Activism
Issues
www.AlternativeNewsResource.org/
Site
map
Employee Free Choice Act Update:
Questions and Answers
"Here in Oregon we have the equivalent of EFCA, but it only applies to public-sector workers.
This was legislation that the 2007 Legislature passed. I haven't heard of any complaints of voter intimidation by the union. Ironically, it's the public-sector unions who (in my opinion) need this least. Those most vulnerable to employer intimidation are those working in low-paid service occupations, particularly those heavily populated by newcomers to this country."
Michael Dembrow, Representative-elect for House District 45
On the Freedom of Choice Act: Questions and Answers
Q:
Is whether a worker
signed a card known to anyone other than that worker and the NLRB?
A:
Yes, the
worker, their union, and the NLRB know the worker wants to join a union.
Q:
Is it
possible under the card check procedure for the organizers to find out
who has or has
not signed a card?
A: The organizers (workers elected by
their peers to organize) certainly know if someone
has signed a card. This is the
entire point of the process.
Q: How
does this procedure work?
A:
Here is a
rather complete answer: (in the next two questions and answers)
Q:
How
do card-check procedures work under current law?
A: Under current law, employers can recognize a union if a majority of employees
demonstrate that they wish to be represented by a union—usually by signing forms
designating the union as their collective bargaining representative. It is illegal for
employers to recognize a union that does not have majority support. On the other hand,
employers are under no obligation to recognize a union even if 100 percent of employees
have signed such authorization forms. For this reason, employees in many workplaces
ask management to enter into so-called “card-check” agreements, in which management
agrees to voluntarily recognize the union if a majority of employees sign authorization
forms or “cards.” Employers may enter into these agreements to maintain good relations
with their employees, to maintain good relations with unions at their other worksites or to
maintain a favorable public image. Respected community leaders or professional
arbitrators typically are designated as neutral third parties to monitor the agreement and
to verify that authorization forms have been signed by a true majority.
Q:
How do
card-check procedures work under the Employee Free Choice Act, and how
are they different than current law?
A: Under the Employee Free Choice Act, when a majority of employees sign union
authorization forms, they can file a petition with the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) and the NLRB must investigate the petition. If the NLRB determines that
authorization forms have been signed by a majority of employees, the board must certify
the union as the employees’ collective bargaining representative. The principal difference
with current law is that the union must be certified when authorization forms have been
signed by a majority of employees, whereas under current law the employer can refuse to
recognize the union and insist instead on an NLRB election. Another difference is that
the NLRB, rather than another neutral third party, must directly determine whether a
majority of employees have designated the union as their collective bargaining
representative.
Q:
Where do workers get
the cards?
A:
They can print them to
comply with NLRB specifications or various unions can
provide them at no cost.
Q: Does
each worker individually submit their card to the NLRB?
A:
No. The workers collectively file a petition with the NLRB as
above.
Q: How
do the organizers know when every worker has had the opportunity to
sign or not sign a card?
A:
They may
never know. Any workers who do not have an opportunity to sign
are assumed not to have an interest
in forming a union.
Q:
"Under card check, is
the union able to tell which workers have and have not signed a card?"
A:
("The union," consists of
workers who have signed cards.)
The answer is yes. Workers, who
constitute the union, and who signed cards
are fully aware that cards are
declarations of their intent to join or form a union.
Q: Is it
public knowledge: who does or does not sign the cards.
A:
No, It is not "public knowledge." The cards are submitted to the NLRB.
Knowledge about whether or not a person
signed that card is available
to the National Labor Relations Board as
necessary for their deliberations.
Q:
What
do union authorization forms/cards actually say?
A: Union authorization forms typically contain language designating a particular union
to represent the employee in collective bargaining negotiations on wages, hours and
working conditions. Authorization forms also typically request other necessary
information, such as name, address and Social Security number, and they must be signed
and dated. The Employee Free Choice Act directs the NLRB to develop model language
for union authorization forms, which will ensure that the authorization form accurately
advises employees of the consequences of signing the card.
Q:
Do
card-check procedures and NLRB elections require the same measure of
majority
support?
A: No. Card-check procedures—under current law as well as the Employee Free Choice
Act—require a higher standard of majority support. Under card-check procedures, a
majority of all the employees in the bargaining unit must support union representation,
and employees who cannot be identified or located are presumed not to support union
representation. In NLRB elections, only a majority of those employees who actually vote
is required.
Q: Why aren’t secret ballot elections supervised by the NLRB more democratic than
card-check procedures?
A: NLRB elections actually are less democratic than card-check procedures. Card-check
procedures are better at ensuring employee free choice by allowing employees to express
their true wishes free from employer coercion. Card-check procedures avoid the antidemocratic
and inherently coercive anti-union campaigns that are typical of the NLRB
election process.
Q: How do card-check procedures protect employees against pressure and coercion by
union organizers?
A: It is illegal for anyone to coerce employees to sign a union authorization form. There
is no evidence that existing remedies are insufficient to deter or
remedy such hypothetical
coercion. Nor has pro-union coercion proved to be a problem in the
Canadian provinces where
card-check procedures similar to those of the Employee Free Choice Act have been
implemented. It would be ludicrous to compare peer pressure from fellow employees
with inherently coercive power that management exercises over employees.
Q: How can the authenticity of union authorization forms be guaranteed?
A: There is no evidence that falsification of authorization forms is a problem in either
the United States or in Canada. Procedures commonly used to verify authorization forms
include comparison of signatures on the form to signatures from the employer’s payroll
records. Signed authorizations are a widely recognized method of choosing legal
representatives. The Employee Free Choice Act directs the NLRB to develop procedures
to establish the authenticity of signed authorization forms.
Q: Why is there an effort to enact card-check legislation now, when traditional NLRB
elections have worked in the past?
A: Actually, the NLRB election process is more recent than card-check procedures and
has not been the means by which most collective bargaining relationships have been
established in the United States, either before or after enactment of the National Labor
Relations Act. The Employee Free Choice Act is necessary today because employers
have become increasingly bold in violating employees’ rights and violating the law under
the NLRB election process. The NLRB process was developed at a time when employer
hostility to collective bargaining was much less vehement. In the 1950s and 1960s
employers did not routinely engage in the massive legal and illegal violation of employee
rights that is commonplace today.
Q:
Does the union as an organization know who has signed a card?
A:
The union, as an organization, is insensate and cannot know.
The union is actually composed of workers who
signed cards. These individual
workers certainly know that they or their peers
signed cards. Each worker
in an organization may or may not know
or care who did or did not sign a card.
Q:
Do the
officials of the union know who has and has not signed a card?
A:
Each
union official will have signed a card if this is the method which was
used to
form their union. Union officials might work in any number of
occupations at a
company, and may have any number of duties or
tasks in the union. Each of them
may or may not individually know or care who
did or did not sign cards.
Q: Does anyone other than the NLRB know who has and has not signed a card?
A:
Yes. Those who signed the cards (union members who may or may not be
officials)
will know they signed them, and those who have not signed cards will
know they have not.
~~~Please note that this is not true in the case of
balloting. A private company is often privy to balloting information
(in many procedures.)
90% of companies, whose
employees seek unions, hire people to intimidate or coerce employees
who seek to form unions. Or they fire them.
There has been no evidence that the reverse is true. This would be
counterintuitive for these reasons:
Workers, who have become members or officials in unions they
form, need not hire anyone for such nefarious purposes. It would, after
all, be rather pointless for them to "intimidate" themselves by
"threatening" to provide safe workplaces, fair wages, health benefits,
pensions, and job security.
Such conjecture is a false argument. There has been zero substantiation
that people need to be coerced to accept higher wages, better working
conditions, healthcare, pensions, holidays, and respect from their
employers. I hope these more complete answers are helpful.
Q:
Under card check, is the union able to tell which workers have and have
not signed a card?"
A:
("The
union," consists of workers who have signed cards.)
So the answer is yes. Workers who
signed cards know they signed the cards.
No cards exist for those who have not chosen to
sign one. And card check is not
an entity in and of itself. Under the
Employee Free Choice act, workers can use
either card check or ballots to determine
whether or not they are allowed to have
a voice regarding safety, wages, hours,
benefits, pensions, and other conditions and
concerns in their respective workplaces.
Here are
reasons why we need the Act:
The reason
why we need this legislation is because traditional National Labor
Relations Board elections (especially in the past eight years) to
determine whether or not to form a union are not even remotely close to a secret
ballot election as we understand them..
Employers do a number of things to interfere with the election process that make these elections fraudulent at best. Employers not only have more access to workers on the clock, they hold captive audience meetings, intimidating one to one meetings with workers, and sometimes go as far as participating in the surveillance and direct intimidation of their employees. Often folks who support the union are simply fired.
Under EFCA, workers can choose a secret ballot election. They can also choose to use a card check process which makes it easier for folks to sign up. It gives workers more choices about how to make an important decision. It takes some power away from employers to abuse what should be a fair process where folks make a free choice.
It's good public policy, and scary for the business community. The only thing they want more than lower taxes is fewer union members to have a voice in the workplace.
Maybe card check neutrality isn't perfect. But the facts
don't lie. Workers are far less likely to be fired, face retaliation for
union support, or be subject to management intimidation.
Majority support options like card check are necessary to put Democratic
process back in action.
91% of employers in the real world whose workers choose to organize hire
anti-labor firms that encourage intimidation and coercion. This
fact is provided in a Cornell University study...
...Tim
And here, Robin Blumner, of Cornell University and NYU School of Law,
provides her perspective
"In a hearing
before a House subcommittee, Keith Ludlum, a veteran of Desert Storm,
told his story about being fired by Smithfield's Tar Heel, N.C., hog
slaughter and pork processing plant after he attempted to organize his
fellow workers.
Ludlum described the dangerous conditions at the plant. He said a fellow
worker in his 50s broke his leg by having it pinned between an electric
pallet jack and a concrete wall, then had to come to work the next day
or get fired. The company provided no sick days, according to Ludlum,
and didn't want to have to report the injury to OSHA.
Smithfield says it has no record of that incident and has a good safety
record. But the company admitted that it offers no paid sick leave and
that it "made mistakes" in the way it responded to union organizing at
the plant.
Ludlum said that when the whiff of unionism was in the air, Smithfield
viciously fought back. Findings by the National Labor Relations Board
confirm an illegal campaign of coercion and intimidation. In 2004, the
board ordered Smithfield to stop firing employees and threatening them
with physical assault and other reprisals for their union support.
Stories like this are remarkably common. Kate Bronfenbrenner, director
of labor education research at the School of Industrial and Labor
Relations at Cornell University, says that one in four employers
discharge employees for union activities.
Clearly, current law isn't protective enough of today's Norma Raes. So,
what's to be done?
Worker-friendly members of Congress have lined up behind the Employee
Free Choice Act - a measure that passed a House committee on Wednesday.
It would substantially increase penalties on employers who act against
employee organizers. Also, the bill would give workers the ability to
authorize a union if a majority sign up for one, rather than through an
election.
Employers use the election process as a delaying tactic. Between the
times that a bulk of workers say they want a union by signing
certification cards and the election, consultants are hired and the
threats start flying.
America's story of widening income inequality is also the story of its
shrinking unions. When workers have no say, they take the crumbs that
are offered."
ROBYN BLUMNER
best regards,
Tim Flanagan
Part-Time Instructor: Writing & Computers
Tutor w/Upward Bound
Editor of The Gathering (PCCFF & PCCFCE)
http://www.WritingResource.info/thegathering.html
See below if interested in supporting the passage of the Employee
Free Choice Act.
|
It's plain as day: Workers are struggling in this country.
I've seen it. You've seen it.
Today's workplaces are tilted in favor of lavishly paid CEOs,
who get golden parachutes while middle-class families struggle to get
by.
But it doesn't have to stay that way.
You and I have the opportunity to
restore the balance.
The Employee Free Choice Act would give American workers
more power to demand better wages, health care and working conditions.
Click here to sign the petition for the
Employee Free Choice Act today.
For more information about the Employee Free
Choice Act,
click here.
Click here to comment
Here to blog
Or here to discuss
 |
| toolbar powered by Conduit |
| Contact Elected Officials | Congressional update | Register to Vote! | Research Links for Voting |
Blues, Capital Punishment, Cartoons, Children's Page, Coretta, Creative Art, Employment, Environment, Impeach, Harley, Jefferson, Library, Logic, Martin, Middle East, Oregon News, Political Communication, Political Organization Rhetoric, Road to Peace, Tutor Resource Link, Women's Resources, ... or
mail: mailto:tflanaga@pcc.edu or mailto:tim@peaceresour
|
Click at left
for direct support or click below to
|
