Who’s Afraid of the Employee Free Choice Act?
Editor's Note: This guest blog comes from John Logan of the London School of Economics
The Employee Free Choice Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation being considered by the new Congress, yet many people have probably never heard of it. If they have, they have most likely heard the version that corporate America and right-wing want them to hear: that the bill would deny employees the right to vote in workplace elections and leave them exposed to coercion by unscrupulous union organizers. It’s a good line, but nothing could be further from the truth. The entire purpose of the Employee Free Choice Act is to defend employee choice and protect them from the employer intimidation and harassment that is currently endemic in the American workplace when employees attempt to form a union.
So who’s behind the well-financed and well-organized campaign of misinformation against the Employee Free Choice Act? One of the groups leading the offensive is the comically misnamed Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. The Coalition has announced its intention to “fight this legislation every step of the way to make sure that it never rears its head again.” Although it claims to represent ordinary employees, the Coalition is, in fact, made up entirely of powerful corporate groups and trade associations who oppose giving employees the right to choose a union free from employer interference Another group that has run television commercials and newspaper ads attacking the Employee Free Choice Act is the Center for Union Facts, run by the notorious lobbyist, Richard Berman, whose previous campaigns include ones in favor of relaxing drunk driving laws and discounting public health concerns about obesity. Berman’s in good company. Other Employee Free Choice Act opponents include the National Right to Work Committee, another well-funded anti-union group that claims to represent ordinary employees but is, in reality, bankrolled by powerful corporations and conservative foundations.
Also mobilizing vigorously against the Employee Free Choice Act is the sizable and sophisticated industry of “union avoidance” law firms and consultants. These firms have made millions of dollars by encouraging employers to conduct aggressive (and often illegal) campaigns against efforts by their employees to organize. Among developed nations, the United States is alone in having a powerful industry dedicated to undermining employees’ right to form a union. If the Employee Free Choice Act were to become law, these firms stand to lose enormous sums because they would no longer be able to conduct their no-holds-barred campaigns based on fear and coercion.
One of the largest union avoidance law firms in the nation, Jackson Lewis – which tells employers to treat attempts by employees to form a union as “war” – has described the campaign against EFCA as “the battle beginning.” Another law firm specializing in anti-union campaigns, Ogletree Deakins, believes that it is “imperative that the business community act now” to defeat this “extreme” legislation.
And the list goes on. Many more groups oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, all of them the representatives of powerful and well-financed corporate interests and right-wing organizations, none of them the representatives of ordinary employees. Several of these groups have stated that defeating the bill is a top priority and have announced their intention to punish any member of Congress who dares to vote against them. Predictably, the Bush Administration is committed to defeating the Employee Free Choice Act. Vice President Cheney recently assured a group of corporate leaders that the President will veto the legislation if Congress were to pass it.
According to the NLRB annual report, over 31,000 employees were fired or discriminated against in 2005 simply for supporting a union. The powerful groups that oppose the Employee Free Choice Act never mention this appalling state of affairs. The Employee Free Choice Act would impose greater penalties on employers who fire workers for choosing a union. The bill also ensures that employees who form a union would at least gain a first contract. Union avoidance law firms advise employers to keeping fighting after employees form a union, telling them, “You haven’t lost until you sign a contract.” As a result, over one third of new unions are unable to win a first contract. The Employee Free Choice Act would change that sorry situation.
Finally, the most inconvenient fact for opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act: studies demonstrate that there are now 60 million Americans who would like to join a union but who are unable to do so under the current system of sham workplace elections that allows employer intimidation to flourish. The Employee Free Choice Act would protect the rights of those 60 million Americans against the powerful organizations that are mobilizing against it. And that’s why passing the Employee Free Choice Act is the number one priority for those who believe that workers deserve the right to form a union free from coercion and harassment.
Comments
Employee Free Choice Act and Republican Disinformation
Republicans opposing the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act are lying up a storm to swing public opinion against the proposed law. Their primary attack claim is that the bill denies workers a free, fair election by secret ballot. Unfortunately, there is nothing free or fair about the current system of voting on unionization. The law is tilted heavily in favor of company power and against the workers.
I have been involved in an unsuccessful attempt to unionize a business. I saw disturbing examples of intimidation and unfair tactics that the Employee Free Choice Act would have prevented.
Companies are able to hold “captive audience meetings” to argue against unionization. They are legally able to include certain workers and exclude others. Attendance is mandatory for some and prohibited to others. They are held on company time.
Workers trying to unionize are not able to meet on company property without permission of the company. Strong union supporters are usually excluded from “captive audience meetings” so the company position is the only one heard by the workers forced to attend. Sometimes illegal threats or statements are issued at these meetings when the company feels certain that workers attending them will not report them to the federal government.
The burden of proof by law regarding illegal tactics by companies in complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board definitely tilts toward the company. Most companies fail to see violations of labor laws by anti-union “so-called worker committees” (often comprised of quasi-management employees) while pro-union workers are threatened frequently with being fired if suspected of engaging in pro-union activities. The anti-union “so-called worker committees” can operate on company time (which is illegal) without much fear. While most companies will deny knowing about such activity, it seems likely that these companies often secretly organize these anti-union “so-called worker committees” and direct their operations. In almost every case, the company has complete knowledge of their activities.
Supervisors will often threaten employees when no witnesses are present. Threatened workers are often afraid of reporting the threats or do not know the procedure for reporting them. These threats are illegal but very difficult to prove. The company can fire pro-union workers during the election process to intimidate other workers even if the federal government or courts eventually get their jobs back. In the meantime, the union vote will often go against unionization out of fear.
The company will sometimes threaten to close the business or move it if the workers vote for a union. This is illegal but it does happen. It is very difficult to prove. Illegal activity by the company is difficult to prove in part because many companies make rules against bringing recording devices or cameras into the work area. This also makes it difficult to document unsafe working conditions. Workers can lose their jobs trying to document violations of labor or safety laws by the company.
Union organizers and union officials do not have access to company property during the election cycle to discuss the benefits of unionization. They are not supplied with phone numbers of employees although the companies do have that information.
If you distribute any union materials including union pledge cards on company property during working hours, you can and usually will be fired. Pro-union workers are often warned about this even when they are not actively involved in the distribution of pledge cards or materials just to intimidate them from speaking up for unionization.
The current union election system is not fair or free. It is much like the “free elections” held in Communist countries or other dictatorships. The Republicans and their large corporate masters are being completely dishonest in the way they frame the issue and describe the current situation.
Republicans falsely claim that workers are intimidated into signing union pledge cards. This is so rare as to be almost non-existent. The intimidation is almost entirely on the side of the companies. Companies are in a position of power over workers. Co-workers are simply not in a similar power situation. Only the company is really in the kind of power position to intimidate workers.
Criminal behavior influencing union votes is almost always on the side of the company. The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to stop this criminal behavior and all intimidation of workers. The legislation says that if a majority of workers sign pledge cards in favor of unionizing the union will be automatically recognized by law. It is majority rule. It eliminates the opportunity for the company to block the majority desire for unionization by using illegal tactics and intimidation.
A vote against the Employee Free Choice Act is a vote in favor of the current rigged system. It is a vote in favor of company intimidation and illegal company behavior. It is a vote against the workers.
Democrats overwhelmingly support the Employee Free Choice Act. In the House vote, only 2 Democrats voted against the legislation. 13 Republicans voted for the Employee Free Choice Act. The final vote was 241 in favor and 185 against.
Some Senate Republicans may attempt to block a vote on this legislation. If they do, every working American should vote against them. If any Democrat joins them, they should be defeated at the next election. Workers should contact their Senators immediately and let them know their vote on this legislation will determine your vote in the next election.
It has been reported that Cheney has pledged that Bush will veto the Employee Free Choice Act. This is the best reason I can think of for voting Democratic in the 2008 Presidential Election if Bush vetoes this pro-worker legislation.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a vote for worker rights. A vote against it is a vote against worker rights no matter how the Republicans spin it.
Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .
Feel free to publish or distribute without prior approval.
Posted by: Stephen Crockett | March 14, 2007 09:17 PM