This Just In. . .

The House Education and Labor Committee Republicans provided a copy of the text to H.R. 1176: The Secret Ballot Protection Act.  Republicans on the Committee of Labor and Education.

Briefly, the Secret Ballot Protection Act seeks to amend the National Labor Relations Act in two substantative areas.  First, it will make it unlawful for an employer to recognize or bargain with a union that has not been selected by a majority of its employees through a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.  Second, it will make it unlawful for a union to cause or attempt to cause an employer to recognize or bargain with a union that has not been selected in the same manner.

The Republican version is simplified and, the way I see it, will not raise as many procedural questions as the current Employee Free Choice Act.  So, now that there are competing versions of bills attempting to bring about private sector labor law reform the apt saying now is:  Game on!!

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://employeefreechoiceact.foxrothschild.com/admin/trackback/115327
Comments (2) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Jay - March 3, 2009 12:26 AM

How do opponents of the EFCA reconcile the fact that the majority of employee threats and intimidations come from employers and not unions? These cases have been indisputably verified by the NLRB. I think to say that over 25 percent of employees face threats and intimidation from their employers during a campaign would not be an overstatement given the overwhelming number of documented cases which have come before the NLRB? I am always open to fair and honest discussions, but these commments are highly disingenuous when exposed to the iluminating light of facts and reality as they exist for employees of many companies. Obviously, to say that this is always the case would not be a truthful statement, but there is no doubt that this is the norm and not the exception in a disproportionate amount of situations.

Jay - March 3, 2009 12:51 AM

How do opponents of the EFCA reconcile the fact that the majority of threats and intimidation against employees come from employers and not unions? These cases have been indisputably verified by the NLRB. To say that over 25 percent of employees face threats and intimidation from their employers during a campaign would not be an overstatement given the overwhelming number of documented cases which have come before the NLRB? I am always open to fair and honest discussion on any matter, but these negative assertions against EFCA are highly disingenuous when exposed to the illuminating light of facts and reality, as they exist for employees of many companies. Obviously, to say that this is always the case would not be a truthful statement, but there is no doubt that employer threats and intimidation are the norm and not the exception in a disproportionate amount of situations.

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.