EFCA: The Big Misnomer

First off, many thanks to Darren Rumack from the Firm’s New York City office for keeping this blog afloat for the several months while I attended to a number of client matters before the NLRB. I appreciate his enthusiasm and effort and he will continue to be an integral part of this blog as we continue to move forward to expose the true Employee Free Choice Act—which is completely a misnomer, since it strips away employee free choice.

I have to say that I am amazed at how little the business community is aware of the potential for passage of the EFCA and how such will affect their business and the economy. Assuming a Democratic presidency and Congress, this proposed legislation is almost certain to pass. Hopefully members of the Democratic party, of which I am one, will take a serious look at the language of the proposed legislation and realize its potential before just voting, lock, step and barrel, with the party for passage. One such person, with at least some clout, is trying to have his party see the forest for the trees. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, former Democratic Presidential Candidate George McGovern has come out in opposition to the EFCA. McGovern said that the Democratic party "cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election." I agree.

The EFCA’s biggest misnomer is that it will strip away workers’ rights to choose, in a secret-ballot election, whether or not to be represented by a union. Now, of course, unions will argue that this choice is coerced by through the use of pro-employer campaigns that take place at the workplace following the filing of a representation petition at the NLRB. Again, this argument has been taken on by the NLRB which has on a number of occasions said that employees are wise enough to determine fact from fiction, truth from propaganda. However, the union’s disagree with this and want Congress and the President to pass legislation that will allow an automatic certification of the union upon presentation of a majority of authorization cards signed by employees. So, where is the choice? There is none.

It is my hope that over the next several months, right through the Presidential election and beyond, that I, along with Darren and other members of the Firm, will be able to educate readers as to the different aspects of the proposes legislation. Please bear with us, however, demands of the workplace may prevent us from posting weekly, but that is our attempt, if not more. In the meantime, feel free to post your replies (this will force me to respond) or e-mail us (which again will force us to respond)—I don’t like when my clients go unanswered.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (1) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Betty Nebe - August 25, 2008 12:40 PM

My husband works for UPS Freight, formerly Overnite Transportation, in Richmond, VA. He has seen first hand the results of a union vote based on the card check. The union did not talk to any road drivers who were formerly Overnite and concentrated on dock workers for their 50% card checkers. Once the vote date was set, only those who had signed under card check could even attend the Union meeting. As a result, 32 people voted in the union - clearly not a majority of the 141 affected by the vote. Many would not vote because a secret ballot was not available.

Do you know of anyone in Richmond Virginia who is following this debacle of modern democracy?


Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.

Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.