Deep Thought of the Day
The Radical Right is all over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFAC) because they are worried about taking away workers’ rights. Really? This is what you’re going to go with here, Republicans looking out for the welfare of the working man and woman.
Okay, I’ve stopped laughing, have you? So the Radical Right’s opposition to EFAC has nothing to do with union busting? Because the history of the Rebpublican Party has been one for the destruction of labor unions which is decidedly anti-worker.
Tags: Radical Right
Americans are pretty broadly supportive of unions (although they don’t want unions to have more “influence” which given the range of things and places where unions can be influential makes this question sort of useless without some definition).
Republicans and business owners who have suited up for this massive wave of propaganda aren’t interested in freedom or democracy — they are interested in the bottom line. If they can reduce labor wages, they can increase their margins — because the decreased cost of doing business does not get passed on to the consumer, it gets passed on to shareholders.
But mostly, the point of this current jihad against people who work for a living has everything to do with preserving the opportunity for the kind of worker abuse that I pointed out in my Rite Aid post. And for people who badly need to broaden their tent, continuing the war on work and workers seems awfully counterintuitive. Especially since Reagan got a lot of this demographic to vote for him.
Thanks nemski!
…workers’ best defense against harassment and intimidation by either a union or an employer is a secret-ballot election in which neither knows how any individual worker voted.
Hmmm….A while back I think a fat Republican asswipe use this identical talking point.
The Heritage Foundation must be listening to DTR.
You forgot the GOP is protectors of the very wealthy and BIG CEO salaries, pension plans, lifetime health insurance, golden parachutes, bonuses, stock options and whatever they can get that the everday person is NOT to have. See, in order for this philosophy to work, you need to throw in lots of social values stuff so the really dumb will vote against their own self interests.
they care almost as much as trying to get these guys a “living wage”.
If slavery still existed today, the wingnuts would oppose emancipation because it would infringe upon the right of slaves not to be paid. They’d call it a tax increase.
The republicans are running out of issues. The economy. Their economic principles of deregulation failed. Foreign policy. A farce. So now they’re going after the middle class, again. Let them. Make it a big fight. It will bury the republican party for another decade or two. People see them for what they are. Get richer schemes for the few. It guarantees they will stay a minority party for a very long time. That’s alright with me.
It’s about time for people unite for the right to a living wage.
How many years did we hear: ‘Production is up’? American workers gave up lunch, days off, etc. to ensure that production increased.
My question (to the talking heads) was alway: “Yes, production is up and been up….when are wages going to go up???????
It’s almost impossible to get the attention of swine when they are at the trough.
Apparently no one on here has a clue about what EFAC really does.
In traditional organizing drives, unions get employees to sign cards indicating an interest in joining the union. If enough cards are signed (at least 30 per cent of the employees), the union and the employer plead their cases before the workers and a SECRET ballot is then held to determine whether the union has been granted the right to represent the employees. (The union needs to surpass the 50 per cent mark.) The EFAC legislation eliminates that pesky secret ballot requirement, granting the union power as soon as it has gathered more than 50 per cent of the employee signatures on the cards. No person in his right mind would believe that an employee visited at work or at his home by union representatives asking to sign a card in front of them will not be subject to intimidation. Union reps do not, after all, resemble Mr. Rogers or Wally Cox, they resemble Dick Butkus or Mike Tyson. Obama apparently felt quite comfortable taking away the right to a secret ballot… what the hell, it’s only an American tradition. (Eliminating secret ballots was one of the things the unions got in exchange for forwarding more than $100 million in forced union dues to the Obama campaign.)
Just to make sure the unions have unlimited power over businesses, Obama supports legislation prohibiting employers from hiring replacement workers during a strike. If you own a business and your employees go on strike to demand $30 per hour, you will not be allowed to hire replacement workers for less – even though other capable people may be quite willing to work for $25 per hour. If you are not a business owner but you would like that $25 per hour job, sorry – Obama says no, you can’t have it. (Do you think this law might raise prices? Or cause bankruptcies? Or prompt more businesses to go overseas?)
If enough cards are signed (at least 30 per cent of the employees), the union and the employer plead their cases before the workers and a SECRET ballot is then held to determine whether the union has been granted the right to represent the employees.
You are almost correct, but you left out one fact in order to spin it your way.
The current law does not require a secret ballot, or any election at all, unless the employer challenges the cards and demands an election. After presenting the cards, unions would rather not have an election at all.
The current law does not require a secret ballot. When the union presents its signed cards to the employer, the employer has the option of recognizing the union immediately, shaking everyone’s hand, and ordering lunch for all. No election required.
Or, they may refuse to recognize the union, and demand a secret ballot instead.
It is the “campaign” period prior to the election where employer violations occur. They have gotten quite good at it, and the fines are small and are just a cost of doing business. It is time to level the playing field.
EFCA does not give employees the right to demand a secret ballot because it already exists under the current law. Instead, it eliminates it. That was the whole point of the legislation. Employers will be forced to recognize unions on the basis of the cards not all 50% of employees may have signed voluntarily. If employers reject unions despite the cards, they will have to deal with NLRB who will have to decide for the union or violate the provisions of EFCA.
Instead, it eliminates it.
No, the secret ballot option is still there for employees. Although it is unlikely to be used, it is incorrect to say it is eliminated.
Even the Heritage Foundation agrees, although they find it painful to admit it under mountains of spin:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/labor/bg2175.cfm
Under EFCA, once 30% of employees sign the cards, the organizers can call for an election (which would be by secret ballot).
Or, they could continue collecting signatures until they break 50%, in which case the union would be recognized and no election would be needed.
What is eliminated is the employers right to demand an election.
In some ways, the card check method of certification is harder because EFCA requires 50% for certification, as opposed to 30% to call an election.
Greener Pastures wrote earlier Just to make sure the unions have unlimited power over businesses, Obama supports legislation prohibiting employers from hiring replacement workers during a strike.
This just proves my point that the Right is not interested in the worker, they are only interested in union busting and over-protecting businesses.
Once the cards are signed, there is no option for a secret ballot. Are you telling me that the union “organizers” are going to stop their “organizing” at 49% and tell everybody that if 1% more sign up, they’ll lose their secret ballot right?
Please.
Under EFCA, employees still have the same secret ballot rights they had before. It is employers who are losing it.
“Under EFCA, employees still have the same secret ballot rights they had before. It is employers who are losing it.”
Not true. There is no provision for a secret ballot if a majority of workers sign the card, regardless of how much pressure, harassment, thuggery or intimidation went into their “Free Choice.”
The removal of the option is the removal of that protection.
Not to mention that it’s wrong to deny an employer the right to weigh in on whether or not their workplace becomes unionized. Workers should be told that more compensation per worker eventually means fewer workers, for instance.
Business owners, not the federal government, should be managing their businesses.
Both sides are wrong.
Workers do indeed deserve to have a process devoid of harassment and misinformation.
Employers deserve to have a process where decisions are indeed devoid of harassment and a reliable independent ballot.
The “Free Choice” aspect needs to be addressed on both sides. If and when you guarantee free choice, the outcome is not a debating exercise but a part of democracy.
Not true. There is no provision for a secret ballot if a majority of workers sign the card, regardless of how much pressure, harassment, thuggery or intimidation went into their “Free Choice.”
You can repeat this all you like, but it is still quite wrong. anon@11 has it — the current legislation (which I’ve provided multiple links to) simply does not remove a secret ballot, but adds card-check as an employee choice.
Business owners, not the federal government, should be managing their businesses.
In which case, you’d think that business owners wouldn’t want the government to run this secret ballot.