EFCA After Healthcare: Rising From the Dead?

Much of the talk over the past year about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) dealt with the fact that not much was going to happen with it until HealthCare had cleared or died. Well as we all know, the Senate Healthcare Bill passed the House of Representatives on March 21 and will be signed into law by President Obama on March 23. So what now for EFCA?

Will EFCA now rise from the dead? If it does the version that will be worked on will be that of Senator Arlen Specter (pun not intended by happily pointed out.) An article in the September 17, 2009 issue of the Washington DC Employment Law Update blog dealt with Specter's "Compromise" version of EFCA. It pointed out that Specter's compromise gets rid "Card check" aspects of bill. However, quoting a Washington Post article, writer blogger Jay Sumner stated "...the amended EFCA would try to make union elections more fair by sharply limiting the time between organizers' declaration that they have enough support to call an election and the day of the vote, to reduce the potential for employer intimidation. Organizers would also be guaranteed access to workers if employers held mandatory anti-union meetings on company time. And the penalties for employers who break labor law rules would be triple what they are today."  (The emphasis is mine and points out a bad precedent. Unions have all the access they need to have after work. A time that the employer does not. Unions have the right to visit in the homes of workers, employers do not.)

The second part, and more dangerous part of the bill, gets altered as well. Sumner points out "As for the equally contentious arbitration provision, the amended bill would still impose forced government arbitration if the parties cannot agree to the terms of a first contract within a specified time period, but would establish a “last best offer” model for final resolution. Under this approach, the arbitrator chooses between the two parties’ contract proposals, rather than exercising unfettered discretion on contract terms."
Sumner summarizes by stating "While on the surface these amendments appear to temper some of the more controversial terms that have been anathema to business interests, the changes are not drastic enough to attract wide-spread support within the business community, most of which is opposed to EFCA in any form and in particular is opposed to first contract arbitration. In fact, this version of EFCA – unlike the original bill – would provide union organizers with unprecedented access to the workplace. While the suggested bill would preserve the representation election process, the shortened election period would limit an employer’s ability to present its position to employees so that employees can make a fully-educated decision on unionization having heard both sides." (The emphasis is mine).

This compromise is bad news. By stripping the "card check" from the bill and preserving "secret ballot elections" much of the uninformed will think that the bill is palatable. IT IS NOT!

So lets not let down our guard! Pay attention to what is going on. I am sure unions are chomping at the bit to get this pushed through. And as the Healthcare bill showed DEAD AND BURIED may only be a perception and EFCA may yet rise from the dead and walk ZOMBIE like to reality.

Update on EFCA: SEIU Rejects "Card" Signing: SAY WHAT???

According to an article in the LA Times (SEIU borrows business' anti-union tactics to fend off a rival) the SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, is rejecting exactly what they are supporting in the Employee Free Choice Act. The article states "...the union is urging federal officials to throw out petitions signed by tens of thousands of its own members who have asked to be represented by a rival upstart group." The article goes on to say " In lodging legal challenges to the roughly 80 petitions filed by its fledgling competitor, the SEIU has moved to block organizing elections at hospitals, clinics and nursing homes up and down the state. And it has used some of the same tactics that employers often use to thwart union drives."

Amazingly the SEIU, as the article states "One of the giant union's allegations echoes a key argument that corporate interests make against the proposed law, the Employee Free Choice Act: that labor activists can intimidate or mislead workers during organizing campaigns." Talk about being two-faced! The SEIU has turned to the NLRB and has charged the rival union with unfair labor practices (ULPs) and wants the petitions set aside. Yet Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, says this does not change his stance on EFCA. Sure, not as long as it will work for his benefit. But let it work against him and he is for using current labor law. Sounds like a good argument for not needing EFCA in the first place.

Read the article (link above) to get the full story, especially if you think EFCA is a good thing. This may help you decide otherwise.

A side note: Al Franken will be made the newest Senator next week. This will give the Democrats a philibuster proof majority. This is going to make it much more likely that the EFCA will be passed along with all the other pending legislation mentioned in yesterday's post. Read them and weep.

Why Unions Are Bad For Companies, Employees and Customers

If you have ever read my blog you know that I am no fan of unions. They may have had their place in the past but not in today's world. I have mentioned in my blogs on EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) that unions cost a company. Not just in direct costs, but in indirect costs as well. Slowed work process, lessened productivity, poorer employee relations, and more have been cited as the costs associated with unionism. A study by the Heritage Foundation puts a bit more concreteness to this argument. What Unions Do: How Labor Unions Affect Jobs and the Economy can be read by clicking the title.

This study finds:

• "Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages..... Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.


• The average union member earns more than the average non-union worker. However, that does not mean that expanding union membership will raise wages: Few workers who join a union today get a pay raise. ....The economy has become more competitive over the past generation. Companies have less power to pass price increases on to consumers without going out of business. Consequently, unions do not negotiate higher wages for many newly organized workers. These days, unions win higher wages for employees only at companies with competitive advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as successful research and development (R&D) projects or capital investments.


• Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.


• Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns.


• Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else.


• Economic theory consequently suggests that unions raise the wages of their members at the cost of lower profits and fewer jobs, that lower profits cause businesses to invest less, and that unions have a smaller effect in competitive markets (where a union cannot obtain a monopoly).


• .....union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies... But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees.


• Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms."

Much more can be read in this study. If you truly want to know the costs, ALL THE COSTS, that are associated with unions read the article. It talks about how unions have cost GM and the US.

Probably the item I find the most disagreeable is this following statement on individualism. It is why I have never belonged to a union, it goes against how I was raised.

"Final union contracts typically give workers group identities instead of treating them as individuals. Unions do not have the resources to monitor each worker's performance and tailor the contract accordingly. Even if they could, they would not want to do so. Unions want employees to view the union--not their individual achievements--as the source of their economic gains. As a result, union contracts typically base pay and promotions on seniority or detailed union job classifications. Unions rarely allow employers to base pay on individual performance or promote workers on the basis of individual ability."

Just does not suit me.

EFCA: Biden, Unions and Congress Start "The Dance"

The Employee Free Choice Act, popularily referred to as the "card check" bill was introduced into both houses of Congress on March 10th. Debate has started, but so far support has eroded for the bill in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill’s fate increasingly hinges on Sens. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) — two wavering moderates who would love to dodge the controversy. But the White House has pulled out the big guns for support. Vice President Joe Biden appeared in front of an executive meeting of the AFL-CIO. He was very vocal in his support of EFCA. According to Politico.com "Vice President Joe Biden wasn’t exactly restrained in remarks to an AFL-CIO gathering in Miami last Thursday, saying, 'You all brought me to the dance a long time ago, and it’s time we start dancing.'"

The bill is significant. According to one study passage of the bill could eliminate over 600,000 jobs. Let me remind you of the provisions of the bill.

1. EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot election that is normally required for your employees to select a union, and replace it with a much less formal "card check" process that is controlled by the union and is secretive, selective, and susceptible to abuse and coercion.
   
2. Even more alarming are provisions in EFCA that would require so-called "interest arbitration" of the first contract once a union gets in. Under these provisions, if the first contract is not negotiated to conclusion between the parties within a relatively short 120-day period, the contract dispute would be referred to an arbitrator who would then determine the contract terms for a two-year period with no right of appeal.

Most of the attention has been focused on the first provision and there has been a backlash against it. Several states are even introducing legislation to preserve secret ballot elections in their states.

However, most labor negotiators that I know and have read about are more concerned with the second provision. Few first time contracts are negotiated in 6 months, much less 120 days. The failure to do so enforces an arbitrator designed contract, one that will not be in the best interest of the company.

I am playing "seer and soothesayer" and making a prediction. I predict we will see an attempt to "compromise" on the "card check" provision to make EFCA more palatable to the public while maintaining the more harmful "interest arbitration" provision.

I have written my Congressional representatives, both House and Senate, and expressed my opinion. I suggest you do the same. Guess we will have to see if President Obama is waiting to tap Joe Biden and cut in to dance with the AFL-CIO on this one. New Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has already been at the dance and has been filling in her dance card too.

Career Opportunity for HR in the EFCA

Here is a great blog post by Alan Collins on the HR opportunity in the Employee Free Choice Act. I could not have written this any better (or for that matter even as well as). It is a discussion about the four opportunities for HR. Read it and learn.

On an information level visit LaborPains.org , scroll down and watch the video. Then scroll down and read the list of "notables" that are against the EFCA. Very informative blog.

Card Check, Email and Social Media: A Clash of Interests

If you have been reading these posts at all, you know by now that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) contains a provision allowing unions to organize using a method referred to as "card check." Wikipedia defines card check "...as a method of organizing employees into a labor union in which employers enter into an agreement to recognize the unionization of its employees if a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign authorization forms, or "cards". " What most people do not realize is that the signed "card" does not need to actually be a card, that is a holdover from the days when it actually was a card, back in the days when there was nothing like email and electronic signatures. Many experts feel today that union organization will be done in large part by use of email and to a lesser extent through the use of social media, such as FaceBook, MySpace and Twitter. Their recommendation to employers is to severly restrict the use of email to business only purposes and eliminate access to social media from work computers.

Unfortunately, this butts heads with the increasing trend of (primarily) younger workers using email and social media for personal communication throughout the day. In fact many recruiters are using social media for recruitment purposes. People access and read blogs throughout the day. Web 2.0 use is a mix of work and personal that becomes almost impossible to limit. If you try you may have push back from younger workers who complain that this makes the workplace too stifling, which is the opposite type of workplace you want to have to remain union free.

It will be a fact that unions will use your email system to try to organize workers against you. Expression of interest through an email response may very well count as having "signed the card." So what do you do? You need to educate your workers. Educate them on:

• The company position on remaining union free. Let them know how the company will be harmed economically.
• Educate them on how unions may try to organize them, forewarning them about emails and contacts on social media. Letting them know not to respond to these contacts without first checking out the facts that may be presented.
• Encourage open communication with your employees about the economy, unions and the continued well being of the company.

You can draft tighter non-solicitation policies, which includes the use of email. But it may be difficult to totally control email use. But there is software to monitor email traffic if you want to do so.

I would like to hear from some of you who have email policies that restrict use of email. Please leave a comment and let us know how you do it, monitior it, and how effective that has been.

As a closing note, the card check provision is getting alot of attention. This attention may be a diversion to keep our attention away from the second provision of EFCA, Interest Arbitration and enforced contracts, which is the much BIGGER EVIL of EFCA.

Andy Sterns: Business' Biggest Enemy?

Andy Sterns is the president of the SEIU, Service Employees International Union, an AFL-CIO breakaway and the fast growing union organization in the United States. He is also one of the biggest threats to American businesses. In an interview in the Wall Street Journal in December called Let's 'Share the Wealth' : America's most powerful union boss says Europe offers a good economic model Sterns makes it no secret that he feels unions got Obama elected and he intends to hold Obama's feet to the fire. "Mr. Stern sets this simple bar for the Obama presidency: "I expect nothing less than what he said he was going to do, and we should hold him accountable."

And Stern seems to have Obama's ear. Stern recommended Rep. Hilda Solis as a nominee for Labor Secretary (see yesterday's blog post) and was on the inauguration stand right beside the new President as he was sworn in. Stern is obviously a big proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act. So he will be bringing a great deal of pressure to bear on Congress and the Obama administration to get it passed. After all $450 million buys alot of favors.

Stern is not your stereotypical leader. He is highly educated and articulate. He has never held a blue collar job and had been trained in union tactics by a reputed socialist organization. He has been able to team with WalMart, a hated enemy, to argue for universal healthcare (see my post from Feb. 08, 2007 called Strange Bedfellows.)

However, he is not without his warts. There are union members in California who feel that he has run roughshod over their rights and many union leaders are unhappy with his strong-arm tactics against unions he wants possession of. See SEIU President Andy Stern is a threat to labor soul published at NYDailynews.com.

So do not take this man lightly. He is out to get business. And other unions. And, by the way, politicians if they do not do what he wants. The WSJ had this fact and quote. "The bit about accountability is no idle warning. Organized labor put up some $450 million to get Democrats elected. The SEIU accounted for $85 million of that, making Mr. Stern's union the single biggest contributor to either party in this election cycle. And just in case, the SEIU set aside an additional $10 million fund to get people unelected if need be. "We would like to make sure people appreciate that we take them at their word and when they don't live up to their word there should be consequences," he says."

More on the Employee Free Choice Act

I had the opportunity to attend a seminar/briefing conducted by two notable attorneys from two well known law firms in the Atlanta area, Bennet Alsher of Ford & Harrison LLP and Daniel Shea of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP. They discussed alot of the impending legislation that will be introduced by the Congressional Democrats, supported by the Obama administration. They, Dan Shea in particular, discussed the EFCA, starting with a little history.

But first, let me remind you of the provision of EFCA. First, there is card check recognition, which would allow unions to declare a victory in organizing employees simply by getting 50% plus 1 signatures. It would eliminate the use of secret ballot elections. Secondly, there is First Contract Arbitration. This would require the government to impose terms of agreement if no agreement is made within 180 days. This binding agreement would be in force for 2 years. Thirdly, there would be increased penalities for Unfair Labor Practices to the tune of $20,000 per violation and the potential for treble damages. Oh, by the way, these penalties are for managment only! Now onto the information.

Dan Shea pointed out that originally, the Wagner Act had card check as the prime method of unionization written in the original law. The abuses by the unions, such as coercion, intimidation and threats of physical violence, forced lawmakers in 1947, in the Taft-Hartley Act, to change the process to secret ballot election. Dan also pointed out that Canada, which has a workforce that is 30% union (down from 40%) originally had card check solely as the method of union organization. The abuse of this method was so bad that the two largest provinces changed to secret ballot election. I confirmed this by some investigation and found this bit of research from a researcher named Sarah Johnson. "In the last 25 years, a major change has occurred in the way unions are recognised in Canada. In 1976, every jurisdiction in Canada used card check. Today, more than 50% of the Canadian labour force is covered by mandatory vote legislation and union recognition procedures continue to be a matter of policy concern and debate ..."

In case you think it is only business leaders and Republicans who find the use of secret ballot elections preferable here are quotes from some primary Democrat leaders. From The Union News we have "The leading House sponsor of card check is Rep. George Miller, who also served as campaign manager of Mr. Waxman's race against Mr. Dingell, settled by secret ballot. What's more, along with 10 House Democrats, Mr. Miller wrote a 2001 letter to Mexican government officials encouraging the "use of secret ballots in all union recognition elections." The letter states: "We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." In the inner workings of Congress representatives recognize the value of a secret ballot as evidenced by this quote about a vote to replace a key member of a committee. "Even Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, told Congressional Quarterly she was relieved the vote would be a private one: "It's a secret ballot. . . . Thank the Lord." So there is just a bit of hypocrisy.

Dan and Bennet both thought that there may be some manauvering to soften the blow of EFCA, but they both believe that the bigger issue of EFCA is the First Contract Arbitration. Most first contracts are not usually negotiated in less than six months. The 180 day requirement is entirely unreasonable. And then to have the government impose your terms is disasterous. To give you an idea, in Canada, this method ended up with a WalMart Auto shop being forced to give employees a 32% increase in wages, despite a very competitive market that did not allow a comparable price increase. The result? WalMart closed the center the next day and all the newly unionized employees were out of work.

Another tidbit, the 50% +1 on card check is for the appropriate bargaining units, which you may not even know what that definition is until you are presented "your" union by the NLRB.

Lastly, there will be ABSOLUTELY NO SANCTIONS against unfair labor practices engaged in by the unions.

This law is the unions NUMBER 1 PRIORITY and they have alot of support. The NLRB will be heavily union biased as is the new Secretary of Labor (after all her father was a Teamster president.) So be aware, be educated and be active. Let your Congressional representatives know this is bad law. Here are a couple of educational resources. From UnionFacts. com info on intimidation. Lots of info from The Union News.

Employee Free Choice Act AGAIN: If You Are Not Scared Now You Should Be!

There has been some increased exposure to the Employee Free Choice Act (note: bill proposers are good at calling something it isn't. Paycheck Fairness is the same way) because WalMart made the news talking to employees about it. The Wall Street Journal wrote about it (see here) and I have exerpted this paragraph that puts it in a nutshell for HR managers and businesses.

"The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.........Both supporters and opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act believe it would simplify and speed labor's ability to unionize companies. Currently, companies can demand a secret-ballot election to determine union representation. Those elections often are preceded by months of strident employer and union campaigns.

Under the proposed legislation, companies could no longer have the right to insist on one secret ballot. Instead, the Free Choice, or "card check," legislation would let unions form if more than 50% of workers simply sign a card saying they want to join. It is far easier for unions to get workers to sign cards because the organizers can approach workers repeatedly, over a period of weeks or months, until the union garners enough support."

If you are in HR or run a business and that doesn't scare you, then you need a wake-up call.

Advice for Non-Union Employers: Follow Or Rue the Day!

I have posted a number of times on the Employee Free Choice Act (NOT!) so you may be getting tired of it. Well you shouldn't! If you are non-union you are in great peril of being union if this law passes. Here is some advice (and additional information) from the Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog.

If you are already unionized you can skip this one otherwise you had better read up.

Hone Your Labor Negotiation Skills: You Are Going to Need Them

If you are in HR and you are reading this I hope you are up on your labor negotiation skills and labor law. You are going to need it. The Employee Free Choice Act, which I have written about before is getting closer and closer to reality. Don't know what the EFCA is? Well you haven't been paying attention to me then. So pay attention this time! Go here and read this article A Career Killer for HR Pros. The author, Kris Dunn, makes it very clear. Then be afraid, very afraid.

If you read all the political pundits the Democrats will have a majority in the House of Representives AND the Senate. This will make passage of this bill a slam dunk (for my foreign readers this means an absolute certainty.) And with a Democrat in the White House there will be no question that the bill will be signed. And then Labor celebrates and companies lose, employees lose and HR deals with the fall out. It has the potential for radically changing the nature of the workplace.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not against people belonging to a union if they so desire. Not my way of doing things, but if people opt to do that after having had a chance to make an informed decision in a secret ballot election then fine. The EFCA takes that away and puts the effect of fear and intimidation on the forefront. Not many of our employees will tell a union organizer "no" to his face in front of others. So they sign a card and you are handed a union.

So brush up on those labor rules, though many are being tossed out, and get ready to negotiate. You can also contact your Congressional representatives and tell them what a bad decision that will be for them to vote for this bill.

Cornucopia of HR Topics: The Carnival of HR

The Carnival of HR is a collection of recent posts in a wide range of HR related blogs. It is an excellent resource and a quick way to find a current read on current subjects. Check it out at the Career Encouragement Blog of Peggy Andrews. The subjects this go-around include Why HR Stinks, Talent discussions, the softer side of employment law, generational differences, unions, enthusiasm, leadership and much, much more. You are cheating yourself if you do not take advantage of these great reads.

So Much for Free Choice: Unions and Secret Pacts With Employers

I have written several times, as have other bloggers, about the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, an attempt at legislation that will take away the right for employees to select, by secret ballot, whether or not they wish to be represented by a union. Well here is another tactic by the unions to erode that right even further. On the front page of the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal the following headline "Unions Forge Secret Pacts With Major Employers". The first paragraph of the article reads "Two of the nation's largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize."

The unions are the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), (the AFL-CIO breakaway) and Unite Here. The employers are Sodexho, Inc. and Compass Group USA. The agreements go beyond neutrality agreements (organizing attempts that the employers do not dispute) and there is a selection process between the company and the union on which locations can organize and which cannot. Thus, the unions and the employers decide who has the right to belong to the union and not the employees themselves. These agreements have been criticized and the question has been asked what the trade-off is. Well the trade-off is that the unions get to increase their membership without dispute and the companies get the unions to agree to not strike. Sounds good? Maybe for the unions, maybe for the employer, but not for the employee! The employees do not get to decide if they want to organize, they do not get to have a say by secret ballot, and if they are organized they cannot strike if they so desire.

Makes you wonder whose side the union is on doesn't it? Well I have always said that a union today is just a business and they make their money off of dues. If they can increase their membership and hence their revenue by making secret deals they will do so even if it does not benefit the employees. The businesses who are entering into these agreements are probably trying to limit their damages, thinking they would probably have been organized at sometime anyway (which means they probably deserve a union). So they get to pick who gets oranized and who doesn't. But they are not thinking in the best interests of their employees either.

So the unions gain, the companies gain and the employees lose. What a great system.

Sign of the Times? Union Activity Rising?

As the U.S. economy slides employees feel the pressure on their pocketbook. So what do they do about it. They cut corners, they reduce the "extra" spending. But eventually they start looking for more money. One way of doing that is looking for a different job, though that may be problematic and a bit unsettling for many. A second way for getting more money is to try to get it from their current employer. They look for bigger raises or they look for "cost of living" increases. Ann Bares, in Compensation Force warns against this with the statement "Experts warn (and I would second this warning) of the pitfalls associated with simply increasing base pay (in the form of a "cost of living" increase) to address these rising costs. What happens if gas prices continue to increase indefinitely, and you've set a precedent for covering the cost? And why increase pay to address fuel costs but not rising healthcare expenses? Again, potentially dangerous and slippery territory to step into." She offers some alternatives to COLAs so read her article.

Another way employees may try to get more money is to seek third party representation. And unions are selling it. Rising prices, job cuts, fear and a union friendly Congress are all leading to what may be an uptick in union activity. Atlanta, Georgia (where I work) has not exactly been a hotbed of union activity in the past. But union radio ads have been on the rise, and just last week in one day I saw two union picket lines where wages seemed to be the issue.

So beware! Be on your guard. Pay attention to signs of union activity in your workplace. Unless of course you want a union. I believe that as the economy worsens this activity will increase. And if we end up with a Democrat administration we will likely see union friendly legislation passed (See my previous post on the Employee Free Choice Act and Kris Dunn's post When "The Sopranos" Force an Employee To Sign a Union Card...) which will facilitate union organization. Clean up your "house", train your supervisors, put them on guard about accepting any union cards, otherwise you will get something you don't want. There is a big cost associated with unions (look at the auto companies.. are they doing well right now?) and in tough economic times do you want any more costs to handle?

Unions and Democrats: Bad News for Companies in 2009

According to an article in Kiplinger's online newsletter organized is preparing to spend enormous amounts of money on the presidental, congressional and other campaigns this election year. According to the article "Organized labor will empty its huge war chest in the coming months in a bid to elect pro-worker candidates to the White House, Congress and state and local offices. The AFL-CIO has approved a record political budget of $53 million, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has budgeted $70 million." They will be spending twice the amount that business is spending in an effort to get as many Democrats elected as possible. And they are coordinating the efforts to avoid redundancy in the campaign.

The reason they are doing this is that a Democrat controlled White House, Congress and State Houses will be much more friendly to union favorable legislation. This is important to them as they try to regain their strength from a long period of losing membership.

One area they are in particular trying to be influential is in the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The article states "The top legislative priority for unions next year is to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers sign pro-union cards. Union organizers stress that putting a Democrat in the White House and increasing the clout of Democrats on Capitol Hill would vastly improve the bill's chances. Passage of the bill would greatly boost unions' organizing efforts, helping to replenish their ranks." Additionally, "Other legislation on labor's agenda includes paid family leave and a reworking of job definitions to make more positions eligible for union membership."

Please pay attention to the two highlighted areas above. The so-called Employee Free Choice Act is anything but. It takes AWAY an employee's ability to choose, in an intimidation free setting, whether or not they wish to be represented by a union after they have had an opportunity to hear the pros and cons of union representation. EFCA allows for a union to get employees to sign cards, often in an intimidating setting, and then forcing the employer to recognize and negotiate with the union without a secret ballot election ever being held. This law is not about employee choice! It is about the second highlighted area. It is about unions making things easier for them to replenish their depleting ranks!

If it passes, due to a Democrat controlled administration, it will be bad news for employers and business in general. So pay attention to the election, pay attention to union activity, pay attention to what employees are saying.

Secret Ballot As a Foundation to Freedom: Not to Unions!

Kudos to Kris Dunn of the HR Capitalist for reminding us about the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. (Click the link for a Wikipedia explanation.) While currently idling in Congress waiting for the November elections to take place, this insidious piece of legislation will be raised again, probably next year. To read a better analysis of this go to the Employee Free Choice Act Blog.

The title of the legislation is totally bogus. In fact the EFCA seeks to take away any concept of free choice by requiring employees to make a public declaration of their support, or lack there of, and sign a card or petition for union representation. Up to now employees have been allowed to sign (or not) and then, after a campaign by both sides, decide by secret ballet whether they wanted a union or not. The EFCA seeks to take that away and give employees no opportunity to hear the merits (or lack of) union membership and then decide in a private way to vote for or against. Having to decide openly in a public forum opens the process to the use of intimidation or coersion. And for those of you that don't think unions do that anymore watch the following video.




So watch this legislation carefully.