Employee Free Choice Act “advocates’ lies are killing Big Labor’s top priority”

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009 by Admin

This morning, the Washington, D.C. Examiner carried an article from Bret Jacobson of the firm Maverick Strategies. Pointing to recent news in which one major union misquoted the Wall Street Journal to twist the paper’s words and in which union officials rejected any proposals to protect secret ballots for working Americans, Jacobson argues:

EFCA proponents’ outright rejections of any compromise that would assure rights for employees, combined with their outright dishonesty, may be taken as a good sign by some that the bill is facing long odds.

At the same time, it should serve as a reminder of just how far outside the mainstream labor leaders have become and how desperate they are for a rent-seeking infusion of money and power. That desperation, having not yet reached its zenith, will only get worse.

Katherine Fullerton Gerould said, “It is a poor cause which has to be lied for regularly.” EFCA is a poor cause indeed, though it is not yet, sadly, a fully lost cause.

Jacobson also highlights a recent ad from the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, of which Associated Builders and Contractors is a member. Make sure you see the ad here.

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 25th, 2009 at 9:26 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Employee Free Choice Act “advocates’ lies are killing Big Labor’s top priority””

  1. March 25th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    Jim says:

    How many times has labor law reform been attempted? I know of an attempt in the late 70

  2. March 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    JD says:

    Jim:

    I support the EFCA because it represents Labor’s best chance for LONG OVERDUE reform of the NLRA,(the last real reform was 5 DECADES ago) not because of the “card-check” provision (which I actually don’t like), but DESPITE it. The card-check provision serves it’s purpose in the bill as a “lightning-rod” by drawing the media and public’s attention to an indisputable FACT (IMO): The current system is broken, and needs fixing.

    The inclusion of the “card-check” provision has stirred much interest and controversy, and as such, card check probably requires MUCH more political capital to wedge into the bill than anything else in EFCA. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it ABANDONED in the final version. And I won’t be joining those who will inevitably SCREAM & HOWL of “betrayal” or “spinelessness” should Democrats wind up settling for “ONLY” 80 percent. The LONG GAME is what matters here.

    Politically, one could go further: by accepting that secret ballots are “good and valuable” and “in tune with American ideals”, etc., the labor movement would put its opponents on the DEFENSIVE. It’s hard to see exactly how business groups would counter this move. Could they rail against the penalties provisions? The arbitration & mediation provisions? I think not, but I could be wrong.

    I would be willing to “give up” the card-check provision in exchange for a FAIRER election process, one that would:
    1)SHORTEN the length of time between petition and election.

    2)Give EQUAL ACCESS to employees to both Management and the Union during the period between petition and election

    3)STREAMLINE the current “appeals process” for post-election objections, which is fraught with redundancies and opportunity for ENDLESS DELAYS, which hinders the process, and FRUSTRATES would be members, often to the point where they lose faith in the process and just give up. The law DOES NOT PROTECT THE PROCESS, rather, it serves to SUGGEST MANUVERS and DEFINE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES. For example, if the NLRB finds that an election was fairly conducted and certifies it, the employer is obligated under the law to bargain in good faith with the workers’ chosen representative. HOWEVER THE EMPLOYER CAN LEGALLY DEFY the NLRB’s ORDER by engaging in what is called a “TECHNICAL REFUSAL TO BARGAIN.” Using this tactic, the employer REFUSES the Union’s bargaining request and forces it to file a NEW UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE with the NLRB. The NLRB must then initiate an unfair labor practice case based on the employer’s refusal to bargain, and seek support for the NLRB ruling from a federal appeals court. YEARS OF LITIGATION CAN FOLLOW. This takes place AFTER the NLRB’s LENGTHY 2 stage appeals process. (ours took 11 months, some take longer, depending on circumstances)

    Now, does this REALLY sound like something that has been described by EFCA opponents as “the cornerstone of DEMOCRACY” to you?

    This is why I say “the system is broke, and needs fixing”

    I would be willing to make concessions on the arbitration and mediation provisions, maybe extend the period from 120 days to a year (or longer) before seeking mediation and arbitration. The 90-120 days is unrealistic, and would actually deter any real bargaining in that period, because neither side would want to give an arbitrator a “starting point” in determining the final contract terms.

    But the one thing I would NOT compromise on is the “penalties” provision, as we seem to be agreement on. THESE ARE A MUST, IMO. A common expression of U.S. labor law says that the NLRA is remedial, not punitive. The NLRB CANNOT PENALIZE an employer for breaking the law. It can only order a “make-whole REMEDY” restoring the status quo ante as the remedy for unfair labor practices. This is what typically happens when an employer breaks the law (commits a ULP):

    The NLRB issues an order stating something like “we shall order it to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union,…” and further “order” them to POST A SIGN FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS “IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE” stating (sarcastically paraphrasing) “We know we were naughty, but we promise we won’t do it again”.

    OOH, THAT’LL REALLY SCARE ‘EM.

    Of course, they WILL “DO IT AGAIN”, only because under current labor law, THEY CAN.

    No, no compromise WHATSOEVER on the penalties provision. I’m sure the counter to that would be mgmt would want increased penalties on Unions who commit similar violations. Fine with me. Although I am fully supportive of Unions, I am not naive enough to think that Unions don’t commit infractions, too, and by increasing penalties on Unions as well as employers, it provides even further protection for workers, which is NEVER a bad thing.

    Sorry, didn’t mean to be so long-winded, but this is my take on what I would like to see happen. I am interested in yours, and any other readers opinion.