Hill falsely claims Employee Free Choice Act "robs workers" of secret ballot
SUMMARY: The Hill falsely asserted that the Employee Free Choice Act "robs workers of the right to a secret ballot." In fact, it is employers, not workers, who have the right to demand a secret ballot; the bill would strip employers of that right.
A June 7 Hill article falsely asserted that the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give workers the right to form or join a union if a majority of workers sign a card stating they want to do so, "robs workers of the right to a secret ballot." In fact, it is employers, not workers, who have the right to demand a secret ballot; the bill would strip employers of that right.
The article, written by reporter Reid Wilson, stated: "Polling on the Employee Free Choice Act reveals murky results that favor whichever side is best able to frame it. Supporters brag that unions remain popular overall, and that legislation making it easier for unions to form and workers to make more money wins voter approval. Opponents point out that a provision that robs workers of the right to a secret ballot is widely unpopular, and that if the measure is portrayed as a job-killer it loses support."
But The Hill is misrepresenting the bill. As The Christian Science Monitor has noted, "The proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot." Indeed, 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]. Employee Free Choice Act supporters say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor and a leading proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act, has addressed the "myth" that the bill eliminates the secret ballot:
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. 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.
Media Matters for America has noted that numerous media figures have advanced falsehoods about the Employee Free Choice Act, including the myth that the bill would eliminate the secret ballot.
From the June 7 Hill article:
The next governor of Virginia will have little impact on the heated debate over the Employee Free Choice Act, but that's not stopping one candidate from using the controversial issue to win headlines.
Former Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) has spent several weeks repeatedly bringing up the legislation, the so-called "card check" measure that would make it easier for unions to form. At a time when Virginia, like the rest of the nation, is hemorrhaging jobs, McDonnell casts card check as bad for businesses that need all the help they can get to begin rehiring employees.
[...]
McDonnell has also tried to use the issue to paint a contrast between himself and the three Democrats -- former state Del. Brian Moran (D), state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe (D). McDonnell's campaign has used web videos of the Democratic candidates explaining their position on the issue.
Polling on the Employee Free Choice Act reveals murky results that favor whichever side is best able to frame it. Supporters brag that unions remain popular overall, and that legislation making it easier for unions to form and workers to make more money wins voter approval. Opponents point out that a provision that robs workers of the right to a secret ballot is widely unpopular, and that if the measure is portrayed as a job-killer it loses support.
Randy
Intimidation by employers not against organizers, but against those seeking representation, is common.
In theory yes you can still have secret ballots. It seems to me that opponents feer that pro-union organizers will use intimidation tactics to get the workers to sign the card. After all, they will know who is in favor of unionizing and who is not.
Do you think the union organizers knowing who voted against the union will intimidate people into signing the card?
Is that not a valid argument against using 'card check"?
Now, granted, I've never been in a union, but my parents throughout their working careers were and still are in unions. They were never intimidated into doing anything, or voting for anything, they got their own say, just like everyone else.
We keep hearing about intimidation from unions, but like Solon, I tend to think most of the intimidation comes from businesses, and this, I have actually seen first hand.
Example. I worked for a company in North Carolina that built car parts. The folks on the floor, had not seen a pay raise in 5 years (not one cent), not received any additional benefits that were due (vacation), and were basically being treated like crap. A union rep from the UAW came to town and had a meeting off site with folks from the company who might have been interested in unionizing. I attended, because I was curious as to what was going on, and being a big supporter of unions in the past, but I had no dog in the fight, because it would not impact me, being a low level manager type position.
Anyway, the place I worked at had about 600 people working there, about 500 people showed up for this meeting. Most, if not all of the folks there, were super interested in starting a union at the plant. Well, the company got wind of what was going on (not hard to do in a small town really). We had a meeting the following week about it, lead by a company lawyer, and the plant manager. In the nicest terms possible, they stated that if a vote was held to unionize, whoever voted for it would lose their job, and there was a good chance the company would close the plant down, and move it all to Mexico. And hence, no union.
I've never heard about the converse happening with union leaders intimidating people to join up. Maybe, a long time ago, when things were a little more rough and tumble, but typically, as shown by the NLRB, it's more likely the business will intimidate them to NOT unionize than the other way around.
I was a member of the SMWIA for 10 years. I know of plenty of cases of employer intimidation, but I don't know anyone who has ever been intimidated by any union rep.
Maybe things are different out here in the Pacific NW.
* In order to damage public reputation, unions are approaching religious, social and political groups in the hopes of convincing them Cintas is engaged in unfair and anti-union activity.
* Unions are approaching Cintas clients, such as Starbucks coffee, to get them to stop using Cintas services.
These methods, referred to as a "corporate campaign" can inflict heavy damage:
* A Michigan campaign directed at the Family Foods grocery chain contributed to its bankruptcy just three years later.
* The Teamsters and UNITE want to use these same tactics to force Cintas to recognize the union rather than oppose it.
Kersey suggests the reason union leaders are resorting to intimidation is because support for unions is falling across the state. For example, between 1992 and 2002, unions in Michigan lost 80,000 members while the state added 400,000 jobs.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3587
Since 2003 the NLRB has received:
Allegation ULP Complaints
Coercive Statements 1,105
Threatening Statements 930
Harassment 401
Violence/Assaults 184
Discipline (including charges/fines) 179
Interrogation 26
http://server1.laborpains.org/?p=2415
What do you think about this? It seems most union workers do not want card check.
A poll taken in January 2009 by McLaughlin & Associates found three out of four voters (74%) oppose EFCA. Union households also strongly oppose the EFCA, with 74% opposing the Act. When given a more detailed description of EFCA, nearly 9 out of 10 voters--86 percent--believe the process should remain private. Even union workers felt strongly that the process should be kept private, as 88% of union workers said they preferred private ballots.
http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/17001120/4040349.search?query=74%25%20efca%20union%20workers%20oppose%20card%20check
A 2009 economic study by University of Chicago Professor Richard Epstein states “the passage of EFCA will create huge dislocations in established ways of doing business that will in turn lead to large losses in productivity.” Epstein’s study also finds that EFCA retards the formation of small businesses, while large companies face heavy costs as they attempt to meet simultaneous multiple threats of unionization.
Another 2009 study by economist Dr. Layne-Farrar conclusively found that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs under EFCA in the first year after enactment would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs by the following year, if organized labor is accurate in their predictions about how many existing jobs (1.5 million) will be unionized under EFCA.
http://www.ahla.com/issuebrief.aspx?id=19498&
These are right-wing think tanks masquerading as 'concerned citizens'. Their groups are made up of businessmen and C of C members who don't want to share their profits with the working folk. They're LYING to you, and you're it passing along.
Please. Think for yourself. They all belong to organizations that support them, educate them, and further their causes. Why shouldn't workers have the same privilege?
Contacting churches and social organizations to complain about anti union activity by the company is initimidating workers in WHAT WAY? It isnt nor is contacting their customers to complain about anti union activities. So that is a complete failure to show worker intimidation then you cite Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the ncpa both of which tout free market solutions and are anti labor organizations. You THEN site the health lawyers association which has WHAT to do with labor. You have FAILED to show any pattern of intimidation.
Lets suppose that a thousand workers were intimidated though who was doing the intimidating is not made clear in your little blurb on that compare that to THIS
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/one-fifth-of-union-activists-illegally-fired-during-unionization-campaigns/
Washington, DC: About 1 in 5 union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their union organizing, according to a new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
The paper, “Dropping the Ax: Illegal Firings During Union Election Campaigns,” by John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer, finds a steep rise in illegal firings of pro-union workers in recent years.
“Aggressive actions by employers -- often including illegal firings -- have significantly undermined the ability of U.S. workers to unionize their workplaces,” said John Schmitt, CEPR senior economist and lead author of the paper. “With the legal penalties for such actions being so slight, employers can break the law to head-off organizing efforts and face almost no real repercussions.”
If you think unions attempting to damage businesses simply because they are not unionized as not intimidation, well neither is the mob asking business for "protection" money.
You asked for instances of union malfeasance and I provided you with NRLB board figures that show the following allegation ULP Complaints
Coercive Statements 1,105
Threatening Statements 930
Harassment 401
Violence/Assaults 184
Discipline (including charges/fines) 179
Interrogation 26
If you want to bury your head in the sand and say it doesn't exist, go ahead.
Your statistics from CEPR are so skewed as to be funny. Why they don't even pass the laugh test. Check out this study from Unionfacts.com
A 2007 study by the labor-affiliated Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) claimed 23 percent of all unionization campaigns since 2000 involved an illegal firing.2 But the authors openly admit that the crux of the study relies on “a crude ‘probability’ that a pro-union worker will be fired,” originally derived from data collected in the early 1980s.
The authors also write that the “NLRB does not report the number ofworkers fired illegally in connection with union election campaigns.” But the NLRB does in fact track that statistic in its Case Activity Tracking System (CATS) database.
Finally, the CEPR study only tabulates the number of actual elections held, rather than the number of election petitions submitted to the NLRB—a better indicator of the number of organization campaigns—to arrive at its misleading conclusion....
... Using Schmitt and Zipperer’s methods and adjusting for the rise of card check organizing methods, our new NLRB data suggests that less than 1 in 340 pro-union workers is fired during organizing campaigns.
All things being equal, nobody should be fired for pro union organizing. As a practical matter, each case needs to be decided on it's own merit.
I think your numbers are grossly inflated and are being used as a dishonest argument to try to trick people into thinking that card check will be better.
I have provided you with evidence that there are complaints of pro union organizing, both anectdotally and with statistics. I have also shown your figures are highly suspect, if not flat out wrong.
There are scores of anti-Union, corporate-backed PACs and websites out there,all providing copy & paste ready propaganda. I'd suggest a little critical thinking on your part, unless you just like being told what you want to hear.
Obv the liberals want to do your "critical thinking" for you. Sheeep, baaaaaaaahhhh
I suggested, pretty clearly, that he do some critical thinking. Are you interpreting that as discouraging the very same thing? Because that's the complete opposite of my recommendation.
So when AA takes the time to show statistically-significant findings that upholds his arguments, he has two posters who tell him to "critically think" instead, which yeah, I think is a smear against his intellectual effort in this.
The ridiculous list he used as his support was about 10 or 20 lawsuits filed by the NRTW., none showing the results of any of those suits.
The closest it came to showing any resolution to any of the cases was noting that a member of the NRTW did jail time rather than reveal who was paying their bills.Sort of a Mafia-pride and honor type of bragging point, I guess.
Sorry, Wingnuts, if you consider this a smear. It's just plan insulting for you to come to a website devoted to exposing propaganda,a site frequented by people who are aware that it's propaganda,and try to argue using that very same propaganda.
Please cite the thread where I cited the NRTW. I have no recollection of ever using that as a reference. If I did, you certainly are taking it out of context besides being off topic.
It doesn't surprise me. That is normal for you.
Sorry I did not remember a discussion back in January in which I myself poste over 50 comments of which the last four reference NRTW linked lawsuits. Thanks for the link.
Your reference to that discussion is off topic and out of context as there was no discussion of NRTW here until you brought it up out of context and unrelated to the current line of discussion.
Your juvenile comments aside, it is inescapable that you avoided the current discussion and my link to Unionfacts.com in order to go off topic and back to a discussion 5 months ago.
Now that is lazy!
The current discussion is on the same topic. Do you understand that? Your propaganda doesn't gain any credibility through repetition, or using a new propaganda site as material.
Please explain your definition of "out-of-context". I believe I described pretty well the uselessness of your "stats", and I provided a link to the entire thread.Are you using the Bill O'Reilly definition of out-of-context?
You're just making a fool of yourself now.I'd advise you pretend you didn't see this, and move on to your next failure.
Down towards the end is where you use the source that you're now pretending you've never heard of .My other post & link mysteriously disappeared. Seems to be a selective glitch on this site, comments that vanish, strangely always in close proximity to you being humiliated.
Mr. I-don't-remember-saying-that using ineffectual tactics to suppress the voters here, who think his use of right-wing think tanks is conducive to brain damage.
Thanks for reposting that link, you lazy, juvenile bum. And don't take that statement personally, as I was just repeating what AA said. He never insults anybody and always provides links, critical and original thought to further discussions in a very adult and proper way.
Amen.
I've lived the stats.
I provided the stats from the NLRB. You simply do not choose to accept them. If you want to see more, use goober's link back to last January.
All you have shown is that YOU prefer YOUR experts to MY citation. You have NOT shown it is actually a better source
Their study showed that in at least a quarter of union organizing efforts since 2001 workers faced illegal firing. That was their claim I dont know how you figure THIS claim came from data from the early 80's
I never said that employers haven't engaged in worker intimidation.
I provided evidence and links. You just don't like them. Ok. That is your prerogative. But just because you don't like them, does not make them go away.
Again, I cited NLRB stats and provided the link. There were hundreds of complaints lodged against unions. For you to argue otherwise is like you saying the sun didn't come up this morning.
I think your source is completely biased an inaccurate. You have to swallow lots of kool aid to believe that one in five union organizers have been fired for organizing. Those statistics are about as accurate as the global warming stats made up by the IPCC.
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2008/08/ipcc-analysis-mathematically-flawed.html
The Assault on Workers’ Freedom to Choose a Union
and Bargain Collectively in the United States
Illinois has demonstrated that a majority
authorization petition can genuinely determine the will of the employees to be unionized and provides a functional, largely non-adversarial and event-less process for insuring a fair work environment for everyone.
Study Proves Rise in Anti-Union Intimidation
Then we have J Justin Wilson one of the darlings of the anti-union right, and author of one of the '' cited by Bucktooth in this stellar performance from a YouTube capture: watch his 'debate' technique as he lies his way through an exchange about trans-fats with Michael Jacobson of Center for Science in the Public Interest. He posts this on his YouTube site as if proud of his performance. Pathetic and delusional. It makes me want to believe anything and everything he says or writes [not].
Barn, can you quote the part of the article in your link that says that the stats you listed were lodged against unions? Thank in advance.
You evidence and links might be convincing to you, but for thinking people, you need to be a little more specific.
and Global Warming is really off-topic, Mr. Dodgy.
The Mackinac Center is also anti-union, having pursued initiatives to limit union political spending and attacked mandatory union membership policies.
Next!!!
The Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs includes numerous trade associations such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the Real Estate Roundtable. The Alliance, which funded Prof. Epstein’s study, is chaired by the HR Policy Association.
Next!!
The link to the poll shows is was requested by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW).
CDW is a front group for business associations, industry lobbying groups, and right-wing policy centers who are against workers getting a fair shake in this economy.
Its financial backers include some of the most virulent anti-worker and anti-union organizations in the country, including:
1. the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s most powerful business lobbying organization.
2. the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a group whose biggest member is Wal-Mart, the poster child for low wages.
3. the Associated Builders and Contractors, an association of anti-union contractors who fight against workers having unions to improve their wages and safety on the job.
Oh, and the "poll" consisted of 400 union households.
Next!!!
Layne-Farrar builds her entire claim that the EFCA and resulting rise in union membership will lead to mass unemployment around one set of data -- namely, "a panel dataset of Canadian provinces over the twenty-two year period 1976-1997" (page 20).
Why Canada? Because, she says, their economy is roughly similar to the U.S. Canada is also unique in that labor laws differ between the country's 10 provinces -- some provinces use EFCA-like "card check" and others that don't, and one can compare the results.
But buried in page 20, Layne-Farrar herself admits that the data from which her entire argument is constructed isn't so great after all:
While the Canadian dataset is quite rich, it does have its limitations. For example, out of ten provinces that experienced changes in labor institutions (i.e., card check vs. mandatory voting) between 1976 and 1997, only three had enough variation in the card check rules themselves over time to allow for the reasonable estimation of any direct effects.
So instead of comparing 10 provinces, the study is really based on the experience of just three: Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland, from which Layne-Farrar proceeds to extrapolate how many jobs will supposedly be lost in the U.S. if EFCA is to pass.
Enough!!
*right-wing term for anything they don't agree with. Not found in Webster's Dictionary. Results not typical. Discontinue if headaches, stomaches or constipation occurs. Not sold in stores.
The intimidation comes from the employer and the employer "associations". And my experience has been that the NLRB is intimidated by the party which appoints the head of the NLRB.
The system is and has always been rigged in favor of the employer and against the workers.
And why is this bill being fought by the Republican Party, Wal-Mart and Fox News? Organizations that have always been anti-labor? Why, all of a sudden, are they concerned with the working man?
The Hill's article seemed to point to something amusing, where it said that the Republican candidate for Virginia's Governor is using "web videos of the Democratic candidates explaining their position on the issue", but the article then quoted two of those Democratic candidates, one of them evading the issue by citing that it's "a federal issue, and the governor has no say in it", and then a spokesperson for another Democratic candidate says the candidate is "looking forward to compromise legislation currently being worked out on Capital Hill"... all of which has me wondering, is it or is it not an issue in the Governor's race? If not, then what could those "web videos" be showing? Do they show the Democratic candidates evading or otherwise sidestepping the issue, or show them commenting on it? Anyway, it just confirms what the Hill article referred to, where it was said that polling on the issue "revealed murky results that favor whichever side is best able to frame it." It seems that people are aiming at murkiness on this issue, and that their murky framing of it becomes an issue in and of itself... and I think that's what the Republican candidate is picking up on and forcing out, the variously strange and murky and equivocal comments being made by the Democratic candidates regarding this issue. The more this issue is spoken of, the more there seems to appear a certain dishonesty in the speaking, and that the dishonesty seems to be in describing both the current and the proposed role of the secret ballot. It's why we're seeing the particular provision in question now in work towards a compromise... and most of that work is behind closed doors, and so we won't know whether that provision survives intact, or is stripped out altogether, or something in between, until the supporters of this bill bring it to the Senate floor. In the meantime, it seems like it's just bait to get people (candidates for Virginia's Governor in this case) to risk dishonest descriptions of both the current and proposed role of secret ballots in the formation of a labor union.
Oh, as far as the citation about "robs workers", I'd guess the writer of the article would agree, and that they should have said "deprives employers" instead (and I think Media Matters' summary above should have said "the right to require a secret ballot", and not the right to "demand" one).
Unions have built the middle-class in this country and are the rich have sucked off the middle-class for a century now, vaulting themselves to unheard of wealth.
loses his "right" to a secret ballot. While he has none
now, he won't have any right with the union either. No normally thinking union organizer would go to the effort
to sign up 50% + 1 employees and then have a secret ballot. A secret ballot would never occur; thus the employee who wanted one is denied that option.
EFCA is also requires forced arbitration hosted by
political appointees who will have a dog in fight. What Obama administration arbitration referee would side with
a company versus the union? Democratic administrations will staff negotiating teams with people who favor unions because
unions provide many votes. Offending a union is like saying "We want our party to lose the next election". Unions will win most arbitration disputes. Is that fair?
Trickle down economics has worked very well for those at the top, why would they want to change to something, where they are getting the "trickle up" and not sucking up money like a firehose?