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

Union Member: Employee Free Choice Act Would Endanger Jobs (and Pensions)

Admin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:31:09 +0000

From Sunday’s Public Opinion in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania:

In response to the Employee Free Choice Act — it can’t be passed. If it does, I can guarantee you there will be millions of people out of work.

I was in a union for 23 years and in that amount of time, it bankrupted four big trucking companies and put at least 5,000 people out of work.

Also, when I went to withdraw my union pension, they didn’t credit me nine-and-a-half years of my 23 years of service, because I lost my withdraw card. Plus, I know some other employees who didn’t get credit for two years up to five years.

With regard to what was published in the paper concerning Jim Martin, I worked there for approximately eight years. I really enjoyed working and he gave us better health benefits, profit sharing, retiring, and actually I made more money there and wasn’t on call 24/7 like I was with those corrupted unions.

So please call your senator and tell him to vote against this bill.

Robert D. Peterson Sr.

Chambersburg

“So-called card-check legislation would be a job-killer, bad for employers and employees alike”

Admin — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:53:12 +0000

Over at the National Journal, Stuart Taylor Jr. makes a calm, rational case against the Employee Free Choice Act and its negative effects on employees and businesses alike:

More broadly, while employees’ rights to unionize are an essential source of leverage to extract a fair share of the fruits of their labor from profit-maximizing employers, it does not follow that the more unions, the better. Even the best unions often introduce inefficiencies such as the thousands of pages of work rules imposed by the United Auto Workers during its heyday.

The most enlightened employers are those that fend off unionization by giving their employees everything that they could get through a union without raising labor costs so high as to lose the competitive edge and profitability on which their employees’ long-run job security depends.

And the worst economic crisis since the 1930s would be an odd time to shift the balance of power so far in favor of unions as to risk sending such employers the way of General Motors.

ABC Op-ed: Employee Free Choice Act Will Cost Jobs

Admin — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:07:16 +0000

Associated Builders and Contractors CEO Kirk Pickerel wrote an op-ed in this morning’s Washington DC Examiner highlighting the problems with the Employee Free Choice Act, including the negative consequences it will have for American jobs:

A recently released study from noted economist Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar found the Employee Free Choice Act will result in

Detroit News: Save the secret ballot for voting on unions

Admin — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:55:26 +0000

This morning’s Detroit News carries an important editorial warning against the Employee Free Choice Act — both because it will harm workplace democracy and, ultimately, cost jobs:

But there’s no balance in the card check legislation. It would tip the organizing advantage steeply in favor of labor and deeply involve the federal government in contract negotiations.

Workers would be subject to public pressure from their peers to sign cards, and would have no additional chance to consider their decision. Vote totals in recent organizing elections show a big fall-off in the number of workers who sign cards asking for a vote and the number who actually cast ballots in favor of the union.

Workers deserve the opportunity for a more careful consideration of their decision, and the right to make that choice without broadcasting it to their peers. The bill contains no language governing what the card should look like or how they should read, opening the possibility that some workers will be misled into signing.

The paper adds:

It’s no secret that private companies don’t like to be unionized, for reasons both good and bad, but primarily because it drives up the cost of doing business. Labor costs are a chief consideration when companies decide where to create jobs. This bill will increase the incentive to take jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, to less costly places.

No wonder Centrist Dems dodge labor bill.

VIDEO: EFCA’s Job-Killing Nature

Admin — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:21:37 +0000

As noted at the right, a recent study (proudly supported by Associated Builders and Contractors and the Alliance to Save Mains Street Jobs) details the unemployment ramifications if Congress passed EFCA. Ed Morrissey today interviewed the study’s author. Watch for yourself!

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation has a memo out that adds to the concern about job-loss and EFCA’s effects:

The AFL-CIO estimates that passing EFCA would increase union membership rates by at least 5.0 percentage points.[1] Under EFCA at least 7.1 million Americans would be pressured into unions.[2] This would do wonders for union finances, but it would also further devastate labor markets.

Things are bad, but it could get worse

Chris Singerling — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:52:46 +0000

The March 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics

New Economic Study: EFCA Is A Job Killer

Admin — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:56:11 +0000

Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act could have serious unintended consequences, according to a new study from Dr. Anne Layne Farrar. The paper, undertaken for the Alliance To Save Main Street Jobs (of which Associated Builders and Contractors is a member) specifically finds that the increased unionization that comes with EFCA’s effective elimination of private ballot elections will harm the economy and cost millions of jobs.

Specifically, the report finds:

If an additional 3.9 million workers are organized under EFCA (a 3 percentage point increase over 2008), another 1.6 million workers will either lose their jobs or not be able to find new employment (a 1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate)
If EFCA results in a 10 percentage point increase in organized workers, up to 5.4 million Americans will become unemployed — a 3.5 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate over current levels
“The costs [of EFCA] should be carefully weighed against any purported benefits of passing the Act, all of which appear to benefit some groups at the expense of others. There is no coherent theoretical argument that explains how the higher costs, greater legal uncertainty, and expanded government intervention entailed in EFCA will improve overall social welfare.”

We agree. And editorial pages agree. The Tribune-Democrat in Pennsylvania has just published an editorial urging their own Sen. Arlen Specter to oppose EFCA. While the senator currently does not have a stated position, the paper argued:

Specter and others on the card-check bubble may be feeling pressure from union lobbyists who say that making such efforts easier would help balance a weak economy that is shedding jobs.

However, the more likely result is that broader unionization could force some small businesses out of the marketplace, and would force large companies

EFCA-nomics: A Reminder That It Will Cost Jobs

Admin — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:14:00 +0000

The twitter world is experiencing a minor tweetfest on the effort to convince Americans that EFCA would actually be a net positive for the economy. Union groups are crowing that they’ve scratched together 40 economists saying as much (40 economists and a five-dollar bill will get you a cup of coffee in New York City). We have a pretty strong hunch that there’s plenty of academic research out there — published and not as yet — proving otherwise.

Here’s one reminder that EFCA will cost jobs:

These changes would tilt the balance of power in favor of unions, and come at the expense of workers, employers and the overall economy. We know from a substantial body of research that the key to a prosperous labor market is adaptability, both on the part of employers and employees. Indeed, a growing body of research confirms such flexibility in labor markets results in better job creation, investment and prosperity compared to more heavily regulated labor markets.

For example, Harvard professor Rafael Di Tella, along with his Princeton counterpart Robert MacCulloch, looked at 21 industrialized countries from 1984 to 1990 to ascertain the influence of labor market flexibility. They found that flexible labor markets enjoyed lower rates of unemployment, and in particular lower rates of longer-term unemployment.

What does that mean in plain English? Simple: EFCA will cost jobs.

H.R. Policy Association Refutes EFCA-nomics Claims

Admin — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:21:20 +0000

Following the recent effort to bolster support for the Employee Free Choice Act, in which a union group recently ran an ad in the Washington Post saying that 40 economists actually think EFCA would help — yes, help — the economy, the H.R. Policy Association weighed in.

The group released an analysis (click here) that looked at government data and concluded:

Few would disagree that a strong middle class is a key public policy objective. However, government statistics confirm that changing the nation