The Employee Free Choice Act

[Toast]

Until yesterday I had not heard of the 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.

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 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 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]

Originally Posted by Nique

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]

Originally Posted by Nique

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]

Originally Posted by Nique

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]

Originally Posted by Nique

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/ar...nized-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]

Originally Posted by Nique

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.