-CIO expects even greater support in the 110th Congress.
Ok so-called National Right to Work Committee, you brought up a desire for a subsstantive response…….you wanted some facts……you wanted some statistics………I have presented numerous “credible sources” of information……what have your really presented?……..you wanted to accuse me of being disengenuous with some off-base and unrealistic data that you pulled out of, dare I say, “nowhere”. What you got to say? If your rhetoric is that shaky, i’m starting to worry about your job security (Mr. Glenn) to tell you the truth……
Maybe if you had ever actually fought for workers rights concerning “actual” cases of FMLA, OWCP, discrimination, back pay, overtime and holiday pay, leave, unjust discipline, just cause for discipline, and safety & health as I “actually” have (in the real not theoretical world) as a union representative, you might have a little better idea of what the heck your talking about…….
I am not going to debate with you guys about every topic under the sun in this forum. The Committee and Right to Work’s research arm, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, have already published a great deal of information regarding the economic benefits of Right to Work laws and the question of whether or not most workers are really dying to join a union, as the unpublished AFL-CIO-commissioned poll by Peter Hart, whose wording has never been publicly released, allegedly shows.
For people who want more information on these topics, I recommend visiting http://www.nilrr.org — the web site of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research. (I work part-time for NILRR myself.)
Here, I will only address whether it is impossible for a majority of workers to have signed union “authorization” cards and a majority of workers to have signed a petition opposing unionization at approximately the same time in the same bargaining unit.
It most certainly is possible, and a number of cases already settled or now pending at the NLRB involve just such a situation. I’ll mention just one.
Just a few weeks ago, officers of Service Employees International Union Local 49 in Oregon agreed in an NLRB settlement to cede their recognition as the “exclusive” bargaining agent of roughly 32 employees of the cleaning contractor SBM at the Siltronics site in Portland.
Although, according to SBM, a majority of employees had signed union “authorization” cards prior to its “voluntary” recognition of Local 49 in October 2006, it is a fact stipulated by all parties that the vast majority of employees had, prior to union recognition, signed a petition opposing unionization.
Why workers who oppose unionization might nevertheless sign a union “authorization” card is a topic for another day. The fact that workers who don’t want a union frequently do sign union “authorization” cards isn’t even debatable.
Stan Greer
National Right to Work Committee
Well, how bout this? If the NLRB would do a better job enforcing the damn National Labor Relations Act, maybe we wouldn’t even have to fight for more legislation!!!! Did ya ever think about that? There bout as corrupt as the rest of the government agencies that have been dropping the ball……..
It really isn’t a big surprise to me that you are involved with some sort of so-called labor relations propoganda machine. Your just supporting a propoganda machine that has been created to attempt to reinforce big corporates grip on this country and oppress people. I trust labor relations types about as far as i can throw them, most labor relations specialists are more like lawyers for management than anything else and half the time the NLRB is too busy trying to figure out how to keep employers out of hot water, than enforcement of the act! Who’s to say we can believe your institutes data anymore than we can believe half the tainted data that the government puts out?
Your whole point is typical double talk. First, you say the unions will intimidate and coerce people. Now, you say union opponents might sign a card for the union? blah, blah, blah, blah……this is all about helping people to unionize, don’t you understand? The harder it is to unionize and the longer the process takes, the more opportunity employers HAVE BEEN exploiting the opportunity to fire, union-bust and intimidate workers. This is all about oppression of the people and maintaining power over them. Which is ridiculous because, more often than not, without collective bargaining the employers do not take care of the workers, the way they should be (including health and retirement packages). When this happens, the burden shifts to the public and the tax-payers, which ultimately does nothing to strengthen this country. So good luck with your so-called labor relations activities……If the “right to work” is so economicallly beneficial to the country then why is the country goin down the tubes economically? It sure isn’t the unions fault. Your helping to “right to work” stuggling workers right into more debt and despair….While your complaining about your ballots blah, blah people are suffering injustice in this country!!!Sell-outs never cease to amaze me…..
Hello Sisters & Brothers,
I went to a debate a few months ago beteen the Chamber of Commerce and SEIU on the EFCA.
The spokesperson for the chamber made the statement that the EFCA eliminates the secret ballot. She also cited a poll that most union members supported the secret ballot, but did not say in what context of using the secret ballot.
Union members who have volunteered their time to help out in organizing drives know that there is no such thing as the “secret ballot.” Management knows how workers are going to vote. There is such a high degree of employer coersion, that even workers who wear union hats and buttons end up voting against themselves.
Let’s get some letters-to-the-editor in our local newspapers to support the EFCA.
In Solidarity,
Ralph Lyke
Local 624, UAW
East Syracuse, NY