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

Is “card check” just a boogeyman the “big scary” businesses want everyone to worry about? Not by a long shot. The latest evidence comes from a man (who happens to have the pretty cool last name of Ferrari) who tells the Wall Street Journal that the looming threat of the Employee Free Choice Act, among other things, keeps him spooked about the prospects of his retirement future:

Despite the business being on more stable footing, Ferrari says he isn’t convinced that his business or investors at large are out of the woods. “Here we are well over a year after this huge once-in-a-one-hundred-year event and we still don’t know what the rules are,” he says. “What is my tax rate going to be for me and my business? Will card check legislation go through? Will cap and trade regulations affect utilities prices?” he asks. Because of this uncertainty, Ferrari has decided to push off closing up shop. “At the start of retirement, I want to have full peace of mind,” he says.

Wow. That says a lot.

It also begs one big question: what would card check do to the assets in already-troubled union pension funds? While EFCA would help get new members to add dollars, the assets those dollars would buy would face a shaky future.

For more on pension problems, visit our page dedicated to the subject.

Brian Johnson, writing over at The Daily Caller:

Although over 75 percent of Americans disapprove of card-check, the NLRB can implement identical policy, making the vote for Becker so significant. Labor viewed his defeat as a defeat for de-facto card-check, as Becker could change labor law via an appointment to the board. Specifically, Becker would help the unions get more of the type of card-check certifications they already can achieve under law, by ignoring or dismissing the complaints filed by employers and individual workers. This gives the unions a much freer hand to exercise their extortionate and deceptive means of getting signatures and pressuring employers to accept the signatures in lieu of votes.

Great article for you running in the Lompoc Record called “Bounce this union ‘card check’” and it includes this thought that we don’t hear often enough:

At the time of the passage of the New Deal National Labor Relations Act, the Supreme Court said that its purpose was to ensure that business and labor could

Who, outside of labor lawyers and policy wonks, can remember the last time Americans knew the name of a nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, usually an obscure body?

Now we get “Unions Push White House to Appoint Becker” as a headline in the Wall Street Journal.

The proximate issue — the nomination of an individual whose writings have shown contempt for employers to a seat in which we expect impartiality between unions and employers — is of course very critical. The functioning of the Board, as well as its integrity, are on the line.

But more than that, it speaks volumes that the president has nominated someone so far outside the mainstream that it has raised sufficient furor to raise the Board’s profile in the public mind. That doesn’t speak well of … well, many things.

It also suggests the Board’s rulings, should Mr. Becker be appointed, will be scrutinized more than ever and have doubt immediately cast about their fairness. It also suggests that future nominees will have doubt cast about their qualifications to govern effectively and fairly.

Mark Tapscott writes:

This week

It wasn’t so long ago, really, that we wrote in an update on goings-on related to the Employee Free Choice and card check that:

Meanwhile, some are still fighting absurd battles. Media Matters for America is still claiming EFCA wouldn