Quick Fact: George Will claimed EFCA would "abolish workers' rights to secret ballots"
George Will asserted in a Washington Post column that "organized labor's 'card check' legislation" would "abolish workers' rights to secret ballots in unionization elections." In fact, currently it is employers, not workers, who have the right to demand a secret ballot; the Employee Free Choice Act would strip employers of that right; employees would be able to utilize the "secret ballot" election process.
From Will's January 29 Washington Post column:
Such speeches must be listened to with a third ear that hears what is not said. Unmentioned was organized labor's "card check" legislation to abolish workers' rights to secret ballots in unionization elections. Obama's perfunctory request for a "climate bill" -- the term "cap-and-trade" was as absent as the noun "Guantanamo" -- was not commensurate with his certitude that life on Earth may drown in rising seas.
Fact: EFCA would strip employers, not workers, of the right to demand a secret ballot
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.
Give me a break. Yet another topic for George to display his ignorance.
This legislation gives more freedom to employees. Unless you just don't like average hard-working Americans, how could you be against something that gives them more liberty ?
This makes me miss one of my favorite wingnut trolls, Anotheramerican (AKA Dep. Barney Fife). Second only to race-related items, anything about unions was sure to see Barney stumble in to parade his ignorance in all of its glory.
That doesn't work in this situation because of the power employers have over their workers. It's not an even playing field.
Also, workers would not be looking to form a union or be persuaded to form a union if their employer was offering decent wages and benefits - the fundamental things unions champion and secure for their members.
Wages and benefits...the single most expensive cost to a business. That is why many employers are against a union. Sure, union members make more and have better benefits. Take Ford for example, Ford is hiring! But, not hiring new employees at $28.00 per hour. They are hiring at $14.00 an hour. In therory, they can hire twice as many people at $14.00 an hour than $28.00. Which means more people working, less umemployment and more taxes paid. Had the Union not made those concessions fewer would have been hired and more looking for work.
And the EFCA gives employees that choice. I'm not sure how you don't accept "my premise" that having a choice offers more choice.
And again, the decision is left to the employees. As it should. The employer should have no say in the organizing of employees.
To make matters worse, the organizers can coerce employees to sign the cards with threats, lies, etc. Again, nothing resembling a secret ballot process at all. Everyone knows who refused to sign and who did sign the cards--the final vote yes or no.
All the talk of company coercion ignores the history of labor law. Today, with the EEOC, OSHA, the NLRB and on and on, employee rights are well protected. Unions, once a necessary balance to employer power, are now simply machines sucking money out of the working person--or sucking the life out of the company as the case may be. Company activities in response to organizing efforts are well regulated. If a company acts up, the NLRB can unionize it as a penalty. The election period and secret ballot process simply allow the employee to hear both sides of the story before casting a secret ballot. That democratic process is a very different thing than a collection of extorted card signatures.
The fact is the right hates unions and will do whatever it takes to exacerbate the difficulties in forming one. So whatever side they take, one can safely take the opposite POV and know they are on the side of justice and freedom.
Randy