SEARCH
On Fox News, Acuff Cuts Through the Spin About Employee Free Choice |
|
Here’s a delightful surprise from, of all places, Fox News. When Neil Cavuto interviewed Stewart Acuff, special assistant to the president at the AFL-CIO, about the Employee Free Choice Act, he was pleasantly surprised to find that, contrary to corporate spin, the Employee Free Choice Act does not take away the secret ballot process.
Acuff appeared Friday on “Your World with Neil Cavuto” to bust some of the myths and disinformation that has run rampant about the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill vital to restoring the right to form unions and bargain for a better life.
Cavuto—clearly going on what he’s heard from the corporate shills and political spinners who hope to block the Employee Free Choice Act—asked Acuff whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election process for joining a union would be made illegal or eliminated under the Employee Free Choice Act. Cavuto was shocked when Acuff replied that it wouldn’t. In fact, the only change the Employee Free Choice Act makes is that it puts the decision of whether to use a ballot or majority sign-up in the hands of the workers, not their boss.
Said Acuff:
I’m for workers being able to decide how they choose whether or not they want to be in a union.
Both [majority sign-up and the NLRB process] are legal today, but under current law, management gets to decide, and under the Employee Free Choice Act, the workers will decide.
Here’s another surprise from Acuff for those who rely on the corporate anti-union campaign for information: Forming unions through majority sign-up has been legal for decades and works fine at workplaces around the country and around the world. Unfortunately, that right can be hijacked by bosses, who under current law can refuse to accept the wishes of a majority of employees who want to. Indeed, current law is badly imbalanced, and companies completely dominate the NLRB process.
Cavuto doesn’t yet realize that in far too many cases, employers not only block the freedom of workers to form unions, they are actively hostile to the process. This isn’t limited to Cavuto—according to our latest survey, fewer than half of the general public understand that corporations use threats, intimidation, high-priced union-busting consultants and even illegal firings to prevent workers from bargaining for a better life.
Acuff noted that in the seven decades since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRB has handed down fewer than 50 decisions of union misconduct, compared to the many thousands of corporate acts of intimidation, harassment and even firing of workers that happen every year. That’s another statistic that’s obscured by anti-union hacks and should come as a shock to the pundits and reporters who buy the corporate line.
The Employee Free Choice Act doesn’t take any rights away from workers, and the big-money corporate front groups know it. That hasn’t stopped them from building a national disinformation campaign that has Cavuto so confused. What are they really scared of? They know that the Employee Free Choice Act would give employees the power to bargain for the better wages, benefits and conditions they deserve. For CEOs accustomed to big checks and no accountability, that’s a terrifying thought.
Here’s a message to Neil Cavuto and the media covering the Employee Free Choice Act: Stop taking the corporate lobbyists, lawyers and shills at their word, and start looking at the facts. Corporate misbehavior has prevented millions of workers from having the freedom to bargain for a better life, and the Employee Free Choice Act will restore the balance and put the power back where it belongs.
8 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Myth vs. Reality: The REALITY is the Employee Free Choice Act Helps American Workers and their Families
As more and more working Americans struggle to make ends meet, the ability to form a union is key to the economic stability, health, and well-being of American families. Union workers’ median weekly earnings are 30 percent higher than those of non-union workers, union workers are 63 percent more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and union workers are 77 percent more likely to have short-term disability benefits. According to a recent poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans would join a union if they could. (AFL-CIO, “The Union Difference: Union Advantage by the Numbers.”)
Loopholes in our current labor laws have left millions of workers vulnerable to aggressive anti-union campaigns, in which unscrupulous employers intimidate, harass, and even fire workers who try to form unions. Even when they succeed in forming a union — often despite intense pressure from their employers — nearly one-third of newly-organized workers are unable to enter into a collective bargaining agreement. The widespread failure to attain a first contract is due in large part to the lack of effective penalties for employers that fail to bargain in good faith.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), sponsored by Senate and House Democrats, would level the playing field and restore workers’ freedom to form unions and collectively bargain by: 1) strengthening penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees; 2) establishing mediation and binding arbitration guidelines when employers and workers cannot agree on a first contract; and 3) enabling employees to form unions when a majority express their desire to do so by signing authorization cards.
http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org
Despite the need for reform, critics of EFCA continue to misinform the public about the bill and hide the serious shortcomings of current labor law. Democrats are committed to setting the record straight and passing this important legislation on behalf of American workers and their families.
MYTH: EFCA will prevent the use of secret-ballot elections.
REALITY: EFCA does not strip workers of their right to choose a secret-ballot election to decide whether to select — or not to select — a union representative. EFCA simply gives workers the additional option of selecting a union representative by majority sign-up.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), there are three ways for workers to form a union:
1) By secret-ballot: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will conduct a secret-ballot election to select a bargaining representative if at least 30 percent of workers have signed a petition or authorization cards in favor of a union. If a majority of workers voting select a particular union, the NLRB will certify that union as the employees’ bargaining representative. EFCA does not change this process.
2) By voluntary card-check recognition: An employer can voluntarily decide to recognize a union representative if a majority of employees have signed authorization cards in favor of the union. EFCA does not change this process.
3) By NLRB-ordered recognition: As a last resort, the NLRB can order an employer who has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely to recognize a labor union if a majority of employees have signed authorization cards in favor of the union. EFCA does not change this process.
EFCA would simply add a fourth choice for workers seeking to form a union. The legislation would require the NLRB to certify a union representative if a majority — more than half — of workers sign authorization cards in favor of the union.
The majority sign-up, or “card-check,” option would simply streamline the union selection process for workplaces that have a majority of workers who want to join a union. This is the same majority that would be voting in a secret-ballot election. Moreover, the majority sign-up process already exists, but only if the employer chooses to recognize it. EFCA would extend the right to select a union representative via the majority-sign up process to workers themselves.
MYTH: Secret-ballot elections are the fairest way to select a union representative.
REALITY: Secret-ballot elections in the union context can leave employees vulnerable to virtually un-checked employer intimidation and coercion.
Under current law, once workers have petitioned the NLRB to hold a secret-ballot election, there is no set timetable for holding that election. Employers who are determined to prevent the formation of a union often use this period to threaten, discriminate against, de-mote, dock the pay of, and even fire pro-union employees. Studies have shown that one-quarter of private-sector union organization drives result in employee firings, and one out of every five workers who openly advocate for a union is fired. Unfortunately, current law includes weak remedies that fail to deter employers from engaging in these practices. At best, the NLRA will order the employer to stop its wrong-doing and reinstate an improperly fired employee and force the employer to pay back-pay, that is, unless the employee has found a job in the interim.
EFCA would toughen the penalties against employers who engage in these unfair labor practices. In addition to ordering an employer to stop the practices, the legislation would require employers to pay employees who are fired as a result of union organizing activity, during an organizing campaign or first contract drive, treble damages (i.e. back-pay, plus liquidated damages two times that amount.). The bill would also impose civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers who willfully or repeatedly violate workers’ rights in forming a union.
MYTH: Secret-ballot elections are the most democratic way to choose a union.
REALITY: Though EFCA gives workers the choice to select a secret-ballot election or the majority sign-up process, these secret-ballot elections are nothing like our federal, state, or local candidate elections. The NLRB’s election process, for example, stifles free speech and democratic debate by restricting the ability of unions and pro-union workers to communicate with employees, while allowing employers free access to workers every day.
Unlike other elections, where candidates are allowed equal access to voters during the campaign, current labor laws allow employers to bar unions from the workplace and refuse access to employee contact information until just days before the election. While strict limits apply to when and where pro-union employees can campaign to form a union, employers can require workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, one-on-one or in a group. Employers may also direct supervisors, who control pay and promotion, to deliver anti-union messages to workers and attach anti-union literature to paychecks. A recent survey found that employees who have gone through the NLRB election process are twice as likely to report employer coercion as those who participated in a majority sign-up process.
EFCA would give workers the option to choose a different, simpler, and fairer method of union selection — majority sign-up, which reflects a key tenet of Democracy — majority rule.
MYTH: Majority sign-up is untested and will increase intimidation and harassment of workers by labor unions.
REALITY: Majority sign-up has been well-tested for over 70 years. Further, under EFCA, worker intimidation and/or coercion by any party, including unions, will remain strictly prohibited.
Majority sign-up is nothing new. Workers have been forming unions through majority sign-up since 1935. The method for obtaining authorization cards is already established and used via the voluntary card check recognition and the secret-ballot election processes. Indeed, more workers form unions via card check than via secret-ballot elections. In 2004, approximately 375,000 workers joined AFL-CIO unions through majority sign-up, while approximately 73,000 workers used the NLRB election process. (AFL-CIO, “Over 70 Years of Experience with Majority Sign-up.”)
While the critics of EFCA claim that, under the legislation, unions may intimidate workers, under current law, employers, employees, and unions are barred from engaging in unfair labor practices. Improperly obtained authorization cards are already invalid and cannot be counted towards majority sign-up. Moreover, in more than 70 years, there have been very few instances of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining card signatures. Nevertheless, to ensure the integrity of the card check process, EFCA would require that the NLRB develop guidelines for selecting a bargaining representative via majority-sign up, including model language for authorization cards and procedures to verify the validity of authorization cards.
MYTH: EFCA would require “public” union card signings.
REALITY: EFCA would preserve current confidentiality requirements, which require the NLRB to keep authorization cards and the identity of signers confidential to protect workers from employer retaliation.
MYTH: EFCA will “silence” employers.
REALITY: Nothing in EFCA alters the rights of employers to speak-out against a labor union.
Under the legislation, employers would still be free to campaign against a union, as long as they do not threaten or intimidate workers. EFCA only strengthens penalties for employers who engage in unfair labor practices.
MYTH: EFCA’s mediation/arbitration guidelines will force unwanted contracts on employers and employees.
REALITY: EFCA does not force unwanted first contracts on parties acting in good faith; the legislation, however, would give parties an incentive to come to the bargaining table.
Under current law governing the first contract process, there is no effective penalty for refusing to bargain with newly certified union representatives. As a result, employers may “stonewall” the first contract and effectively block the benefits of a labor union. A recent study found that 34 percent of union election certifications do not result in a contract for workers.
To get parties to the table, EFCA provides a starting schedule and a framework for negotiations. The parties have a minimum of 90 days to bargain on their own and may extend negotiations for as long as they need to. If the negotiations are unsuccessful, either party can seek help from a mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), which enjoys an 86 percent success rate. If after 30 days mediation fails to result in a first contract, FMCS can refer the dispute to an arbitration panel, but the parties can still extend the period by mutual agreement or agree to return to the bargaining table. Only if the parties agree to arbitration and arbitration fails to result in a first contract will the arbitration panel impose contract terms on the issues the parties have not yet decided. Even then, the contract is only binding for two years and can be amended by written consent of the parties.
For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog
http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org
http://efcanow.blogspot.com/
glad the truth came out here and in the bill moyers interview with the usw president
Hurray! Thanks to Steward Acuff for delivering the correct message on Employee Free Choice, i.e. why it’s call “EMPLOYEE Free Choice” not “EMPLOYER Free Choice.
Hopefully the new administration will make fundamental changes to the way the NLRB has operated for the last 8 years. My own experience with them when i brought a employer complaint (i was “laid-off” to allow my supervisor to hire his ex-wife and mother of his children” - his words) was to be told that if i had a problem with the union that represents me they would be happy to act, but they would do nothing for an employer/ employee dispute.
I’m not exactly sure what this is going to mean for my husband. He works for a company that is large enough to have a union, however, they have been threatened that they will lose their jobs if they even think the word union. I’ve seen them do some pretty shady things as well like just this past year they built a new building to fit their growing number of employees and new product lines and the workers didn’t get the raises that they were used to. I told my husband to go pick out a brick and put his name on it because he paid for it. His job is very hard and it involves a lot and he should have gotten a lot more than the third of a dollar he got. His review for this raise was the best he had ever had as well and still got almost nothing. I don’t want to say his company name because we can’t afford for him not to have a job. I used to belong to a union when I worked for Verizon. It was a huge difference from working in a manufacturing factory that didn’t have a union.
This is why the EFCA has to become law and be strongly enforced. I know too many people who are in the same predicament as you, and are fearful of losing their jobs simply because they want employee protections and bargaining rights by belonging to a union. GREED is the ONLY thing that prevents businesses from allowing unions in their places of work. GREED is what has been driving the rapid decline of American industry, jobs and wages; greed, coupled with the “laissez faire” attitude and lack of regulations of our government. Changes are necessary. But, if enough people stand firm and hold their ground, they can make a difference. Look what happened at Republic Windows & Doors in Chicago.
I am curious as to why we do not take this opportunity to fight back against “Right to Work” or “Paycheck Protection” or any other scheme to weaken unions across America. The anti-union forces fighting the EFCA are stating they are all about democracy, secret ballot etc. In a democracy the majority express their wishes through the voting process. If the majority votes in favor of say a tax increase, then the increase goes into effect for everyone regardless of how they voted. Nearly all of the unionized facilities in this country came to be unionized through secret ballot elections. Why then do 35-36? states have right to work laws? Why should the same standards not apply to union elections. If the majority vote for a particular union then everyone should pay Beck Dues (Cost of representation) to the union at the very least. We need to call them on their hypocrisy now. Let’s take the opportunity to pull their britches down and expose them for the two-faced lying SOB’s they really are every chance someone like Brother Acuff gets the chance.
It’s about time labor leaders are getting some air time on national media including the right wing FOX to put the truth out. Corporate robber barons fear unions because the workers out number the employers and workers getting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work eats into the golden parachutes and multimillion dollar salaries of the CEOs.
I agree we need to take the fight against the “Right to Work” (for less) laws and “Paycheck Protection” to the airwaves too, let working American’s see the truth and let labor be the leaders in spreading the word to workers to stop believing the corporate union busting lies.
Well done labor!!!