Regardless of who wins the election, I hope that Employee Free Choice Act passes. With House and Senate races, for the most part, looking good for the Democrats, the bill may pass anyway (I doubt the Dems will do as well as they did in '06 when they lost NO seats and flipped many others.).
But, then again, Wally World and other corporations that oppose the EFCA contribute a lot of cash to both the GOP and Democrats--greasing the skids of government in their favor.
8 comments:
The Employee Free Choice Act is a horrible piece of legislation that I hope never passes.
Why do unions fear secret ballots so much that they want them outlawed?
The EFCA gives employees the choice between secret ballots or sign-ups.
Link: http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/lies--distortion-on-the-secret-ballot-20080730-596-84-84.html
OK, so it doesn't outlaw secret elections, but why do unions want a way around them?
If you fear the employer then would you want a list of people that have 'voted' for unionization to exist?
It is already against the law to take punitive actions against employees for unionizing activities. Enforce existing laws before enacting new ones.
Another thing.
Since congressional and presidential elections are secret ballot, Wal-Mart can bluster all they want to their employees about how to vote. But there is no way for Wal-Mart to force a vote one way or another.
I see nothing wrong with a company telling their employees (or shareholders, or the general public for that matter) that they will 'do better' under one political party or another precisely because of secret ballots.
From what I gather, and I may wrong, the employer wouldn't have access to the names of the employees who signed union cards.
I certainly agree with laws needing to be enforced.
I don't think it's a huge deal that Wal-Mart and other companies are making assertions about who'll they'll be better off with (conceivably) as Prez; I just found the article interesting. It does seem like a waste of a company's time and efficiency to have numerous meetings about the issue though.
Damn liberal Wall Street Journal.
Although Lafer was "commisioned" to do this study, he does point out some weaknesses and openings for coercian under the NLRB.
Link: http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications/general/free-and-fair-how-labor-law-fails-u.s.-democratic-election-standards.html
Now that I wrote that employers wouldn't have access, I'm obviously thinking that they would have to have in some fashion or at least have an outside verifier (not connected with the union and not connected with the employer) to make sure sign-ups are on the up and up.
The EFCA also provides stronger penalties against employers coercing employees or delaying the process of getting a union started. Also, if some employees are unjustly fired or let go because they backed the union, there's stronger legal recourse.
If the majority of employees want a union, they should be able to peacefully establish one, whether it's a closed shop or an open one.
...the employer wouldn't have access to the names of the employees who signed union cards...
Well, they probably aren't supposed to get access. :)
If the majority of employees want a union, they should be able to peacefully establish one...
We're in agreement on that. But I think it is much more likely for a card check to be abused by union organizers than employers.
And secret ballots would prevent bullying from either side.
Post a Comment