Monday, February 23, 2009

Guest Post by Ma LibertyBelle on the Card Check Disaster


In 2007, EFCA passed the House of Representatives, but failed to make it through the Senate, where supporters couldn't get the necessary 60 votes to end debate. President Obama and the Democrat Congress support EFCA, and although it has not yet been reintroduced and given a bill number, it is expected to make an appearance sooner than later.

As sought by Big Labor, EFCA would allow workers to join a union -- without a secret-ballot election -- if more than half of any bargaining unit sign union-authorization cards. Under the EFCA, as previously written, employees could be contacted by labor organizers to sign authorization cards before the employer is even aware a drive is ongoing. Organizers could contact employees one-on-one and they would immediately know which employees agreed to sign a card and which ones refused. Obviously, employees who oppose a union could feel pressured by labor organizers and by co-workers into signing authorization cards or, if it were known that they opposed a union, they could be kept out of the loop until a sufficient number of authorization cards were signed. Without a secret-ballot election, those workers who did not want the union would be afforded no opportunity to register their true opinion. How Democratic!!

EFCA opponents say that one-two punch -- the pressure to sign and the lack of a vote -- would lead to an explosion of unionization which in recent years has diminished.

Supporters of EFCA maintain that the law, as it was written in 2007, does not delete the current right of employees in a potential bargaining unit to choose a secret ballot. This is true. However, a secret ballot vote would NOT be an option if 51% of the workforce first signed authorization cards. Unionization would be a done deal. Ironically, Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Rep. Hilda Solis, who vigorously supports EFCA, roundly criticized the absence of secret ballots in electing the Congressional Hispanic Caucus leadership on January 5, 2007. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander.

There is some speculation that the authorization-cards issue is a red herring and that Big Labor will eventually "compromise" on that issue in order to get what they really want: if agreement on the initial contract is not reached in 90 to 120 days (both time periods have been discussed), the federal government would send in Washington bureaucrats to decide what pay, benefits and working conditions employees would receive, thus exponentially increasing the power of the Federal government in our economy. A good discussion of this by Jennifer Rubin, Commentary Magazine, Contentions:

We need to keep a watch for introduction of the 2009 version of EFCA in the 111th Congress and fight it.

1 comment:

  1. Even George McGovern, the very radical liberal and labor union supporter who ran for president as the democrat nominee in 1972 (and won only one state on election night), has had a TV and radio ad out AGAINST EFCA because he says every worker has the right to voice his opinion and "Democracy should never be sacrificed."


I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.