thetruthaboutefca.com | The Truth About The Employee Free Choice Act & Card Check

This entry was posted on Monday, July 13th, 2009 at 12:45 pm 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.

7 Responses to “Sen. Thune: There Can Be No Compromise On Card Check, Binding Arbitration”

1. July 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

   Dale Copps says:

   The senator is correct. There cannot be a compromise on the card check provision or mandatory arbitration and still be an EFCA. A mail-in card check, however, which is a “tweak” that seems to be gaining support, would be the equivalent of a secret ballot election and, when 50% of the mail-in’s favor union organizing, it is only just that the NLRB declare representation for the workers.

   The charge made by opponents of EFCA, that the act deprives workers of their right to a secret ballot, is a canard unworthy of an intelligent debate, and all intelligent people know it, even those opponents. It is a straw at which they are grasping in order to justify the continuing exploitation of the American worker. After decades of declining union membership and stagnant and declining incomes, the playing field badly needs the EFCA to bring it level again.

2. July 14th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

   admin says:

   Since when is the simple truth “a canard unworthy of an intelligent debate”?

   It’s truly shocking that so many people who claim the bill would not eliminate elections have not read the bill. It’s there in plain text for anyone who has the capacity to read.

3. July 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

   Dale Copps says:

   You may be sure we have read the text of S.560 now before the Senate. Please note:

   1) EFCA does NOT eliminate the secret ballot, which may still be called by the NLRB; it merely ADDS the provision which allows the NLRB to certify an individual or organization as an employee representative, upon determining that a majority of employees have expressed an interest in having that representation.(Canard: A deliberately misleading fabrication.)

   2) What terrifies opponents of EFCA is the prospect of losing the many weeks or months before the “free election” they are so eager to preserve for their employees. These are the weeks and months during which they now enjoy the opportunity of hounding, threatening, and firing their employees who are trying to organize (you can look it up).

   3) Finally opponents are also terrified of losing the years of foot dragging on establishing a first contract following hard-won union representation (and you can look that up, as well).

4. July 14th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

   Dale Copps says:

   You may be sure we have read the text of S.560 now before the Senate. Please note:

   1) EFCA does NOT eliminate the secret ballot, which may still be called by the NLRB; it merely ADDS the provision which allows the NLRB to certify an individual or organization as an employee representative, upon determining that a majority of employees have expressed an interest in having that representation.

   2) What terrifies opponents of EFCA is the prospect of losing the many weeks or months before the “free election” they are so eager to preserve for their employees. These are the weeks and months during which they now enjoy the opportunity of hounding, punishing, and firing those employees who are trying to organize, an opportunity the record shows they take full advantage of.

   3) Finally opponents are also terrified of losing the years of foot dragging on establishing a first contract with a new employee union. The record is clear on this abuse as well.

   While middle- and working-class incomes have stagnated over the past thirty years, more and more of our nation’s wealth has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. EFCA helps the working man and woman reclaim what is theirs–a decent income for their labor and a reasonable slice of the economic pie.

5. July 14th, 2009 at 7:28 pm

   admin says:

   What about “shall not direct an election” do EFCA proponents not understand?!

   That’s in the Senate text to which you refer, sir. Get your facts right.

   Stop using statements that — through omission, commission, or ignorance — effectively lie to the American people.

6. July 15th, 2009 at 5:53 am

   Dale Copps says:

   The “shall not direct an election” statement in the senate bill (at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.560: for those who would like to read the bill themselves) is what would happen if the alternative means of organizing a union were invoked following the certification of a majority interest. The status quo, however, where less than a majority interest empowers the NLRB to call for an election, is not revoked by EFCA and remains a viable alternative route to the establishment of union representation. (Since EFCA amends, but does not replace, the National Labor Relations Act, readers might also want to reference this existing language, which may be found at http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/national_labor_relations_act.aspx).

7. July 15th, 2009 at 7:44 am

   admin says:

   Indeed — if union organizers can get more than 50% of cards under EFCA, there would be NO election. NO election. How is that so tough for people to understand?

   The next logical point is that signing cards is NOT a de facto vote for union representation — as many union documents show.