|
Anti-Immigration petition to Congress Governor Schwarzenegger Casts Veto of Harmful Card Check Bill in California, Reports The National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights How could these Republicans help Labor Unions to victory? The summer that shook the American workplace:The threat and hidden agenda of Labors new Government Paycheck shock: Local union 1000 dues up 50 percent U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards Reports Four Indictments, Six Convictions During July for Union Funds Embezzlement Union Corruption Update-for all those union apologists wake up! Union Hypocrisy? You bet ! Unions outsourcing Homeless for their Picket Lines! Open-Shop Law threaten unions Grassroots petition against the Employee Free Choice Act July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Employee Free Choice Act and the harm to California Farmworkers
The Employee Free Choice ActBy a vote of 51-48 the Employee Free Choice Act was defeated in a Senate cloture vote after passing the House 241-185. EFCA will sure to be an issue in the 08 Presidential Race as all Democrat candidates supported stripping workplace freedoms away from employees and employers. Labor Bosses having failed in the US Senate on EFCA seek to bring EFCA's anti-democratic "Card Check" elections to California and its Farmworkers. Please support a veto of S.180 now. What EFCA Would Do There are three main components of EFCA. The central feature of the bill would outlaw secret ballot elections by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) among employees to decide whether to be represented by a union. Instead, the EFCA would permit unions to inveigle employees to sign “authorization cards” agreeing to labor representation in front of union agents. Second, the bill would give unions the power to invoke outside arbitration to gain a first contract, abandoning the American tradition of letting the parties settle their differences through good faith collective-bargaining. In other words, Business owners would suddenly have no one to negotiate on “first contracts” they would be removed from the Bargaining process and forced to accept due to EFCA an outside arbitration process without their input and the one sided and unfair employment contracts with the unions that this would imply. Third, the bill would increase penalties against employers for certain labor law violations, requiring reimbursement three times the amount of wages lost by an employee and imposing civil fines of as much as $20,000 per incident, yet would not levy harsher sanctions for union misconduct. Why Authorization Cards Cannot Substitute for a Secret Ballot Election
Key Union Arguments in Favor of EFCA and Why They are False NLRB election processes are too slow. According to NLRB statistics, in FY 2005, the median time between a union’s petition for a representation election and the holding of the election was only 38 days, and 94.2% of all elections were conducted within 56 days of a petition. Employers engage in massive illegal conduct to defeat unions, discriminating against 20,000 employees per year, and the NLRB is too slow respond. In FY 2005, the NLRB reports that it issued complaints of unlawful conduct against employers in only 1,160 cases – a ten year low - and ordered only 2,842 employees reinstated. In FY 2005, 97.2% of cases having merit were promptly settled; the median length of time to issue complaints in other cases was only 95 days. It is too hard for unions to get initial contracts with employers. Employers are already required, under penalty of law, to bargain with unions in good faith. Employers should not be forced to submit to onerous terms imposed by a third party that may jeopardize jobs and profitability. 8 comments from 7 users
1
posted by
mattloch
on Jul 26, 2007 at 10:27 AM
posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 26, 2007 at 10:35 AM
In other words, Republican Senators blocked the majority's vote on this protection for the nation's workers by threatening to shut down the Senate if a vote were allowed. They obviously want to preserve corporate ability to likewise "filibuster" the free exercise of voting by workers at a local level. Why anyone who doesn't clip stock coupons for a living would vote Republican is beyond me. . Ditto why anyone would pay attention to what Mattloch has correctly labeled a national astroturf campaign... posted by
TomW
on Jul 26, 2007 at 10:47 AM
http://araw.org/takeaction/...
Fact Sheet: Why Majority Sign-up is Needed Read below to find out why workers need majority sign-up—a fairer alternative to the way union elections are now run—a critical component of the Employee Free Choice Act.
The Employee Free Choice Act provides for certification of a union if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finds that a majority of employees have signed written authorization forms designating the union as their collective bargaining representative. Democratic majority sign-up procedures are the most effective way to determine the wishes of a majority of employees. Under majority sign-up procedures, employers are only allowed to recognize a union if a majority of employees has signed valid written forms authorizing union representation. Any employee who does not sign an authorization form is presumed not to support union representation. Democratic majority sign-up procedures are necessary to avoid anti-democratic employer coercion through the NLRB election process. Union elections are unlike any other kind of elections because of the inherent coercive power that management holds over employees—the power to deprive employees of their livelihood and to control their pay, hours and working conditions. According to a survey of 400 NLRB election campaigns in 1998 and 1999, 36 percent of workers who vote against union representation explain their vote as a response to employer pressure.1 The NLRB election process makes matters worse by enabling management to wage lengthy and bitter anti-union campaigns, during which workers can expect harassment, intimidation, threats and firings. By avoiding these inherently coercive and anti-democratic anti-union campaigns, majority-rule majority sign-up procedures help employees make freer choices under less duress. Democratic alternative procedures are necessary because the NLRB election process is broken. According to workplace surveys conducted by professors Richard Freeman of Harvard University and Joel Rogers of the University of Wisconsin, 42 million employees who are not represented by a union would like to have representation at work.2 These workers remain unrepresented largely because the official "election" procedures they must use to choose whether to form a union have become a parody of democracy.
Majority sign-up procedures promote healthy relationships between employers and employees. By helping to avoid a pitched battle between management and employees where voting to have a voice on the job is tantamount to a vote "against" the employer, majority sign-up procedures promote healthier labor relations in the workplace. Neutrality agreements–in which management typically agrees not to interfere with employees' decision about union representation and employees typically agree not to picket or strike–also help avoid the workplace polarization that often results from anti-democratic and coercive anti-worker campaigns. In a recent survey of employers who had used majority sign-up agreements, a majority reported that the agreements resulted in improved relations with the union, enabling management to achieve other bargaining or business goals.5 Majority sign-up procedures have been legal throughout the life of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Majority sign-up procedures have always been legal under the NLRA and were once the preferred method of gauging employee choice. In the early years of the NLRA, majority sign-up procedures were presumptively used absent special circumstances requiring an NLRB-supervised election. Today, majority sign-up procedures implemented at the discretion of management are becoming more common in light of the obvious failures of the NLRB election process. However, under current law, management can refuse to recognize a union even when 100 percent of employees have signed union authorization forms and can instead insist on an NLRB election process that enables management to intimidate employees through a coercive anti-worker campaign. Majority sign-up procedures similar to the Employee Free Choice Act have been successful in Canada. Labor laws in five Canadian provinces and the federal jurisdiction require union certification upon a showing of authorization forms from a majority of employees, much like the Employee Free Choice Act. The experience of the Canadian provinces with these majority sign-up procedures has been positive. Majority sign-up procedures benefit society as a whole. Both union and anti-union advocates agree that employees are better able to overcome the obstacles to forming a union under majority sign-up procedures than under the NLRB election process. Higher rates of unionization have been shown to benefit society as a whole in the form of reduced inequality, higher wages and purchasing power for union members and non-members alike, a reduced gender gap, greater access to health care, greater access to pensions, lower poverty rates, and higher voter participation. posted by
adampayne
on Jul 26, 2007 at 11:02 AM
"One study showed 18% of employees who sign cards don’t want the union." What does that statistic say? An overwhelming majority of people do want union representation. If 18% of union people are disillusioned by having to be part of a union could mean wage cuts and declining benefits have hit these folks the hardest, and dues are a worrisome expense. They should realize bargaining alone these days is no bargain and gets them "non-employee" contractor status at their place of work. WalMart has engaged in the worst sorts of anti-union conduct, and many of their practices have been fully documented. Giant industrialists don't need sycophants peddling their line on blogs, they have huge advertising agencies to that for them already. But you probably do work in advertising judging by your distortions.
posted by
Tolerance
on Jul 26, 2007 at 11:10 AM
posted by
mattloch
on Jul 26, 2007 at 11:12 AM
 /waiting to see if "NAWER" will ever respond //remember what I said in the "blogger banned" thread? ///3-1 delete comments, 5-1 will respond, 5-4 will stop posting threads within a week posted by
robbwillis
on Jul 26, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Put me down for $1 on the 5-1 will respond. Come on NAWER, make me $4 !!! Spam code: ZJMXY Scrabble score: 33 (new personal record) posted by
GrpThink
on Jul 26, 2007 at 02:39 PM
NAWER is a rightwing front group funded by Grover Norquist and the National Association of Manufacturers. http://tinyurl.com/2mnq2r
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
