Why EFCA Matters
T.A. Frank wrote a very informative article in the recent issue of the Washington Monthly that details the story of trying to organize a union at a Rite Aid distribution center in CA.
The Rite Aid organizers filed their union authorization cards with the NLRB, setting the ground for an election. And then things got ugly—and illegal, too….Eventually, the NLRB racked up so many complaints that it planned to take Rite Aid to trial on forty-nine violations of federal labor law. In the summer of 2007, though, Rite Aid chose to settle instead, agreeing to rehire two fired union supporters with back pay and to post a notice in a common area promising not to engage in thirteen types of illegal anti-union activity.
….[ILWU] won the March election, becoming the sole bargaining representative of the warehouse employees…..By August, thirty-nine more employees had been dismissed….Today, nine months later, Rite Aid and the ILWU have not yet come up with a contract. At meetings, Rite Aid has been pushing aside contract negotiations in order to discuss other things. Legally, Rite Aid is supposed to bargain “in good faith,” but such terms are highly subjective and difficult to litigate. Work conditions for the warehouse workers remain much as before, perhaps even worse. And that works to Rite Aid’s advantage — for when a union fails to deliver, its members may lose faith in it and vote it out.
Frank’s article provides some really useful detail on the process (and obligations) of union organizing, as well as some insight into what motivates people to want a union in the first place. Take very good note on who does the “strong arming” here.
I don’t know about dropping the card check addition in favor of stronger laws and penalties coupled with much better enforcement. But like pollution-prevention regulation and law, high penalties, statutory deadlines and rigorous enforcement can provide a deterrent cost of doing business that could go a long way to getting employer’s thumbs off of the scales.
(h/t Kevin Drum)
Tags: EFCA
The right to get an court injunction to stop anti-union activities is huge. As the law now reads unions have to file suit after the fact, win in court and the company get slapped on the wrist.
Union bustig companies have taken the minor fines to be just another cost of doing busines.
I like the card check because it seems to drive wingnuts out of their tiny minds.
It levels the playing field by placing consequences to a company’s actions. If employees at a company want to unionize perhaps a company would be wise in directing their efforts inward and ask why.
Ask any old-timer at the News Journal about the organizing experience there. “Negotiations” went on for 10 years without a contract ever being offered. The newsroom finally decertified, as many of those who originally backed unionization had moved on by then.
Pandora,
I agree. Given a choice between a union and decent management – I’ll bet 90% of people pick decent management.
Hope you all had a chance to listen today and learn something.
Hope you had a chance to read the article here and learn something besides the propaganda that your advertiser is providing you.
Learn something? Here’s what I know. Despite the Right’s obsession, most people would rather not have to add “form a union” to their to do list. Most people even sorta content with their job would sooner skip the hassle. That’s human nature. Just like the majority of people let things slide rather than sue.
If there’s support for unionizing then the company needs to reflect on what it’s doing. And, let’s be honest, those of us working at non-union companies (and are happy in our jobs) have “the fear of unionizing” to thank for our salaries, vacation, sick days, and environment.
Read what? That there are criminals in the world who deserve to be punished when they violate the law?
You don’t think I could trump out instance after instance of unions illegally intimidating workers into signing cards? Come on.
Even better to protect the secret ballot so no one knows how a worker voted. Secret ballot = no retribution. From either side.
And your assertion that somehow I’m being paid to talk about this on the air is asinine and you know it. The majority of my show today was talking to people that the Delaware ABC has never heard of. And I’ll keep talking about it.
Of course, the MO is to attack the messenger when you can’t handle the message.
“If there’s support for unionizing then the company needs to reflect on what it’s doing.”
Absolutely.
I support the rights of workers to form unions when they want to by secret ballot.
I’m opposed to legislation that encourages and provides incentives for unions to organize workplaces regardless of an expressed desire on behalf of the workers.
I support the rights of workers to form unions when they want to by secret ballot.
Under EFCA workers still have the right to request secret ballots. Employers do not.
Dave agrees with ““If there’s support for unionizing then the company needs to reflect on what it’s doing.”
But the truth is that they don’t reflect… until they’re forced.
FSP… as long as you are into pretending a workplace is a democracy – do you support employee’s right of peaceful assembly in the workplace?
Even better to protect the secret ballot so no one knows how a worker voted. Secret ballot = no retribution. From either side.
This is a lie.
Workers are signing cards to tell the NLRB that they want to organize. Both union and employers know who is voting to organize at that point, which means employers have targets while they wait for the election. And targets they are — as are the rest of the possible voters for an organizing unit. It isn’t an occasional incidence of employer thuggery — it is an established response to most requests to organize. This is enough of a response that there is a minor industry of specialty law firms out there who do nothing but help the Rite Aids of the world figure out how to implement the maximum amount of thuggery to stop to “disincentivize” voting workers. The secret ballot does absolutely nothing to protect anyone’s freedom — except a worker’s freedom to accept strong arming at his workplace from his employer and the freedom of employers to abuse workers when they get a whiff of unionizing.
As for your paid advertiser — conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest and there are many posts on this site on said conflicts of interest by multiple media outlets. There is no reason not to point out that DTR has the appearance of same conflicts of interest when they pop up — like now.
“Workers are signing cards to tell the NLRB that they want to organize.”
Only if they’re free from coercion in signing. Which they’re not. It’s clear that you’re okay with union thuggery being the only acceptable communication. With EFCA, the employer won’t even know there’s a drive on until they get the news that they have been unionized.
The employer deserves the right to make their argument within the bounds of the law, before a federal arbiter comes in to tell them how much they’re going to pay their employees.
“The secret ballot does absolutely nothing to protect anyone’s freedom”
I’m going to let that statement stand for eternity as a testament to just how whacked out your position is.
Apparently no one here has any idea what EFCA 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 EFCA legislation will eliminate 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 feels 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?)
“As for your paid advertiser — conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest and there are many posts on this site on said conflicts of interest by multiple media outlets. There is no reason not to point out that DTR has the appearance of same conflicts of interest when they pop up — like now.”
If I hadn’t been talking about this for a long time prior to DTR’s existence, you may have a point. But you don’t. You were trying to take away from the stronger argument by deflecting attention to the motives of the messenger.
There is no reason not to point out that DTR has the appearance of same conflicts of interest when they pop up — like now.
I can assure you, Cassandra, that Dave’s opinions on the issue haven’t changed since we’ve had ABC on our site. And neither have mine. I’m pro-Union, but I’m also pro-secret ballot in ANYTHING whether it’s voting for president, voting for dog catcher, or voting on whether or not I’d like to join in a union.
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.
On the other hand, if the union succeeds in winning $30/hour at that workplace, at your $25 job somewhere else you will likely get a raise to maybe $28.
Unions aren’t stupid – they aren’t going to ask for money that isn’t there. They are simply negotiating for a bigger share of the pie they helped make.
This is the same negotiation that occurs between an individual and his employer – except with collective bargaining, the employer has to take you seriously.
Inflation has occurred everywhere but wages. This is exactly the kind of upward pressure on wages we need in order to restore consumer buying power. Which of course is key to corporate earnings and the overall economy.
What you are describing is the “race to the bottom.”
I can assure you, Cassandra, that Dave’s opinions on the issue haven’t changed since we’ve had ABC on our site.
Would you accept that explanation from a politician, say, after you had examined his campaign contributions?
“Unions aren’t stupid – they aren’t going to ask for money that isn’t there.”
What an enormous bunch of bull. And with EFCA, they don’t have to ask. The federal arbiter will force it on the employer for them.
“This is exactly the kind of upward pressure on wages we need in order to restore consumer buying power.”
Upward pressure on wages? This is an attempt to fill union coffers with dues from millions of new members, to the detriment of the economy and all of the jobs that will suddenly find themselves in other countries.
Plus it tramples on human rights.
“Would you accept that explanation from a politician, say, after you had examined his campaign contributions?”
Yes. Matt Denn took in tens of thousands of dollars from trial lawyers, but he was clearly sympathetic to them before, because he used to be one.
To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never questioned the union money received by Oberle or Brady or DeLuca.
Doesn’t change the fact that it was an attempt to distract.
At least the fat ass-wipe movement conservatives are now talking about making sure their anti-union activity can continue and not talking about preemptively bombing Iran or getting rid of social security.
I’d say that is progress.
Viva Obama!
Shorter Jason: I have nothing of value to add.
Which is no surprise.
Why do you think I was talking about you?
When was the last time you weren’t?
Just now.
But if the “fat ass-wipe movement conservatives” shoe fits…who am I to argue?
So in this comment when you refer to a “a fat Republican asswipe use this identical talking point,” and then referenced DTR you were talking about whom, exactly?
You. I thought you opposed the preemptive bombing of Iran thought.
Sorry. My bad.
More evidence that you don’t know what I think, despite your many assurances to the contrary.
Indeed. And yet, why am I not surprised to find out that favored preemptive bombing of Iran?
I don’t. Evidence doesn’t justify it.
But you didn’t know that.
Nemski is about to ban both your asses.
Nemski is driving this bus?
God (of your choice) help us.
You were trying to take away from the stronger argument by deflecting attention to the motives of the messenger.
First, you don’t have a stronger argument, you have a bunch of lies and excuses fed to you on this issue. Second, there is no deflection of attention intended. In fact, I mention the apparent conflict of interest to specifically direct people to a piece of info that might be useful to judge credibility. Not motives, but credibility.
An apparent conflict of interest is a fairly binary thing. Only you, of course, know if there is real conflict of interest here. But for the purposes of this discussion, there is no reason for me to not point this out as I have for plenty of others.
And I am delighted that Mike vouches for you, but you’ll understand if I want to judge for myself. Besides, Mike hasn’t even read the bill at hand — if he did, he would know that it does not remove the secret ballot. It adds the card check as an employee choice AND it provides more teeth and stiffer penalties for employers who are thugging on their employees to get them to not vote for the union. And it is the latter provisions that this is over — definitely NOT card check.
Naturally the wingnuts want to paint this as “They’re taking away secret ballot” even though they aren’t. It’s the same as when they claim Obama will take everyone’s guns away or raise taxes on the middle class. They figure if they repeat the lie often enough, people will believe it. And sadly, that seems to work on many of their voters.
It does. But I want everyone to remember that these people lied about WMDs, about tax cuts paying for themselves, Saddam being responsible for 9/11 and a raft of deep bullshit that let them run roughshod over all of us. And leave us with the consequences.
Right now, they don’t have many voters. And they are about to lose whatever Reagan democrats they have left.
xstryker wrote It’s the same as when they claim Obama will take everyone’s guns away or raise taxes on the middle class.
Wait, that’s not happening? I did not get the email from our Homosexual Zionist Overlords.
So I guess the meeting on the 2nd of February is off too.
The 2 February meeting is the Afromarxislamist Overlords Meeting.
How did you get on that list?