Wash. Times echoed opponents' distortion of EFCA in asserting it would "eliminat[e] the secret ballot"
SUMMARY: The Washington Times reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "back a card-check bill that would allow unionization of a workplace if the majority of employees sign union cards, eliminating the secret ballot that workers cast to decide whether to allow a union." In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate employees' rights to a secret ballot; as The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization."
In a January 5 article, Washington Times reporter S.A. Miller reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) "back a card-check bill that would allow unionization of a workplace if the majority of employees sign union cards, eliminating the secret ballot that workers cast to decide whether to allow a union." In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that Pelosi and Reid support does not eliminate employees' rights to a secret ballot. As The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Moreover, supporters of the EFCA say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
The House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth" and stated on its website: "The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer."
Further, by referring to the EFCA as "a card-check bill" in the Washington Times article, Miller used language frequently employed by opponents of the EFCA.
From the January 5 Washington Times article:
Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid back a card-check bill that would allow unionization of a workplace if the majority of employees sign union cards, eliminating the secret ballot that workers cast to decide whether to allow a union.
The bill, dubbed the Employee Free Choice Act, passed the House last year but died in a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate.
The measure is a top priority for the Democrats' union allies. The question is how soon will Democratic leaders bring up the bill and risk political defeat while suffering criticism for kowtowing to union bosses.
Republicans vow to stand firmly against the legislation. Their argument in defense of a secret ballot, which is a cornerstone of American democracy, will take considerable effort to rebuff.
Still, the bill's supporters are confident.
"I have no doubt it will pass and will be signed," said William Samuel, government affairs director for the AFL-CIO.
Union busting seems to be making a big comeback. I saw one of the Fox News people recently reading some stats regarding "increased productivity" in non-Union areas.
"Increased productivity" sounds very positive if you don't realize that it can be translated more directly as "increased profit", or "squeezing out more work for less pay".
I'd be willing to bet that productivity has increased across the board, it ain't just non-union thing. Why don't they report on the ever increasing income equality gap that has accompanied increased worker productivity? You're absolutely right in interpreting their rhetoric as the core conservative principle of taking something for nothing.
I really hate these anti-union scumbags with their lies and their contempt.
Right, RH. My point was that, if you define "increased productivity" strictly in terms of volume vs. cost of employing a person, that "productivity" will be increased at a greater rate where wages can be kept at the lowest level, and by contrast Union jobs can be portrayed as "less productive" (less pure profit to the owners/higher-ups).
If you can get 16-18 hour days out of somebody you're paying minimum wage, and there's others waiting to take his job, you're gonna get some productivity.
Unfortunately there aren't many unions left to bust.
Don't call it a comeback. It's been a slow bleed ever since Reagan was inflicted on the American middle class.
True enough, Shaggles and Pete. I didn't mean to imply that it hasn't been policy all this time, just that there seems to be a renewed anti-union enthusiasm lately from our media and the more easily manipulated Americans.
I graduated from high school the year Reagan was first elected, and saw the father of a good friend (a Reagan supporter for some reason) go from his air traffic controller job at LAX to bagging groceries at my neighborhood supermarket. PATCO should have been an omen.
Increased profit? What a disaster that would be.
We [liberals] have no problem with PROFITS as long as they are the result of VALUE and not just unsustainable cost-cutting measures put in by over-paid, over-the-hill executives and which are BAD for the long term economy. (Outsourcing jobs, cutting eveyone's pay but their own, etc...)
What's up with you, Bruce? You usually seem more reasonable than this.
If you work for somebody else, would you be excited to hear of your employers new profit -increasing plan if it was based entirely on cutting your pay or extending your hours with no pay increase (a "productivity-based" model)?
If you employ others, would you consider it a good business plan to continually cut pay and increase workloads as your "Plan A" towards increasing profits?
Or did you just not bother to read what was being said?
Of course the goal is to increase profits through expanding the business and expanding revenue, not through cutting expenses. This is a potential win scenario for everyone involved.
Businesses tend to not grow without increasing profits which was really my point. Increased profits don't have to come at the expense of the worker.
That's all well and good, Bruce, but it does not reflect what is actually going on these days. Productivity is up, corporate profits have soared, executive salaries have ballooned, yet real wages have stagnated. In that regard, profits have come at the expense of laborers.
Now, if we were to give executives incentive to raise wages of the least compensated employee by mandating the top salary can be only 15-25 times the lowest salary in a company, then profit would be a true reflection of productivity. This has to happen, income inequality is one of the seven deadly deficits.
Colonel, you really exhibit a conditioned bias for the word PROFIT. It is what pays your wage/salary, and INCREASED PROFIT actually means SURVIVAL PLAN.
I'll bet the Fox News people are members of AFTRA, though.
I think if the gov. is going to be involved in issues regarding unions, there should be one set standard for how to elect the union, right-to-work, etc, vs. unions or employers getting to choose, etc.
I am democrat, but astounded by the ignorant comments above on productivity. Productivity measures, as reported by the government and media are per MAN HOUR, not per man! So for every hour a person works, they generate more GDP.
Secondly, improving productivity is the ONLY way we as a nation, including each and every uniuonized worker in the U.S., has increasing living standards. Its astonishingly naive to think that GDP, GDP per capita, and wages can increase without productivity increases.
Productivity measures, as reported by the government and media are per MAN HOUR (Jason10006)
Who was saying otherwise? What are the "ignorant comments" you're astounded by?
Apparently they were too astounding for him to specify. In fact, jasonmanynumbers (the 'democrat') was so brutally astounded by these "ignorant comments" that he was forced to take his sorely abused, concern-trolling consciousness elseware.
Well, I hope you "ignorant comment" makers are all proud of yourselves!
Jason is right on, and most of you here are beyond help. Should worker compensation in 2009 be commensurate with business losses?
It will elimate the secret ballot in practice!!
If Union bosses have the "choice" to use card-check (aka, no secret ballot), they would much rather shove a card in someone's face and intiminate workers.
Except the choice is that of the employees, not union bosses. Easy on the exclamation points, it just makes you look hysterical.
I have to disagree, Col.
Its his actual words rather than his punctuation that make him look hysterical.
"...they would much rather shove a card in someone's face and intiminate workers."
How does that work? If the employees are not members of unions yet, how can they be intimidated? What power do union leaders have over non-union members?
...works a lot like the conformity exhibited here. The main thing on most of your minds is to stroke each other...
Just what are you insimuating there?
Why, I've never been so intiminated in all my life!
Yawn. More right-wing crap on a stick from the Moonie paper...
30% of emloyees signing cards will trigger an election if that's the way the union wants to go. On the other hand, getting 50% plus 1 to sign cards shall automatically create a union (there cannot be an election). The text of the law uses the word "shall"; the board shall direct that a union become the bargaining rep. This means that the workforce shall be unionized without everyone having a say in the matter.
If I ran a union and a rep came to me with 30% cards and asked me if we should seek an election, I'd send him back to get 50% plus 1. Who wouldn't? Realistically, the 30% rule will never be used. Here's the point: In reality, the 50% plus 1 rule eliminates elections. Period.
So it's either 30% to get elections or 50% plus 1 to eliminate them? Doesn't that put the power into the hands of 20% plus 1?
In reality, you don't know what you're talking about. Period.
No, because the 20% plus 1 will be signing cards, not participating in a secret ballot. Sinking in yet? The unions are allowed to say anything they want (short of physical threat) in order to get someone to sign a card. Is this fair? "Sign the card, it doesn't mean anything." The unions can lie and it doesn't invalidate the card.
So you see, no one would choose a secret ballot when hard sell tactics and strong arming work much better. Plan on seeing a lot more of that. I have no doubt this thing will pass. No one wants to take the time to understand it. No one wants to perform the hard work reading it. No one works hard and thinks anymore. It's an EFCA kind of world we live in. EFCA is the way! Let's all vote for EFCAAAAA! And cash in all our brains.