Employee Free Choice Act Threatens 800 Jobs In Wisconsin
Thursday, March 26th, 2009 by AdminAs we have warned before, the Employee Free Choice Act threatens to dramatically increase job loss. As a story from Wisconsin shows, that’s not just theory:
Proposed federal labor legislation has derailed a large Eau Claire County development, according to a local economic development official.
The project – for which no name or description was given – would have brought a $50 million investment to Eau Claire County in the next five years, along with creating up to 800 full-time jobs, Brian Doudna, executive director of the Eau Claire Area Economic Development Corp., said in a news release Wednesday evening. Construction was expected to begin this year. The first employees were to begin work in early 2010, with about 100 new jobs being created.
The project has been placed on hold indefinitely because of the Employee Free Choice Act, federal legislation that would require binding arbitration to resolve contract disputes and make it easier for workers to join unions. The bill has been introduced in the House and Senate.
The bill would require binding arbitration if management and a union cannot agree on a first contract. It also would allow a majority of employees at a company to organize by signing cards – a change from the current practice that allows employers to mandate secret-ballot elections – and boost penalties for retaliation against workers seeking to organize.
Doudna said if the bill is approved, the project will not occur – at least not in the U.S.
Wisconsin, not being known for its reactionary-right politics, offers a good (and specific) reminder that if EFCA passes it would create an untenable climate for large, complex building projects. It is also a good time to remember that EFCA is not dead, as some hope. It still is waiting to come back and threaten more jobs and more projects.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Employee Free Choice Act Threatens 800 Jobs In Wisconsin | Latest Celebrity News says:[...] the rest here:
March 26th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Dennis Pattarozzi says:It’s obvious by this story that the real truth behind the company wanting to start a business in Wisconsin is that they plan to pay low wages, offer poor healthcare if any, and employees will have no rights…is this business a Wal-Mart by any chance? I think they should be kicked out any way for stating that if a bill that gives employees bargaining rights passes this business will not stay in the U.S….Makes sense, labor is cheap in China, no worries abount environmental laws, and you can treat people poorly with no repurcutions…something EFCA provides
March 26th, 2009 at 10:29 am
admin says:Dennis, the real issue is how much uncertainty EFCA introduces into giant, complex projects. If the government is allowed to set contract terms that are unreasonable, it would destroy a project so no one is willing to invest in a world with so little clarity.
March 26th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Richard says:We have plenty of unions down here around Chicago and most businesses make money regardless. I used to live in Wisconsin. Why not a little transparency to let us know who the developer is and why the developer is against the EFCA legislation? Besides the fact that people might actually get a decent wage, good health benefits and possibly a defined benefit pension (not a flimsly 401k) through a union? Why such vagueness and secrecy?
I.U.O.E. Local 139 has been in Wisconsin for 107 years. Roads and buildings are still being built so where are the facts that the EFCA would bring uncertainty to complex projects? I don’t get it.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:40 am
Ryan says:Dennis/Richard, I’m not sure were in this article it is obvious the potential employer plans to pay low wages, offer poor healthcare and give no worker rights. The company I work for fortunately is not unionized and we offer great healthcare, wages, 401K benefits and we have a voice in our company. Speaking of worker rights, why would you support a bill that takes away a workers right to a secret ballot? Seems a little hypocritical to me. The secret ballot has worked many years and unions have been both successful and unsuccessful in unionization of companys. So why are you so eager to take that away?
March 27th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Dennis Pattarozzi says:Ryan,
First of all, this bill does NOT take away the right to a secret ballot, if 30% of these employees want that vote they get it. Second, the employees don’t have that choice in the current process, let me explain…when the union receives enough signatures on the petition it submits it to the NLRB who notifies the company of this petition. The company then asks to “investigate” these individuals claims to be a union and delays when the vote will take place. They do this so that they can hire “consultants” known as union busters and hold MANDATORY meetings with these employees to explain the negative circumstances if they should form a union such as plant closure, layoffs, etc. Mind you that the union organizers are not allowed to contact employees on the plant premeisis and may only talk to them by phone or at their homes. Usually the company terminates the employees spearheading the effort, I work with a person who tried to organize at his plant that was unsuccessful and he was passed on promotions he deserved twice. So after these tactics by the company are complete which can take up to a month, they inform the NLRB that they are ready for the vote…now does this sound like the employees right to a secret ballot? Also, it only takes 51% of signatures to decertify a union with NO secret ballot vote…is this OK but not a card check to form a union. EFCA only provides a federal arbitrator to make sure the company is bargaining fairly and not stalling (like the current process) to enable a decertification vote. Arbitrators are nutral in their decisions and usually don’t favor either side. I can also tell you that there have been 42 violations against unions reported to the NLRB since 1935 and over 29,000 violations against companies just last year.
I see you say you have a voice in your company..well go to your HR and ask to bargain a pension rather than the 401k and see if they are open to that…or tell me what voice you have when they make changes to your healthcare or your wages.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
admin says:Dennis, unfortunately you are incorrect on some key facts. Here are some true facts for you:
EFCA technically allows secret ballots for 30% of employees who want an election, though it is well documented (by union statements) that unions do not call for elections with so little support.
Second, you seem to have a problem with employers talking to employees about work issues on work time. That is a point of view, but your assertion that it is “usually” tied to firing union organizers has been thoroughly debunked.
Moreover, it is simply untrue – there is no other way to say it. Unions can only be decertified through the elections process under current law. Call a union lawyer and ask them — no, seriously, before you respond to this comment, call one.
While it is certainly true that there are people who support the Employee Free Choice Act, it is simply wrong to spread misinformation.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Dennis Pattarozzi says:Well Ryan…you speak like a true company man..let me give you some real true info about what goes on with these “company Talks”
A new report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research finds that in 30 percent of union organizing drives in 2007, at least one pro-union worker was fired.
Cornell professor Kate Brofenbrener says:
75 percent of employers facing unionization hire consultants to run sophisticated union-busting campaigns based on mass psychology and distorting the law;
92 percent force employees to attend anti-union meetings; and
50 percent of employers threaten to shut down or move if workers form a union.
On the job, front-line supervisors can run mandatory anti-union meetings during work hours, including “one-on-one conversations” with workers.
Pro-union workers are only allowed to talk about forming a union when they are on break and in a break room.
The Center for American Progress reports that “union avoidance consultants” recommend aggressive, intimidating offensives as soon as workers begin discussing unionization.
UFCW member Darlene Brosio argued that reforms are needed to prevent employers from retaliating against workers who try to organize. “They do intimidate you — that’s what I went through when I tried to organize. I was intimidated, harassed, they followed me around,” Brosio said.
True about your 30% quote, but wrong overall, if 30% of the majority signees want a secret ballot vote they get it…who would try to form anything with 30% support come on.
I also read a report today about this company that states they will NOT open shop in Wisconson or the U.S. if EFCA passes…I thought blackmail was illegal???
It’s obvious you are not for the working class on this issue and if you actually ever participated in trying to organize a group that WANTS representation and had to deal with these company tactics you might feel different. As a union, we respect businesses like yours that you say have good wages, benefits and are treated well..we are not using this bill to attack every business out there to raise their wages to astronomical heights. We go to those that have spoken out about their desire to be a part of a union, usually from companies like Wal-Mart, so they can have a right to bargain these things.
Check out the movie: Wal-Mart the high cost of low price and if it truly doesn’t sicken you, union or not, then you either work for them or your just like them. Check youtube and search union busters and watch the testimonies of these people…workers need the freedom to choose.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
admin says:Dennis, unfortunately, you could not have picked a worse piece of evidence for “real true info” than the study from CEPR. In short, it’s a joke: it uses formulas and stats from decades ago to form a “crude probability” based on their own assumptions. It is less realistic than some old Soviet estimates of GDP.
The study you reference from Kate Bronfenbrenner is no more “true” — it is a former union organizer who took a survey of other union organizers who were trying to explain why they were having trouble succeeding in organizing new employees. It would be much like asking a modern H.R. person to fill out a survey on unions: you can guess where it’s going and of limited use for public debates.
Of course, it’s easy to assume that since you only brought up intimidation on the part of employers you are trying to avoid the very real intimidation union organizers employ to gather signatures. And UFCW is an interesting example: it has offered to pay employees per signature of their co-workers (essentially creating a bounty) and their union president has acknowledged of traditional elections: “we can’t win that way anymore.”
You are clearly passionate about the issue, and you certainly have a right to your opinions. Unfortunately, much of the info being used to support EFCA is misleading, if not worse.
March 28th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
richard says:Just a little transparency? If the company is offering such great benefits then they would not need fear the EFCA legislation. “we offer”–Ryan you suggest that your company is a great company to work for. You are most likely the exception. Life would be great if most employers were as generous as yours but I am afraid that most are not. Otherwise unionization wouldn’t be an issue. Yes, card check would give an advantageous edge to unions. It does seem to extremely favor unionization. Maybe this could open up a new era of HR policies that would encourage treating employees more like family than a liability. Seems like this would balance things a little more from the employee perspective. How can you blame them for wanting a better quality work environment?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Dennis Pattarozzi says:Well Admin…look into the facts with the NLRB about how many caseses have been filed against unions for intimidation tactics verses companies…how about over 31,000 that received back pay just in 2005 for company violations. The reason I took these quotes is because it still happens today, I’ve seen it myself. Look, today I can’t approach an employee where he works to discuss possibly organizing, yet the company can and does force them to attend meetings (or they suffer consequences) where the company uses these tactics to discourage unionizing. They have access to these employees on an individual basis as well, they will terminate the employees spearheading the effort. I work with a guy that was the head of his palnt’s organizing effort and talks about the threats from the company while the secret ballot vote was delayed, by the company not the employees (see how the employee doesn’t control the secrt ballot)for up to a month, not surprising the vote failed after a majority signed the petition to be a union. After that he was passed on deserved promotions twice.
Here is the big question with this, what the hell is the big deal with giving employees the right to bargain in their workplace? What is corporate America really afraid of? How do you think the working class got where they are today…it was the unions that formed and gave workers a voice on their wages, healthcare, pensions, safe environement in the workplace. Look at the conditions in the rest of the world like China…and I know this for a fact because we have visited a paper mill there…they are paid $150/ month if they live in a small room on site, meaning when they open their door they are on the operating floor. They have no environmental laws, no OSHA, etc. and that’s what corporate America wants so the CEO can draw more money.
Unions are not unfair, I am in contract talks now and we are not asking for anything outrageous, and the wages we are agreeing to still come far below the current cost of living increases. But, we run our own healthcare, we own our own 3rd party administartor, we have a free clinic for doctor visits, x-rays, bloodwork, small surgeries, and some free perscription drugs and have not had a rate increase in 8 years. We have a 401k or what is now being called a 201k, but our employees can still retire because we are able to negotiate a pension. Would minimum wage be anywhere near what it is today (which still sucks) if there were no unions out there fighting for it. All we want is a system that is fair to employees wishing to become a union and our current system is flawed. Every compromise out there from corporations is geared at allowing the comapny time to talk to these employees…why, they have spoken when they sign the card, they want to be a union…would there be some tactics by unions not done right…probably, but not in the way that EVERY company practices that is currently non-union. How about this…majority signatures on cards or petition, file this with the NLRB…NLRB scedules a vote within 5 days but doesn’t inform the company of this vote until the day of the vote…this takes care of the card check only and gets the secret ballot vote scheduled..I guarantee no non-union company would go for this because they don’t get a chance to talk to the employees…they don’t need to talk to them, let them vote in seceret..and if the company or union contacts any employees on the day of the vote there will be penalties…sound good to you?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
admin says:Dennis, the number of NLRB complaints is misleading for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that employees and employers almost never turn to the Board to deal with union intimidation efforts when there is not already a union election procedure under way.
If you are curious as to some stories of real-life intimidation during the card check process, see this article.
The one thing you are correct about: not many people would think it’s a good idea to hold a pseudo-election in which the employer doesn’t get a chance to talk to employees about the legal issues surrounding unionization. That is why Associated Builders and Contractors is carefully watching events to ensure that no such “compromise” will harm employers or employees.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Richard says:The great thing about this country is that these sorts of things bring out forethought before anything is set in stone. I believe most employees would be happy if treated fairly by their employee. Most employees want to live fairly comfortably with health benefits and a retirement that can allow them to continue to live securely. In short most people just want security. The rest are driven by many things which drive them into creating business and jobs for the rest of us. Back in the 1800′s life was very rough and unstable for the average worker. So unions were formed to protect and secure a quality of life. 100 years later we have enjoyed such an increase in this quality of life that the union movement has diminished. But lately with many things affecting that quality such as health care costs and job losses due to importation of workers from other countries who are willing to work at such lower costs we are beginning to revert backwards. We see this especially in economic downturns such as the one we are experiencing now. The union movements serves as a check to keep the security of the workers in this country up to par and to keep us from backsliding. Take care of the average American worker and kill two birds with one stone. It’s a balance thing. That is a true democracy.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Dennis Pattarozzi says:Admin..there is no need for me to read the stories you suggested, I’m positive there are more against compaanies than you’ll find against unions..you may not think the cases are valid, but 31,000 employees being reinstated in 2005 is a big deal.
Like I said before, if employees are being treated fairly then why would anyone object to them wanting to form a union? It actually helps companies by entering a contract agreement, making the workforce feel secure, which makes them work better and stay with the company longer…these stats are also proven. And if the company continues to treat them fairly, then when it comes time to bargain a new contract it will go smooth. This is not a hard topic to swallow, really