Employee Free Choice Act Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Brian A. Caufield

Article prepared by Darren Rumack and Brian Caufield.

For all the talk amongst labor unions about the importance of passing the EFCA and supporting pro-union candidates, unions have neglected to share one bit of information--the EFCA appears to be a hugely unpopular piece of legislation in some states. 

According to polling data presented by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, nearly two-thirds of voters in Colorado (68%), Maine (72%) and Minnesota (65%) oppose the passage of EFCA, and legislation that would eliminate private ballots in favor of card checks.

In what is sure to be a hotly contested election, the EFCA may become political dynamite for politicians who support the bill’s passage, particularly as awareness of what the EFCA actually entails grows amongst the electorate. 

Once again, the EFCA will be an issue to watch for this fall, and could become a bigger issue than anticipated in many swing states. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Although the Employee Free Choice Act has rightfully garnered much attention for the limits it would place on employers’ abilities to fight union organizing campaigns, organized labor is making a similar push on the state level to restrict employer options during attempts to organize the workplace. 

This blog has posted previous entries regarding state versions of the EFCA here and here, and now comes word of a new piece of legislation in the State of Washington that seeks to limit workplace communications.   The bill would ban employer communications about “matters directly related to candidates, election officials, ballot propositions, legislation, election campaigns, political parties, and political, social, community, and labor or other mutual aid organizations.” This could well limit an employer’s ability to make its case to workers during an organizing campaign.

Its hard to blame organized labor for seeking these changes that would make unionization an easier process for workers. Given the decline of the organized labor movement in this country in recent decades, unions are certainly not the indispensable organization in workers’ lives they once were. 

Really though, while unions have every right to make their lives earlier and to increase their membership, they need to stop hiding behind condescending phrases like “protecting employee’s free choice” or “protecting workplace privacy.” These are power grabs—pure and simple, and has nothing to do with improving the lots of workers in this country.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 13, House and Senate Democrats held a joint subcommittee hearing, criticizing the National Labor Relations Board for a spate of decisions that the Democrats claim undermine workers’ rights to unionize. 

The Democrats voiced their concern over a spate of cases the Board has issued in recent months, including the Dana Corp. decision which has been discussed extensively on this blog.

Sen. Edward Kennedy stated that the Board “is no longer fulfilling its responsibility to protect the voice of American workers.” Kennedy also claimed that the Board has engaged in “an unprecedented rollback” in the protection of workers rights during the past five years.

Given the appointment process of Board members, the NLRB is an inherently political organization, and can be an easy political target. At the same time, the Board is charged with interpreting and ensuring compliance with the NLRA. Recently, Congress and unions seem more preoccupied with blaming the Board for widespread union woes in the country, when in fact, unions should be looking inward to examine their own shortcomings in appealing to workers instead.    

Although this hearing was likely a one-time event, expect to hear more about recent Board rulings affecting union elections, especially as the Presidential Primaries gear up in the next few weeks. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney lambasted President Bush at the first-ever global summit on organizing at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, Maryland.  Sweeney stated that:

President Bush and his cronies have done all they can to destroy workers’ rights around the world. The truth is until we are able to restore basic workers’ rights in the United States, the worldwide decline will not stop. 

Sweeney’s solution: the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act . Apparently, in the AFL-CIO President’s mind, a restoration of workers’ rights involves the removal of the very basic right to a secret ballot election. 

The AFL-CIO seems unable to recognize that workers’ rights are not the same thing as union organizing successes. Perhaps their lack of concern for workers’ free choice is one of the major reasons that private sector unionization raters are at an all time low. 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

AFL-CIO National Organizing Director Steward Acuff is railing against the hijacking of the National Labor Relations Board by “by the corrupt corporate and radical right-wing forces,” supposedly backed by President Bush in a bid to deny the election of ‘progressive’ politicians. 

Acuff’s bone of contention is 61 decision handed down by the Board this fall that he claims “further restrict and weaken already shamefully weak and ineffective workers rights in America.”

Acuff seems to object mainly against the Board’s decision in Dana Corp., which as discussed in previous posts, offers a firm rebuke by the Board against the EFCA, and its would-be allowance of card-check recognition for unions.

It is articles like this that show how out of touch union organizers are with rank-and-file workers. Contrary to Acuff’s belief that secret ballot elections deny workers’ their right to unionize, elections protect a workers' free choice, by allowing them to make a selection by secret ballot free from any immediate pressure or coercion.

Apparently, the AFL-CIO is unable to distinguish between workers rejecting unionization on their own accord with some vast unidentified conspiracy to deny workers their right to unionize.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks