No Compromise on the Misnamed Employee Free Choice Act
Dear Senator:
As you and your colleagues continue to debate the issues confronting our nation, we write to express our strong opposition to all efforts to pass any provision included in the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1409/S. 560), and our united opposition to any related legislation presented under the guise of “compromise.”
The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), a group of more than 580 organizations, is united in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) because we believe this bill severely undermines long standing principles of balance and fairness in federal labor law. Make no mistake; the purpose of EFCA is not labor law reform. The legislation is a dramatic assault on the rights of employees and employers that threatens to severely undermine any chance at a constructive dialogue on labor law reform.
The key provisions in EFCA represent egregious attempts to limit the rights of employees and employers and will severely diminish the ability of U.S. business to succeed in our globally competitive market. They 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, exposing employees to intimidation and coercion. Along with that, EFCA could impose on the employer and the bargaining unit a two year, binding contract wherein economic terms such as wages, benefits, and work rules are unilaterally determined by a federal arbitrator for first contracts without a ratification vote by employees or the opportunity for dissent by the employer.
Neither of the above provisions, alone, or in combination, will bring about positive change for American workers or employers. This legislation poses not only an assault on an individual’s right to privacy, but a direct threat to economic growth and job creation. However, as more Senators continue to express reservations or outright opposition to card-check as well as mandatory, binding arbitration provisions within EFCA, discussions have begun in some quarters about the possibility of “compromise.” Let us be clear and frank on this matter; there can be no acceptable “compromise” on any issue of labor law reform due to the very real threat posed by EFCA.
Reports of EFCA’s demise seem rather premature when you consider that the legislation boasts 40 Senate cosponsors and 225 House cosponsors, in addition to being passed by the full House of Representatives in the 110th Congress.
Two main topics that have come up in “compromise” discussions, most notably in Senator Arlen Specter’s (D-PA) March 24 floor speech, are the issues of workplace access and so-called quickie elections. Both access and quickie elections deceptively purport to expedite the organizing process when in reality they sacrifice the rights of employees for the wants of professional union organizers; much like EFCA does.
Union access provisions would give non-employee, professional union organizers the right to enter a workplace during work hours to solicit support during a union organizing campaign. Union access provisions will significantly disrupt the working environment of a business, severely hampering day-to-day operations as employees could be approached regularly by professional union organizers while they are performing their job. Employees who support the union currently have the right to campaign on company property, so union organizers are not without workplace advocates under the current law.
Also, professional union organizers are permitted by current law to contact employees outside of the workplace, in the community, and also visits to an employee’s home, which an employer is restricted from doing.
Practically speaking, professional union organizers currently have the advantage of not being restricted in the promises and commitments that they can make during a campaign (i.e., increased benefits, pay, vacation, etc. which may ultimately be unattainable in the labor contract), while employers are restricted by law in what they can tell employees during an organizing campaign. Worksite access and unfettered union campaigning, combined with one-sided restrictions on employer speech, would provide professional union organizers with a greater advantage.
A legislative mandate for “quickie elections” would impose a limited timeframe to complete a secret ballot union recognition election. A short time table, as little as 7 days in some proposals, can virtually eliminate an employers’ ability to provide employees with adequate information about the union, respond to the union’s comments or unionization generally. Such a scheme allows professional union organizers to “campaign” for months, while providing employees with limited – if any - time to hear from their employer about potential downsides to unionization.
“Quickie elections” can deny employees the opportunity to hear both sides of the argument on unionization. Deciding whether or not to join a union will have long-term impacts on workers lives. Limited election timeframes can unjustly curtail an employer’s ability to convey their point of view to their own employees prior to a secret ballot election. Employees should be able to make informed, as well as private, decisions about this important issue. Hearing from just one side denies them that information.
Current federal law provides employers the important opportunity to make their case to their employees, just as the professional union organizers can make their pitch. And, it is worth noting the reality that, in fiscal year 2008, the average time taken for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to complete a secret ballot election was 38 days (down from 50 days in 1980). And, in 2008, 94% of elections were completed within 56 days, with unions winning two-thirds of those elections. These facts clearly debunk the myth that the current NLRB election process is to blame for the decline in union membership in this country.
While “quickie elections” and workplace access are not the only “compromise” ideas that may surface in this debate, it is important that CDW convey the problems that accompany these proposals so that Senators can understand pitfalls that exist in calls for “compromise” on EFCA.
The signatories of this letter represent hundreds of thousands of employers united in our strong opposition to this legislation and opposed to Congressional passage of this legislation or its individual provisions. We regard this bill as the most direct threat to our ability to continue to operate competitively and create jobs.
We therefore respectfully ask you not to support this bill or any “compromise” legislation. For more information, analyses, and polling data showing that more than 70 percent of union households oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, please visit our coalition’s website at www.myprivateballot.com.
Sincerely,
THE COALITION FOR A DEMOCRATIC WORKPLACE
For a complete list of signatories visit www.myprivateballot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment