Colin Kavanaugh | Building a more effective EFCA
Sen. Specter's work to thoroughly debate the issues in a unionization bill is something we should all appreciate
· March 30, 2009, 5:00 am
I have a confession to make: I don't want the Democrats to have a filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate. I know, I know, this is heresy, and I'm betraying all kinds of liberal-college-campus protocols here. But with a 60-vote supermajority, Democrats could pass whatever legislation they want without the slightest input from Republicans. And an unchecked majority is like drinking heavily by yourself: No one's there to stop you, it's socially questionable and you'll probably give yourself an awful hangover.
If there is anything I have learned at Penn, it's that anyone can bond over a drink, no matter your background. And as a Democrat growing up in Oklahoma, where only one-in-three voted for Barack Obama, I spent most of my high school years trying to have my political views taken seriously. For this reason, I understand the importance of respecting the minority opinion, and because of that I come to the defense of Pennsylvania's Republican senator.
Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate whose support enabled the passage of the stimulus package, is opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, organized labor's No. 1 issue, arguably in decades. Despite unions promising him support in his 2010 re-election bid if he votes with them, Specter is still refusing the legislation in its current form. This deals a significant blow to the divisive bill, and it will likely not pass based on his opposition alone. More on Specter later, but let's clear up a few things on EFCA:
Under the new bill, which amends the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, unions would be able to form simply by a majority of workers signing a petition in favor of unionization. Currently, workers vote privately on whether or not to form a union, which theoretically protects them from coercion from pro-union employees. Business groups argue the petition clause removes the right of employees to a secret ballot, and they argue that in a tough economy, this is just more pressure that could make recovery more difficult.
On the other side, though, Jim McCasland, vice president of the Dallas AFL-CIO, argues secret ballots are more in line with the USSR's modus operandi than the U.S.'s. In the secret-ballot scenario, McCasland and other proponents argue, workers are vulnerable to threats from management, including loss of employment. Either way, workers are left open to competing interests, and Specter wants that to be addressed.
These tensions aren't new, and they're the reason why no significant changes to labor law have been enacted since 1959, when roughly 33 percent of workers were unionized. Since then, the number of unionized workers has dropped to just 12 percent. Because of the diversifying economy, labor law has failed to keep up with the changing union-business dynamic. With these declines in union membership, unions hope EFCA will lead to a numerical comeback, giving them a better footing to negotiate with businesses and bring wages up.
Unfortunately, unions' tactics to get workers on board with EFCA haven't been exactly kosher. "Union officials visit workers' homes with strong-arm tactics and refuse to leave until cards are signed," Specter said in his opposition speech, based on Senate testimony. Writing in the Harvard Law Review, he noted both sides have been "misleading employees about the consequences of choosing union representation and, in extreme cases, threatening employees with physical harm." Clearly, something is wrong and needs to be fixed on both sides of the argument.
And that's why Specter is right to oppose the legislation in its current form. Specter's influence is palpable, as more Democratic senators are reconsidering their support of EFCA. They understand that something must be worked out between the competing sides to allow workers the right, and option, to unionize in a fair, independent and productive format.
For his willingness to get it right, rather than just get it done, Specter is forcing the kind of independent discussion a democracy prides itself on. As Specter prepares for a tough primary fight against a conservative Republican and then a challenging reelection in a Democratic state with a million union workers, Pennsylvanians should remember to respect, in Specter's words, "independent thought and an objective judgment."
At the very least, it's about time for business and labor to share a drink and talk it out.
Colin Kavanuagh is a College sophomore from Tulsa, Okla. The Sooner, the Betters appears on alternating Mondays. His email address is kavanaugh@dailypennsylvanian.com.
Comments (8)
Bob
December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm
Flag this comment
Jim McCasland, vice president of the Dallas AFL-CIO, argues secret ballots are more in line with the USSR's modus operandi than the U.S.'s Replace the word "USSR" with "Employee" & replace "U.S." with "Union", you'll get a more accurate translation of Jim's statement. The beautiful thing about a secret ballot is that neither the union nor the business can influence the employee's decision, right? Would you want a business representative (who is being paid to promote the business's agenda) visiting an employee's house with a card asking them if they wanted to vote no or yes on a union? The secret ballot protects a person from being coerced, period. Very well written article, Colin. Good job.
Working Class
December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm
Flag this comment
The beautiful thing about a secret ballot is that neither the union nor the business can influence the employee's decision, right? Wrong. Workers who are pro-union get fired, moved to graveyard shifts, or have their hours cut. Employers can require their workers to come to a meeting where outside union-busting consultants present all sorts of fallacious arguments for why the workers shouldn't join the union. I've seen employers deliberately divide their workplace along racial/ethnic lines to hurt organizing efforts... making the union a "Black" or "Latino" issue. Employers can lie all they want about the consequences unionization will have. "It'll force us out of business, [please don't make us pay you a living wage!], union reps will control how much you get paid, the union will take 25% of your paycheck" etc. They control the workers' livelihood.... they use that power to do a lot more than "influence" an employee's decision. Employers have 1000% more ability to "coerce" their workers than some random union organizer or co-worker does. Secret ballots under the NLRB are much more akin to a dictatorship than to a democracy. The boss it the tyrant, and labor law absolutely fails to hold him accountable.
Management
December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm
Flag this comment
Two words whose absence makes this column completely irrelevant and uninformed: Pat Toomey.
EFCANOW
December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm
Flag this comment
Thinking Outside The Box to Get The Employee Free Choice Act EFCA Passed! http://efcanow.blogspot.com/ Over the last few weeks while many corporate front groups like the Coalition For Democratic Workplace, Save our Secret Ballot and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Smile and grin on the fact that Senator Arlen Specter (R - PA).and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have retreated from supporting the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in its present form, both labor leaders at the forefront of this fight and George Miller (D - CA)., Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA] must start thinking outside of the box to get the Employee Free Choice Act EFCA passed. One way to do this is to introduce separate bills in both the House and the Senate based on some of the provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).Both Senator Arlen Specter and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have indicated they would seek alternative legislation that was less divisive. By separating the Employee Free Choice Act into mini bills vs. its entirety the big business corporate front groups would have less to attack. Peter N. Kirsanow a former member of the National Labor Relations Board from January, 2006 to January, 2008 under the Bush administration stated in his recent blog; Senator Specter signaled a receptiveness to possible amendments to the National Labor Relations Act ("Act") that purport to remedy what he perceives as defects in the current system. In fact, he's detailed several of the changes he'd like to see. These include, among other things, "quickie elections" that would be conducted between 10-21 days of the filing of a union election petition, a form of "equal access" that would give unions access to employees on employer premises, enhanced penalties for unfair labor practices, and expedited bargaining schedules imposed by the NLRB. He also appears open to "last best offer" arbitration of contract terms. Furthermore, Senator Specter didn't rule out reconsidering EFCA if reforms to the Act aren't implemented or if the economy improves. The timing of Senator Specter's remarks is interesting. When EFCA was reintroduced in both Houses two weeks ago, Senator Harkin repeatedly invoked "equal access," as if to signal a possible compromise based on that concept The elimination of secret-ballot elections was the big drag on EFCA's prospects for passage. Now that card check may be off the table, EFCA opponents have lost their most effective talking point. Consequently, wavering senators may now be more inclined to vote for the remaining provisions of EFCA, plus quickie-election/equal-access provisions that make union organization almost as easy as card check. Senator Specter's announcement merely concludes Round Two according to Peter N. Kirsanow. So Now Lets take Peter N. Kirsanows advice and think outside of the box. What could these mini Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) bills look like? Here are just a few I come up with: 1. Majority Sign up based on a dual card membership card. Under this proposal the employee would choose either to have his union membership card be used for a petition to be filed on his behalf by a labor organization to conduct a secret ballot election by the National Labor Relations Board or he or she may desire to waive their right to a secret ballot election by indicating that they wish to have their union membership card be used for the purposes of having a card check under the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Press Below for more on this. http://efcanow.blogspot.com/2009/01/amending-employee-free-choice-act.html In either case it is NOT the Union, Management, nor the National Labor Relations Board who decides what their union membership card is going to be used for, it is the Employee who decides. This would now give new meaning to the spirit of the Employee Free Choice while taking these corporate front groups biggest arguments away from them that it would eliminate Ã? secret ballotÃ? elections. Based on this alternative there is no question about it. The employee has a free choice to decide which method to use. 2. An alternative to the 50 plus 1 is to make it 60 percent for certification. Since corporate front groups continue to compare a National Labor Relations Board election to a Federal election then if 60 votes is needed for cloture then 60 percent should be needed for the Board to certify the individual or labor organization as the representative of the bargaining unit as long as the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS as stated under Text of H.R. 1409: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT as stated under Text of H.R. 1409: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009. 5. To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to provide labor organizations with equal access to employees prior to an election regarding representation as stated under Text H.R. 1355. 6.To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to provide labor organizations with equal access to employees prior to an election regarding representation prior to any organizing drive to see if such employee wish a desire to be represented by a labor organization or individual. 7. Authorizing the NLRB to impose treble back pay without reduction for mitigation when an employee is unlawfully fired. 8. Conduct quicker elections rather than 42-day period. 9. Prohibit the use of anti-union consultants as persuaders once an election is filed or notice to an employer by a union sent. 10. Prohibit mandatory union-busting meetings by an employer all meetings would now be voluntary for both sides. 11. Modify the NLRA to give the court broader discretion to impose a Gissel order on a finding that the environment has deteriorated to the extent that a fair election is not possible. 12. On a finding that a party is not negotiating in good faith, an order may be issued establishing a schedule for negotiation and imposing costs and attorney fees. 13. Broaden the provisions for injunctive relief with reasonable attorneysÃ? fees on a finding that either party is not acting in good faith. 14. last best offer" arbitration of contract terms. 15 Authorizing the award of reasonable attorneysÃ? fees on a finding of harassment, causing unnecessary delay or bad faith. 16. Putting a time limit for objections to be heard and resolved. In conclusion by thinking outside of the box by using a shotgun approach to the Employee Free Choice Act rather than all your Easter eggs in one basket approach corporate front groups would now be in a tailspin trying to stop a dam ready to burst, while labor and pro-EFCA Senators continue to work on gaining the needed 60 votes for cloture from both democrats and republicans such as Senator Specter who may support some of these mini Employee Free Choice Act Bills. Peter N. Kirsanow said it best in his blog Ã?Now that card check may be off the table, EFCA opponents have lost their most effective talking point Ã? Under my approach card check (as corporate front groups call it) would not be off the table but it would be separated under a new alternative bill giving less credence to the mini bills which are essential to the body and spirit of the Employee Free Choice Act. Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, EFCA, Free Choice Act, Free Choice, EFCA Compromise, Employee Free Choice Compromise, Free Choice Bill, Peter Kirsanow, Labor Union,Corporate Front Groups, The Coalition For Democratic Workplace, Save our Secret Ballot, Chamber of Commerce Sphere: Related Content Posted by Employee Free Choice Act Now . Org at 11:34 PM Labels: EFCA, EFCA Compromise, Employee Free Choice Act, Employee Free Choice Compromise, Free Choice, Free Choice Act, Free Choice Bill, Labor Union, Peter Kirsanow, The Coalition For Democratic Workplace
EFCANOW
December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm
Flag this comment
Thinking Outside The Box to Get The Employee Free Choice Act EFCA Passed! http://efcanow.blogspot.com/ Over the last few weeks while many corporate front groups like the Coalition For Democratic Workplace, Save our Secret Ballot and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Smile and grin on the fact that Senator Arlen Specter (R - PA).and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have retreated from supporting the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in its present form, both labor leaders at the forefront of this fight and George Miller (D - CA)., Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA] must start thinking outside of the box to get the Employee Free Choice Act EFCA passed. One way to do this is to introduce separate bills in both the House and the Senate based on some of the provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).Both Senator Arlen Specter and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have indicated they would seek alternative legislation that was less divisive. By separating the Employee Free Choice Act into mini bills vs. its entirety the big business corporate front groups would have less to attack. Peter N. Kirsanow a former member of the National Labor Relations Board from January, 2006 to January, 2008 under the Bush administration stated in his recent blog; http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODI4NjNhMzhhODQ5Y2U4YWVmNDM0NWQ0ZDNmMjM3NTA= Senator Specter signaled a receptiveness to possible amendments to the National Labor Relations Act ("Act") that purport to remedy what he perceives as defects in the current system. In fact, he's detailed several of the changes he'd like to see. These include, among other things, "quickie elections" that would be conducted between 10-21 days of the filing of a union election petition, a form of "equal access" that would give unions access to employees on employer premises, enhanced penalties for unfair labor practices, and expedited bargaining schedules imposed by the NLRB. He also appears open to "last best offer" arbitration of contract terms. Furthermore, Senator Specter didn't rule out reconsidering EFCA if reforms to the Act aren't implemented or if the economy improves. The timing of Senator Specter's remarks is interesting. When EFCA was reintroduced in both Houses two weeks ago, Senator Harkin repeatedly invoked "equal access," as if to signal a possible compromise based on that concept The elimination of secret-ballot elections was the big drag on EFCA's prospects for passage. Now that card check may be off the table, EFCA opponents have lost their most effective talking point. Consequently, wavering senators may now be more inclined to vote for the remaining provisions of EFCA, plus quickie-election/equal-access provisions that make union organization almost as easy as card check. Senator Specter's announcement merely concludes Round Two according to Peter N. Kirsanow. So Now Lets take Peter N. Kirsanows advice and think outside of the box. What could these mini Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) bills look like? Here are just a few I come up with: 1. Majority Sign up based on a dual card membership card. Under this proposal the employee would choose either to have his union membership card be used for a petition to be filed on his behalf by a labor organization to conduct a secret ballot election by the National Labor Relations Board or he or she may desire to waive their right to a secret ballot election by indicating that they wish to have their union membership card be used for the purposes of having a card check under the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Press Below for more on this. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODI4NjNhMzhhODQ5Y2U4YWVmNDM0NWQ0ZDNmMjM3NTA= In either case it is NOT the Union, Management, nor the National Labor Relations Board who decides what their union membership card is going to be used for, it is the Employee who decides. This would now give new meaning to the spirit of the Employee Free Choice while taking these corporate front groups biggest arguments away from them that it would eliminate Ã? secret ballotÃ? elections. Based on this alternative there is no question about it. The employee has a free choice to decide which method to use. 2. An alternative to the 50 plus 1 is to make it 60 percent for certification. Since corporate front groups continue to compare a National Labor Relations Board election to a Federal election then if 60 votes is needed for cloture then 60 percent should be needed for the Board to certify the individual or labor organization as the representative of the bargaining unit as long as the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS as stated under Text of H.R. 1409: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT as stated under Text of H.R. 1409: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009. 5. To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to provide labor organizations with equal access to employees prior to an election regarding representation as stated under Text H.R. 1355. 6.To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to provide labor organizations with equal access to employees prior to an election regarding representation prior to any organizing drive to see if such employee wish a desire to be represented by a labor organization or individual. 7. Authorizing the NLRB to impose treble back pay without reduction for mitigation when an employee is unlawfully fired. 8. Conduct quicker elections rather than 42-day period. 9. Prohibit the use of anti-union consultants as persuaders once an election is filed or notice to an employer by a union sent. 10. Prohibit mandatory union-busting meetings by an employer all meetings would now be voluntary for both sides. 11. Modify the NLRA to give the court broader discretion to impose a Gissel order on a finding that the environment has deteriorated to the extent that a fair election is not possible. 12. On a finding that a party is not negotiating in good faith, an order may be issued establishing a schedule for negotiation and imposing costs and attorney fees. 13. Broaden the provisions for injunctive relief with reasonable attorneysÃ? fees on a finding that either party is not acting in good faith. 14. last best offer" arbitration of contract terms. 15 Authorizing the award of reasonable attorneysÃ? fees on a finding of harassment, causing unnecessary delay or bad faith. 16. Putting a time limit for objections to be heard and resolved. In conclusion by thinking outside of the box by using a shotgun approach to the Employee Free Choice Act rather than all your Easter eggs in one basket approach corporate front groups would now be in a tailspin trying to stop a dam ready to burst, while labor and pro-EFCA Senators continue to work on gaining the needed 60 votes for cloture from both democrats and republicans such as Senator Specter who may support some of these mini Employee Free Choice Act Bills. Peter N. Kirsanow said it best in his blog Ã?Now that card check may be off the table, EFCA opponents have lost their most effective talking point Ã? Under my approach card check (as corporate front groups call it) would not be off the table but it would be separated under a new alternative bill giving less credence to the mini bills which are essential to the body and spirit of the Employee Free Choice Act. Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, EFCA, Free Choice Act, Free Choice, EFCA Compromise, Employee Free Choice Compromise, Free Choice Bill, Peter Kirsanow, Labor Union,Corporate Front Groups, The Coalition For Democratic Workplace, Save our Secret Ballot, Chamber of Commerce Sphere: Related Content Posted by Employee Free Choice Act Now . Org at 11:34 PM Labels: EFCA, EFCA Compromise, Employee Free Choice Act, Employee Free Choice Compromise, Free Choice, Free Choice Act, Free Choice Bill, Labor Union, Peter Kirsanow, The Coalition For Democratic Workplace
EFCANOW
December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm
Flag this comment
Thinking Outside The Box to Get The Employee Free Choice Act EFCA Passed! http://efcanow.blogspot.com/ Over the last few weeks while many corporate front groups like the Coalition For Democratic Workplace, Save our Secret Ballot and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Smile and grin on the fact that Senator Arlen Specter (R - PA).and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have retreated from supporting the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in its present form, both labor leaders at the forefront of this fight and George Miller (D - CA)., Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA] must start thinking outside of the box to get the Employee Free Choice Act EFCA passed. One way to do this is to introduce separate bills in both the House and the Senate based on some of the provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).Both Senator Arlen Specter and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have indicated they would seek alternative legislation that was less divisive. By separating the Employee Free Choice Act into mini bills vs. its entirety the big business corporate front groups would have less to attack. Peter N. Kirsanow a former member of the National Labor Relations Board from January, 2006 to January, 2008 under the Bush administration stated in his recent blog; http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODI4NjNhMzhhODQ5Y2U4YWVmNDM0NWQ0ZDNmMjM3NTA= Senator Specter signaled a receptiveness to possible amendments to the National Labor Relations Act ("Act") that purport to remedy what he perceives as defects in the current system. In fact, he's detailed several of the changes he'd like to see. These include, among other things, "quickie elections" that would be conducted between 10-21 days of the filing of a union election petition, a form of "equal access" that would give unions access to employees on employer premises, enhanced penalties for unfair labor practices, and expedited bargaining schedules imposed by the NLRB. He also appears open to "last best offer" arbitration of contract terms. Furthermore, Senator Specter didn't rule out reconsidering EFCA if reforms to the Act aren't implemented or if the economy improves. The timing of Senator Specter's remarks is interesting. When EFCA was reintroduced in both Houses two weeks ago, Senator Harkin repeatedly invoked "equal access," as if to signal a possible compromise based on that concept The elimination of secret-ballot elections was the big drag on EFCA's prospects for passage. Now that card check may be off the table, EFCA opponents have lost their most effective talking point. Consequently, wavering senators may now be more inclined to vote for the remaining provisions of EFCA, plus quickie-election/equal-access provisions that make union organization almost as easy as card check. Senator Specter's announcement merely concludes Round Two according to Peter N. Kirsanow. So Now Lets take Peter N. Kirsanows advice and think outside of the box. What could these mini Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) bills look like? Here are just a few I come up with: 1. Majority Sign up based on a dual card membership card. Under this proposal the employee would choose either to have his union membership card be used for a petition to be filed on his behalf by a labor organization to conduct a secret ballot election by the National Labor Relations Board or he or she may desire to waive their right to a secret ballot election by indicating that they wish to have their union membership card be used for the purposes of having a card check under the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Press Below for more on this. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODI4NjNhMzhhODQ5Y2U4YWVmNDM0NWQ0ZDNmMjM3NTA= In either case it is NOT the Union, Management, nor the National Labor Relations Board who decides what their union membership card is going to be used for, it is the Employee who decides. This would now give new meaning to the spirit of the Employee Free Choice while taking these corporate front groups biggest arguments away from them that it would eliminate Ã? secret ballotÃ? elections. Based on this alternative there is no question about it. The employee has a free choice to decide which method to use. 2. An alternative to the 50 plus 1 is to make it 60 percent for certification. Since corporate front groups continue to compare a National Labor Relations Board election to a Federal election then if 60 votes is needed for cloture then 60 percent should be needed for the Board to certify the individual or labor organization as the representative of the bargaining unit as long as the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS as stated under Text of H.R. 1409: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 4. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT as stated under Text of H.R. 1409: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009. 5. To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to provide labor organizations with equal access to employees prior to an election regarding representation as stated under Text H.R. 1355. 6.To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to provide labor organizations with equal access to employees prior to an election regarding representation prior to any organizing drive to see if such employee wish a desire to be represented by a labor organization or individual. 7. Authorizing the NLRB to impose treble back pay without reduction for mitigation when an employee is unlawfully fired. 8. Conduct quicker elections rather than 42-day period. 9. Prohibit the use of anti-union consultants as persuaders once an election is filed or notice to an employer by a union sent. 10. Prohibit mandatory union-busting meetings by an employer all meetings would now be voluntary for both sides. 11. Modify the NLRA to give the court broader discretion to impose a Gissel order on a finding that the environment has deteriorated to the extent that a fair election is not possible. 12. On a finding that a party is not negotiating in good faith, an order may be issued establishing a schedule for negotiation and imposing costs and attorney fees. 13. Broaden the provisions for injunctive relief with reasonable attorneysÃ? fees on a finding that either party is not acting in good faith. 14. last best offer" arbitration of contract terms. 15 Authorizing the award of reasonable attorneysÃ? fees on a finding of harassment, causing unnecessary delay or bad faith. 16. Putting a time limit for objections to be heard and resolved. In conclusion by thinking outside of the box by using a shotgun approach to the Employee Free Choice Act rather than all your Easter eggs in one basket approach corporate front groups would now be in a tailspin trying to stop a dam ready to burst, while labor and pro-EFCA Senators continue to work on gaining the needed 60 votes for cloture from both democrats and republicans such as Senator Specter who may support some of these mini Employee Free Choice Act Bills. Peter N. Kirsanow said it best in his blog Ã?Now that card check may be off the table, EFCA opponents have lost their most effective talking point Ã? Under my approach card check (as corporate front groups call it) would not be off the table but it would be separated under a new alternative bill giving less credence to the mini bills which are essential to the body and spirit of the Employee Free Choice Act. Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, EFCA, Free Choice Act, Free Choice, EFCA Compromise, Employee Free Choice Compromise, Free Choice Bill, Peter Kirsanow, Labor Union,Corporate Front Groups, The Coalition For Democratic Workplace, Save our Secret Ballot, Chamber of Commerce Sphere: Related Content Posted by Employee Free Choice Act Now . Org at 11:34 PM Labels: EFCA, EFCA Compromise, Employee Free Choice Act, Employee Free Choice Compromise, Free Choice, Free Choice Act, Free Choice Bill, Labor Union, Peter Kirsanow, The Coalition For Democratic Workplace
Alum
December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm
Flag this comment
Spector deserves applause for his decision. Not only does the current version of the ECFA eliminate secret ballot elections, but if negotiations took more than 90 days, an arbitrator would impose on the company and the employees what the terms and conditions on the workplace would be. Talk about USSR-like government control.
Gary
December 31, 1969, 7:00 pm
Flag this comment
Good stuff, Colin. You write and reason well. I'm glad to see the upcoming generation (or at least one representative) have such a well-rounded perspective.
Comments are closed for this item.