The Employee Free Choice Act

[Toast]

Until yesterday I had not heard of the Employee Free Choice Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act). The business I work for gave everyone a memo. The opening is basically stating that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was introduced into the House and Senate recently. The important part, however, is this:

For many years there has been a simple and open process for forming a union:

1. Union organizers obtain signed authorization cards from interested workers.
2. If enough cards are obtained, an informational campaign is held during which the union and the company share information and reasons to vote for or against unionization.
3. After the campaign, all workers vote by secret ballot for or against unionization.
4. If the workers vote for a union, the company and the union negotiate an initial contract.
5. The first contract must be ratified by the workers before it goes into effect.

This process provides you with the opportunity to gain valuable information and have a say in the final outcomes through the certification vote and contract ratification.

Even though the bill in Congress may or may not pass in its current form, there are provisions that we believe would have dramatic negative consequences for the company and for you. Here are some of the possible outcomes and impacts on you:

1. Unions could simply use authorization cards, signed as a result of misinformation, influence, or outright coercion, to certify a union.
2. The initial contract could be decided by a federal arbitrator—a government bureaucrat; not through negotiations by the company and the union.
3. You may not have the right to vote for the initial two year contract.

In short, depending on the final bill, you could lose many of the rights you hold today! You could lose your voice and vote in decisions about your job. We firmly believe the current process ensures your right to hear both sides and vote your conscience.

If you feel, that this law takes away too many of your rights. You can do several things:

1. Most importantly, DO NOT sign a union authorization card without asking all of your questions to both sides. When you sign the card you are authorizing someone else to speak for you. Your supervisor is always available to answer your questions.
2. Write your Senator or Congressman. You can do that easily by going to www.rilaction.org and following the links to Oppose the Employee Free Choice Act.

We know that our success is determined by the success of our associates. We believe that your performance, not a contract imposed by a federal bureaucrat, should determine your pay and career opportunities. We value the personal relationship we enjoy with each of you and would not want a third party dictating your schedule, pay, or any aspect of your employment. Any improvements we need to make—we will make them together.


I especially liked the part where they told me to oppose this legislation and any union organizing efforts. That last paragraph there is the standard response any time unionizing is mentioned. It would be nice if that's how the business was actually run, but its kinda like the exact opposite.

So, since I hadn't heard of the EFCA I looked it up. As far as I can tell, this is the full text of the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1409:).

From my limited understanding, the major differences would be that instead of an employer deciding if/when a secret ballot is held, the employees determine whether to form a union with a secret ballot or just the authorization cards. That if negotiations are not resolved in 90 days, either side can request mediation, and that if mediation does not resolve the issue after 30 days, it goes to an arbitration board that will. There also seems to be missing a section that says anything about the employees being able to ratify the changes, but that could be implied or was just overlooked. There also appear to be harsher penalties for labor violations than there were before.

Overall, it seems like a good idea, even if it could use a few changes before it gets passed. My biggest concern is the retaliation from businesses if this gets passed. This article (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dropping-the-ax-update-2009-03.pdf) talks about the increase of illegal firings of union activists and organizers, and I can only imagine that such measures would be increased further if the EFCA does pass. Furthermore, this article (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1353305) predicts that for every 3% increase in Union membership, unemployment will increase by 1% the following year and job creation will fall (you can download the full text from a link, but this is in the abstract). Laying off employees in droves is bad enough for those without jobs, but rarely is it mentioned that those employees that remain now have to do 2-3 times the work to compensate and are still payed the same amount.

I haven't been able to find anything concrete about what businesses are saying in response to this, other than making inaccurate or outright misinformation claims about how the EFCA removes the secret ballot or that employees will lose a say in how the business is run (which is basically the case currently anyway), or how it will destroy small businesses.

It seems to me that most businesses are opposing the EFCA because unions would be easier to form, they can't delay negotiations without risking arbitration, and there are harsher penalties for their usual scare tactics to deter unions. But maybe I'm missing something.

So, is the EFCA a good thing? Is it a good idea in theory, but needs to go through some revision before it would be good in practice? Are there better alternatives to promoting workers rights and negotiating power that wouldn't elicit a retaliation from employers?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Unions are overwhelmingly a good thing.
Talk about mass firings and unemployment are typical scare tactics designed to keep down unions. These talks circulate for the very reason that unions increase the power of the poor, working man and decrease power of those in charge. That is why these talks go around in the first place.
Businesses need workers. These workers are not going to appear from nowhere, magically trained and ready to go. They cannot afford to just fire everyone if they all join a union. Most businesses have a huge disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom. If the cost of labour at the bottom goes up, then they can usually afford to cut costs at the top where things are ridiculously out of proportion. If they start firing workers they simply lose money and then collapse.
Couldn't they fire the workers and make the others work harder as you mentioned? Well no. That is the kind of thing that unions prevent.
I am actually completely baffled as to how any bill which makes unions easier to form is anything other than a good thing.
Sure it may take away your rights but only your rights to be shat upon and exploited by your boss.

[Nique]

How does one organize a union?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

How does one organize a union?

I don't know the ins and outs of union organisation in the US but generally the best way to go is to find a national body to affiliate with. Like say you work in manufacturing there should be a manufacturing union across country.
The advantage of these is that generally they let each workplace run thier own union while providing the experience and knowhow, as well as legal ability, to run and setup unions. Even if you don't want to affliate with them, they should also be able to help as the key goal of unions is to unionise as many workers as possible.

[Nique]

Is there any reason a tech support/ phone rep union would be impractical or unappealing?

[Azisien]

Is there any reason a tech support/ phone rep union would be impractical or unappealing?

Impractical because in such a job you probably could all get replaced without too much fuss? Depending on the size of the union. I imagine the smaller a union is, the weaker it is. Works better with like auto makers because, well, as far as I know there's a lot of steps that go into making a car and at least some fairly complex positions involved. On the other hand most transit workers have unions. In Ottawa's case a jackass union I hate, but they can't all be winners aye?

[Ugainius]

Is there any reason a tech support/ phone rep union would be impractical or unappealing?

I can't see why there would be. I mean unless a job is dependent on may individuals whose interests don't concern each other, there is no particular negative aspect save the sort of yearly donation to ensure it runs smoothly. That said this may fall into the bracket of jobs where there is no substantial gains. It all depends on the average lenght of time an employee works for your company.

[01d55]

Is there any reason a tech support/ phone rep union would be impractical or unappealing?

Because the legal environment was changed prior to the formation of the tech support industry in a way calculated to make union organization difficult, if not impossible. This precludes the formation of a strong national union in the field.

cf. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/morning-joe-crew-cant-name-a-single-successful-unionized-firm.php

[Fifthfiend]

Just want to say that this flier of your employer's is actually one really good example of imbalances the EFCA is meant to address IE the ability of employers to propagandize against unions to the basically captive audience that is their employees.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Is there any reason a tech support/ phone rep union would be impractical or unappealing?

While people have mentioned that there is generally a high turnover rate in these jobs, a union can be very important because of this very fact. High turnover rate means job conditions are generally pretty poor as nobody is around long enough to get them changed so a union is pretty key. A union is difficult to establish in such a job but is certainly valid and I know of unions in such jobs back home that do good work.
If you are interested I can contact my friend who is a union organiser and an American labour historian to see if he knows of any national bodies that could give you information on such fields.

[Nique]

If you are interested I can contact my friend who is a union organiser and an American labour historian to see if he knows of any national bodies that could give you information on such fields.

Sure. Although I hope to simply get out of tech support & call center environments in general, I have a huge problem with the way such places are run. I think it'd certainly be info worth having.

[BitVyper]

Sure. Although I hope to simply get out of tech support & call center environments in general, I have a huge problem with the way such places are run. I think it'd certainly be info worth having.

You're not one of those people who thinks humans should actually have some basic rights, are you? I bet you think employers should show a bare minimum of respect to their employees too.

Goddamn first world types.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Question about unions.

I've been indoctrinated my entire life into thinking unions are eeeeeevil. A few examples: My dad blames the UAW for the bankruptcies of GM among others, saying that them arguing their wages/pensions/benefits higher led to their eventual fall. I've also heard they drive companies to outsource and they have a way of strongarming people into signing off on a union, and that this legislation would only make it easier.

Of course I've heard arguments for and against. Some saying that unions save the American worker, while others say they are leading to the destruction of the U.S. economy. I'm so confused it's mindboggling.

And another thing, I know plenty of small business owners and none of them rule their employees with an iron fist (including my dad). All I hear on this board are stories of satan-like bosses where unions are essential. Just pointing out that I might be a product of my environment and as a consequence might have a bias.

[bluestarultor]

Question about unions.

I've been indoctrinated my entire life into thinking unions are eeeeeevil. A few examples: My dad blames the UAW for the bankruptcies of GM among others, saying that them arguing their wages/pensions/benefits higher led to their eventual fall. I've also heard they drive companies to outsource and they have a way of strongarming people into signing off on a union, and that this legislation would only make it easier.

Of course I've heard arguments for and against. Some saying that unions save the American worker, while others say they are leading to the destruction of the U.S. economy. I'm so confused it's mindboggling.

Unions are a piss-poor excuse to outsource, and a paper-thin one to boot. Companies outsource so they can pay foreign labor pennies a day to do the same work that Americans would ask a living wage for. Many companies are staunchly anti-union and outsource anyway, despite utterly crushing any attempts to unionize. We're talking things like illegal firings and even murder.

All in all, a union is good for workers, bad for rich bastards hoarding wealth drawn from the ill-gotten blood, sweat, and tears of their lowest employees.

[Azisien]

Ha ha ha.

I know many people that work at the Ford plant in Toronto that make $80/hour. Assembly line workers. They are not in a minority and that is not a living wage. Part of the financial problems right now is generated by that. The issue is not so black and white in any direction.

I agree unions are generally a good thing but the same evils that corrupt the "big bad wealthy men" can eventually corrupt massive unions too. People are people.

[bluestarultor]

Ha ha ha.

I know many people that work at the Ford plant in Toronto that make $80/hour. Assembly line workers. They are not in a minority and that is not a living wage. Part of the financial problems right now is generated by that. The issue is not so black and white in any direction.

I agree unions are generally a good thing but the same evils that corrupt the "big bad wealthy men" can eventually corrupt massive unions too. People are people.

I was going to ignore that in favor of the big picture, but yes, Ford is a mess because they let the unions walk all over them. Ford as a company has been in a shambles for years now and should really be put out of its misery, or, y'know, handed off to people equipped to run a business.

[Kepor]

Question about unions.

I've been indoctrinated my entire life into thinking unions are eeeeeevil. A few examples: My dad blames the UAW for the bankruptcies of GM among others, saying that them arguing their wages/pensions/benefits higher led to their eventual fall. I've also heard they drive companies to outsource and they have a way of strongarming people into signing off on a union, and that this legislation would only make it easier.

Of course I've heard arguments for and against. Some saying that unions save the American worker, while others say they are leading to the destruction of the U.S. economy. I'm so confused it's mindboggling.

And another thing, I know plenty of small business owners and none of them rule their employees with an iron fist (including my dad). All I hear on this board are stories of satan-like bosses where unions are essential. Just pointing out that I might be a product of my environment and as a consequence might have a bias.

As far as outsourcing goes, that would happen regardless of unions, mainly because businesses have to compete with other businesses that outsource. This is even more true in labor-intensive businesses (but not agriculture).

The economic argument against unions is that it raises cost of production, which has to be passed onto consumers, who then buy less, which then lowers total profits. If costs get too high, the company closes, and both employees and employers are out of work.

The social argument for unions is that the balance of power between an individual employee and an employer is so one-sided that employees are forced to compete in a race to the bottom, working for less than a living wage, unsafe conditions, excessive hours, and such.

Republicans tend to argue the economic angle, and Democrats tend to argue the social angle. That's probably why you're confused.

[Magus]

Since before this act it was basically stated to many employees by their employers, that if they even mentioned the word "union" they would fired, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a law stating that workers may learn about unions, talk about unionizing, and unionize if they wish, without fear of immediate dismissal.

Not sure about anyone else who worked minimum wage jobs as a teenager but McDonald's for example tells its employees right out that anyone involved in unionizing will be fired immediately. McDonald's of course is one of the companies most threatened by something like unionization because they can't outsource their jobs to another country. Wal-Mart is another company who can't outsource their jobs, and hey, look, extremely anti-union. Not that there aren't lots of companies that can outsource, but there are exceptions, and even with outsourcing being a paper-thin excuse for some companies, for others, its not an option at all. What is an option is the unfair and immediate dismissal of employees based entirely around pro-union leanings, and if a law can remove this I see no negatives that do not outweigh the great positives of allowing workers to negotiate for better pay and working conditions without fear or reprisal. You always have to ask in any situation, "who benefits", and the fact of the matter is that 99% of the time, when unionization is not an option for employees, owners and employers win out and employees lose out.

[Gorefiend]

I've been indoctrinated my entire life into thinking unions are eeeeeevil. A few examples: My dad blames the UAW for the bankruptcies of GM among others, saying that them arguing their wages/pensions/benefits higher led to their eventual fall. I've also heard they drive companies to outsource and they have a way of strongarming people into signing off on a union, and that this legislation would only make it easier.

And another thing, I know plenty of small business owners and none of them rule their employees with an iron fist (including my dad). All I hear on this board are stories of satan-like bosses where unions are essential. Just pointing out that I might be a product of my environment and as a consequence might have a bias.I'll treat the two paragraphs separately.

1) In that particular case he's absolutely right. The union contracts that the UAW demands are WAY out of line with the entire rest of the world, and, frankly, with reality; automakers are required to keep paying their retirees' healthcare costs for life. In today's world, that means a shitton of expensive procedures, drugs, facilities... When the contracts were drafted, it meant antibiotics, a few surgeries, and the occasional placebo. That's without mentioning the differences in life expectancy from then to now.

2) Bear in mind that unions are as much a historical as an economic phenomenon; in the past, factory conditions were brutal, strikes were met with military responses, and wages were piss-poor. Upward mobility--and the promise of the American Dream--were impossible. In that environment, unions were great. As for today, well, there are still places that don't want to offer the right benefits, that endanger their workers with bad conditions, or that offer piss-poor wages.

The economic argument against unions is that it raises cost of production, which has to be passed onto consumers, who then buy less, which then lowers total profits. If costs get too high, the company closes, and both employees and employers are out of work.

The social argument for unions is that the balance of power between an individual employee and an employer is so one-sided that employees are forced to compete in a race to the bottom, working for less than a living wage, unsafe conditions, excessive hours, and such.

Republicans tend to argue the economic angle, and Democrats tend to argue the social angle. That's probably why you're confused.An addendum: a possible economic argument for unions is that if employers give their employees higher wages, they would be able to afford to buy the products they are making (or others), which would translate to higher sales and profits for the company and all those around it. Sure, maybe not the same astronomical profits they'd see if they could buy labor at (at times literally) pennies/hour, but they'd be making profits and benefiting their society while they're at it.

[01d55]

I'll treat the two paragraphs separately.


As shall I.
1) In that particular case he's absolutely right. The union contracts that the UAW demands are WAY out of line with the entire rest of the world, and, frankly, with reality; automakers are required to keep paying their retirees' healthcare costs for life. In today's world, that means a shitton of expensive procedures, drugs, facilities... When the contracts were drafted, it meant antibiotics, a few surgeries, and the occasional placebo. That's without mentioning the differences in life expectancy from then to now.

Ever relevant (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14185):
THE TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
A Play in Three Acts

Dramatis Personae

BIG THREE, a manufacturer of automobiles
UAW, Big Three’s employee
MITT ROMNEY, an idiot

ACT ONE

BIG THREE: I have plans to build automobiles, but I need labor to do so!
UAW: I will labor for you if you will pay me $40 per hour.
BIG THREE: I will not pay you $40 per hour.
UAW: But I need to save for my inevitable retirement, and any health concerns that may arise.
BIG THREE: I will pay you $30 per hour, plus a generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care upon your retirement.
UAW: Then I agree to work for you!

ACT TWO

UAW: I am building cars for you, as I have promised to do!
BIG THREE: I am designing terrible cars that few people want to buy! Also, rather than save for UAW’s inevitable retirement when I will have to pay him the generous pension of guaranteed payments and health care that I promised, I am spending that money under the dubious assumption that my future revenues will be sufficient to meet those obligations.

ACT THREE

UAW: I have fulfilled my end of the deal by building the automobiles that you have asked me to build.
BIG THREE: Oh no! I am undone! My automobiles are no longer competitive due to my years of poor planning and poor judgement!
MITT ROMNEY: This is all UAW’s fault!

2) Bear in mind that unions are as much a historical as an economic phenomenon; in the past, factory conditions were brutal, strikes were met with military responses, and wages were piss-poor. Upward mobility--and the promise of the American Dream--were impossible. In that environment, unions were great. As for today, well, there are still places that don't want to offer the right benefits, that endanger their workers with bad conditions, or that offer piss-poor wages.

You know it's not as if things like upward mobility and job/environmental safety happened by accident. They happened because unions and their political allies fought for them against the spitting rage of rich assholes who own huge corporations, whose efforts to destroy all of those things, along with the unions that made them possible, have not abated.

[Fifthfiend]

What really depresses me is when someone like Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan who basically manages to make it where they are in large part owing to the opportunities created via a unionized workforce and progressive social policies get to the top of the heap and then immediately turn around and start kicking everyone below them back down the hill.

[ZAKtheGeek]

And another thing, I know plenty of small business owners and none of them rule their employees with an iron fist (including my dad). All I hear on this board are stories of satan-like bosses where unions are essential. Just pointing out that I might be a product of my environment and as a consequence might have a bias.
Well, small businesses are, y'know, small. They don't have that many employees. The jobs need to get done probably as much as the workers doing them need to get paid, so there's a balance of power. Whereas a huge corporation employing thousands of people can afford to temporarily lose a couple of workers' worth of labor and will replace them without missing a beat; those workers have little power in comparison to their employer.

[Gorefiend]

I'd like to note that I am aware that unions are still useful today ad am generally pro-labor; I am more familiar with their historical role than with their role today, is all.

That said, I'd always been made to understand that those provisions were offered because when WWII price and wage fixes rolled around, they had gotten used to using that model to compete for workers and because at the time medicine and life expectancy were much cheaper; they honestly thought that healthcare costs would be low and they wouldn't have to pay for that long anyways.

Edit: If you read the original version, it was self-contradictory.

[BitVyper]

Well, small businesses are, y'know, small. They don't have that many employees. The jobs need to get done probably as much as the workers doing them need to get paid, so there's a balance of power. Whereas a huge corporation employing thousands of people can afford to temporarily lose a couple of workers' worth of labor and will replace them without missing a beat; those workers have little power in comparison to their employer.

Small businesses also don't have so much bureaucracy separating management from the workers and dehumanizing both. In other words; they have more heart.

[Bob The Mercenary]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/kneecapping-fedex/

Haven't heard an unbiased opinion on this one yet, but on first reading it suggests Obama is "kneecapping" FedEx with the intent of appeasing unions involved with the workings of UPS. Now, from my vast experience with NPF, I know there's another side to this I'm not hearing. Please enlighten me.

[bluestarultor]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/kneecapping-fedex/

Haven't heard an unbiased opinion on this one yet, but on first reading it suggests Obama is "kneecapping" FedEx with the intent of appeasing unions involved with the workings of UPS. Now, from my vast experience with NPF, I know there's another side to this I'm not hearing. Please enlighten me.

Actually, that article shows at least the politics of it. Not a damn word on what it changes, but just how stupid it is for the motion to have been made. Really, with FedEx operating under totally different means, it makes sense that any issues with it should be addressed separately.

Also, why the Hell does everyone blame this stuff on Obama? He's not even mentioned in the article! He has nothing to DO with this!

[Bob The Mercenary]

Sorry, by Obama I meant the government, which includes the House of Reps. Sorry about the mistype.

[bluestarultor]

I know I'm going to sound like a dick for saying this, but it needs to be said.

The government as a whole is not represented by individual people. Individual people in the government are perfectly capable of pulling dick moves, but they are by no means representative of the government as a whole, which is a body of diverse people who represent their constituents. Now, this guy may well be pulling a dick move because someone's been filling his pockets, and it might well pass unless a bunch of people write in to their Congresspeople to say "what the fuck," but this is the action of one person and not the government as a whole, and certainly not Obama, whose only say over this is whether to pass it or not. The government is split up into three equal branches, and the president is only the head of one of them. This is a Congressional matter, so the only way Obama is touching this is if it passes through both houses of Congress in this same form, at which point he can either ratify or veto the entire thing, since he doesn't have a line-item veto.