LABI (The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry) just released the following alert concerning card checks:
Congress returned to Washington, D.C. this week from its Easter break to begin hearings on bills, including the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) bills (S. 560 by Sen. Ted Kennedy and H.R. 1409 by Rep. George Miller). Details regarding these bills appear below. Action on S. 560 could occur as early as May. The unions have ratcheted up their pressure on Congress in the wake of recent declarations by some of their congressional allies that they are pulling their support for the bill. Labor bankrolled a national TV ad and grassroots campaign during the congressional recess. Things are heating up with this legislation, and it is time for you to weigh in with our congressional delegation.
The national union leadership is highly motivated to pass S. 560/H.R. 1409, and they are literally banking on it. During the first quarter of 2009, there was a substantial decline in petitions filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to request secret ballot union certification elections. On average, there were 738 petitions filed during the first quarter in each of the five years prior to 2009. However, there were only 483 petitions filed in the first quarter of this year – a major 35% decline. Why? We suggest that union organizers are literally “holding their cards close to their vests” – the signed cards they’ve already obtained from workers. They are sitting on signed cards signed in the expectation that Congress will soon pass the legislation, at which time they will present those cards to the NLRB and demand to be certified as the bargaining agent for the workers. Those workers might even be some of your own!
Below is information that you can use to develop your personal message to Louisiana’s delegation to express your opposition to the EFCA bills. It is absolutely critical that they hear from you. Only an overwhelming outcry from employers and employees against the EFCA will sway Congress. The vast majority of Louisianans do not support the EFCA, but if we do not speak out, our members in Congress have no way of appreciating the depth of their constituents’ opposition to these bills. Not only should you contact our members of Congress, but you should encourage your business associates and your employees to contact them, as well.
THE EFCA AND WHY IT’S BAD
Enactment of the EFCA undermines long-standing principles of fairness in federal labor law in an effort to slant that law in the favor of unions against employers. It would do away with a balanced, proven approach to labor/management relations and, in effect, remove from workers a level of protection when choosing whether or not to be represented by a union. A secret ballot ensures that neither the employer nor the union knows how someone votes. While the EFCA is being promoted as “labor law reform” to level the playing field and allow employees to more easily form unions, it does not represent “reform” in any sense of the word. Rather, it is a dramatic assault on the rights of employees that threatens to severely undermine any chance of a constructive dialogue on labor law reform.
The two key provisions in this legislation constitute an attempt to limit the rights of employees, and such provisions will diminish the ability of Louisiana’s businesses to succeed in the globally competitive marketplace. These provisions include:
- The effective elimination of secret ballot voting replaced by a mandate that a union be recognized by a simple majority of signed authorization cards. This is the provision from which the “card check” nickname for the bill comes. If this provision is enacted, the current system of a federally supervised election process by which employees decide whether or not to have a union in their workplace would rarely, if ever, occur. No union would chance a secret ballot election when getting a few more signatures on cards would guarantee victory.
Furthermore, unlike the secret ballot election in which all employees get a chance to weigh in on whether they are to be represented by a union, the card check procedure disenfranchises some workers. Employees who are not offered a card to sign would be forced into a union without ever getting to vote and would effectively have no voice in the decision. So, contrary to proponents’ assertions, the legislation would essentially result in employees having less – not more – ability to decide if they wish to be represented by a union.
In contrast to the secret ballot, the card check process would expose employees to a “free for all” environment where any tactic for getting a signature could be used. It is well documented that the card check process for obtaining signatures is routinely characterized by peer pressure, deception, harassment, intimidation, and coercion, including employees being threatened in their homes and other locations away from the workplace.
During a 2004 Senate hearing, Clarice Atherholt of Dana Corporation testified that her company’s employees were pressured by the United Auto Workers (UAW) union in a number of ways during a petition drive just to call an election, including unsolicited home visits. Atherholt said, “Many employees signed the cards just to get the UAW organizers off their back, not because they really wanted UAW to represent them.” Indeed, studies have shown that as many as 28% of workers who sign the cards don’t vote for the union in the privacy of a voting booth.
- A two-year binding contract wherein economic terms are unilaterally determined by federal arbitrators for first contracts without a ratification vote by employees. Currently, after a union has been recognized, the parties bargain to a first contract and there are protections to make sure both sides negotiate in good faith. Under EFCA, if a first contract is not agreed upon within 120 days the matter would have to be submitted to binding arbitration and a two-year contract developed and imposed by a panel of government bureaucrats possessing little understanding of the business or the competitive forces it faces.
This contract would cover precise details of how that business would operate for the duration of the contract, including matters such as wages, benefits, ability to use employees most productively, and how many employees would be used for specific tasks. This process would virtually always result in a contract that is beyond what the employer is prepared to accept and provides a strong incentive for the union to drag its feet in negotiations to ensure that the process lasts long enough to end in arbitration.
Finally, this provision would result in employees losing a second vote since they would have no opportunity to ratify the contract, as they currently have in most cases. While the “card check” provision has received most of the media attention, this provision is equally offensive to employers and workers alike.
Neither of the above provisions, alone, or in combination, will bring about positive change for American workers or the businesses that employ them. It is regrettable that the unions have decided to take this route to addressing any shortcomings they may perceive in the procedures for union certification elections. There was a time when unions fought for a worker’s right to a secret ballot election. Now they want to change the rules because they do not win as often as they would like.
Secret ballot elections are the hallmark of democracy. This process has withstood the test of time, not only because of its legitimacy, but because it has signified the democratic principles that our country was founded upon: personal freedom and choice. As residents in a Right-to-Work state, Louisianans overwhelmingly support the right of workers to freely choose whether or not they want to be in a union. S. 560/H.R. 1409 fly in the face of that freedom to choose.
A LABI-sponsored poll conducted last fall shows that Louisianans understand this. Unlike many recent polls about the EFCA, this poll explained the current process for union certification elections and the one that would replace it under the EFCA before respondents were questioned. The poll found that 73.6 % of those surveyed favored the right of workers to a federally supervised private ballot election. When questioned specifically about the EFCA, 64.9% opposed it. And the response among unionhouseholds was even stronger, as 90.7% favored the current system and 72.3% opposed the EFCA. Clearly, the people of Louisiana get it.
This legislation is not only an assault on a worker’s right to privacy. It is a direct threat to economic growth, job retention and job creation. It would have a particularly devastating impact on small employers, who are the primary source for new jobs in our economy. It is a common misperception that unions only look to organize large corporations. In fact, they are far more interested in smaller companies that are more vulnerable because they do not possess the resources to defend themselves against a union organizing campaign.
What is more, unions can organize individual, distinctive work units. Thus, the organizer need only go after an employer’s mechanics or just its clerical staff. Once the union has its foot in the door, it can begin to try to unionize the rest of that employer’s workforce. No employer is immune, and with less than 6% of Louisiana’s workers being union members, our state is a target-rich environment.
Particularly at this time of economic uncertainty, Congress should not enact measures that reduce America’s economic competitiveness. The unions claim that the EFCA should be considered in the context of helping to revive the economy. This bill is anawful idea in good economic times and a catastrophic one during these difficult times. S. 560/H.R. 1409 are anti-business, anti-worker, anti-Right-to-Work, and only intended to satisfy the interests of organized labor.
WHAT MESSAGE TO WHOM
The Situation
In 2007, the bill passed the House easily. However, the Senate failed to bring the bill up for a vote when a vote to invoke “cloture” failed. Cloture is a Senate procedure to end debate and take an immediate vote on the bills under discussion. Without invoking cloture, a filibuster – unending debate -- effectively prevents the bill from advancing.
There are still more than enough votes in the House to pass the bills. However, conservative House Democrats have urged their leadership not to bring the bill up for a vote until the Senate acts on it, since there is a real possibility that the bill may not clear the Senate. As the bills are controversial, representatives from conservative districts would rather not have to vote (bleed over) unless it is going to pass the Senate, too.
Where Louisiana’s House Delegation Stands
Representatives Alexander, Boustany, Cassidy, Fleming, Cao and Scalise are all opposed to the EFCA bills. Thank them for their opposition and urge their continued efforts against these instruments on all fronts.
Representative Melancon has signed on as a co-sponsor of H.R. 1409. Let him know that you are disappointed and urge him to withdraw his support for the bills.
Where Louisiana’s Senate Delegation Stands
Senator Vitter is opposed to the EFCA bills. Thank him for his opposition and urge him to continue his fight against these measures.
Senator Landrieu declined to sign on as a co-sponsor of S. 560. She is deliberating whether to support or oppose the bills. The key vote on the legislation in the Senate will again be whether or not to invoke cloture. If cloture is invoked, there are enough votes in the Senate to pass the EFCA. Thank Sen. Landrieu for not supporting this legislation as a co-sponsor and urge her to oppose cloture any time such a vote regarding this bill occurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment