Saturday, May 27, 2006

Lobbying for the Employee Free Choice Act

Read about efforts being made to help the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) move forward in Congress in this article by Mark Gruenberg in the People's Weekly World. EFCA is a bill that would oblige employers to recognize unions on the basis of card check processes, something that, at present, they may choose to do but do not have to do. Although there is some bi-partisan support for the bill, its passage through the present Congress is not smooth. Let's hope that's one of the many things that will change after this November.

Rank-and-Filers Demand Employee Free Choice Act

WASHINGTON (PAI) — Bob Boyle was fired April 28 from Oesterling’s Sandblasting Co., just outside Butler, Pa. “I wanted a little better and safer place to work,” said the 17-year veteran of the plant. Boyle and two other men, all fired for trying to organize for the Steelworkers union, described the hostility, lies and obstacles they encountered in their organizing drives during a May 8 lobbying effort by the union here. The effort, marshaled by Americans for Democratic Action, was in support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

“The most fundamental problem with U.S. labor law is that it’s good on paper, but the employer doesn’t suffer any fine or any penalty” for law-breaking, explained Human Rights Watch labor specialist Carol Pier. Even when workers win a favorable National Labor Relations Board ruling the appeal process takes five years or more. [cont'd]

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

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 ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: .

Feel free to publish or distribute without prior approval.