As the Employee Free Choice Act heads for a vote tomorrow, let’s take a moment to remember the hypocrisy of this misnamed piece of political payback.
Today we got a petition from Washington DC (case no. 5-RC-16116, filed June 15th – I’ll post a picture of the petition as soon as we get it) where 14 employees of the Communications Workers International Union filed a petition to be represented BY THEIR OWN UNION (not to put too fine a point on it, but this has got to raise some interesting employer-dominated union issues).
I’ve made the point before here, but if the Employee Free Choice Act and card-check recognition are such great ideas, why do unions force their own employees to vote when the unionization shoe is on the other foot?
The Employee Free Choice Act will hopefully die tomorrow. But it will be back.I hope by then that it will get a little closer scrutiny. I hope by then that Democrats will see the hypocrisy of taking away the right to a secret ballot election – and the right to bargain a contract without interference from government appointed arbitrators – under the principles of free choice.
There is no “free choice” involved in being subjected to the high pressure and intimidation tactics commonly used to get cards signed. There is no “free choice” involved in being told what your labor contract will be for two years by some outside arbitrator who knows nothing about your business.
This is a terrible law. The reasons given for its passage by supporters are complete fabrications. The current law works well – you can tell that by listening to how many employers complain about its unfairness (you really should get worried when one side is silent about the fairness of a law). Could the system be improved? Certainly. But this law is not the answer. Speeding up penalties for violations of the current Act is a good idea. So is funding the Board so it can do its job. But taking away the secret ballot and allowing unions free rein to intimidate workers into signing authorization cards is not the answer.
The unfortunate thing is that even these changes are unlikely to even save the unions who are supporting them. The bottom line is that employees know that unions just don’t deliver on their promises anymore. They can see with their own eyes that unionized employees are no better off – and sometimes they are worse off – than non-union ones.
You can throw out of context statistics around all you want. Unions aren’t losing market share because of employer intimidation or unfavorable laws. They are losing market share because they just aren’t any good at delivering the services that they promise to members.
Good post, well put, this Act is a sham. And the Dems claim to be friends of the working man, what a lie…
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
destroy secret ballots
take away the private vote
workers deserve no such rights
.
As a former union official with the Teasmters Union, i’m not in the least bit surprised that the CWA wants a full blown election. Union leadership has a sad history when it comes to practicing what they preach. When faced with their own employees asking for formal representation, union bosses think that they’re above the law, and can be quite merciless. They know all of the tricks, and they use them freely on their own employees.
As far as card check goes, the act as it stands today would be an incredible stroke of good fortune for unions. Not because employees will suddenly feel emboldened to exercise their free speech. They won’t. It will be because unions will be able to manipulate the process much more effectively through the signing of the cards. As an experienced and successful organizer, I knew that I could get all the cards I needed. If I needed a few more in order to secure an election, I could get it by hook or crook. Not to give away all of my trade secrets, but cards are easy to get signed. Sometimes the employee didn’t even know! The signing of cards is a poor measurement of employee interest.
As far as arbitrators deciding first contracts, there is an inherent danger to any business today when the fortunes of the company and its employees are decided by a “disinterested third part.” All is fair in contract negotiations, and the process in place allows both sides to control their own destiny. While most arbitrators are fair and have a high degree of integrity, they ARE human, and are therefore subject to the politics by those who control their income. For the most parts, that’s the union because Arbitrators will get hundreds of cases through the union, but rarely will have a lot of work with one particular company. If they have to piss off somebody, the company will be the odd man out, perhaps even to the detriment of the company. Ironically, that leaves the employees out in the street as a result of a decision that wasn’t theirs.