Gallup: Americans favor Employee Free Choice Act
March 20, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, Special Report
A Gallup Poll in March showed that Americans are generally in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act. Many, however, don’t seem to know much about it — or care.
Here are the results of a multiquestion poll:
Question: Generally speaking, would you favor or oppose a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize employees?
- Favor: 53%
- Oppose: 39%
- No opinion: 8%
By party affiliation:
- Democrats — favor, 70%; oppose, 23%
- Republicans — favor, 34%; oppose, 60%
- Independents — favor, 52%; oppose 41%
Q: How closely have you been following news about a bill on Congress that would change the rules governing how labor unions organize workers?
- Very closely: 12%
- Somewhat closely: 22%
- Not too closely: 26%
- Not at all: 39%
- No opinion: 1%
Of those who said they are following the bill “very closely”:
- 58% oppose
- 40% favor
- 2% no opinion
Of those who said they follow the bill “not at all”:
- 58% favor
- 31% oppose
- 11% no opinion
Where it stands now
At a news conference, Rep. George Miller, Democrat of California, said he had 223 co-sponsors, including three Republicans, meaning the bill had majority support in the House. Reports out of the Senate say the bill has 40 co-sponsors in that chamber, down from 46 in the previous Congress.
About eight Senate Democrats and one Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of union-friendly Pennsylvania, are seen as undecideds — and thus are the targets for heavy lobbying.
The Democrats have 56 Senate seats and can usually count on two independents, and if Al Franken of Minnesota is seated, that would give Democrats 59 seats. So if just one or two Democrats oppose the bill, labor would have a hard time mustering the 60 votes to overcome the same type of filibuster that sent the bill down to defeat in the last Congress.
Summary of the bill
The main — and most controversial parts — of the bill:
- The “card check” provision for union representation when 50% plus one of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit sign union authorization cards.
- Compulsory first contract, mandating a first contract by requiring that where the parties have failed to reach agreement after 120 days of collective bargaining and mediation, a federally-appointed arbitrator will be selected to write the terms and conditions of employment binding the union and the employer for two years.
- Three new penalties for employer unfair labor practices during the period of union organizing and bargaining for an initial contract: (1) liquidated damages equivalent to triple back pay for employees terminated in violation of the National Labor Relations Act ; (2) fines of $20,000 for each unfair labor practice; and (3) mandatory injunction proceedings for campaign-related unfair labor practices.
Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, Gallup
March 20th, 2009 at 7:57 am
So six out of ten who follow the bill “not at all” are in favor of it? Is anyone else bothered by this?
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Yes I am disturbed by this as well, but it seems that our society has chosen a path that requires as little effort as possible. It is somewhat like our congress who can write a bill and then pass it but then nobody really knows what the contents were and especially what the ramifications will be. Oh and then for someone to take responsibility or to be held accountable, well that just doesn’t fit the bill. It’s absurd!
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:38 am
I am bothered by this! People should learn more about a topic before they give a definitive opinion to a poll. And why not phrase the “No opinion” option to say “Need more information”??
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
Agree with both Brian and Lajeli..
Poor polling question by Gallup. My guess was it is intentionally worded that way to get the predetermined desired answer as shown.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 am
We should all be bothered by this bill. The name of the bill is misleading as the employee’s “Free Choice” will be minimized when they sign over their representation to the Union. Do you really think the Union will suggest, remind, even hint at a secret ballot election if they have their cards? And how is it fair to only penalize an employer for “unfair labor practices” when the union can say and do anything to coerce a person to sign a card and has no penalty posed against it? How is that fair? Most people don’t know what the bill is about and don’t understand. They watch a 30 second commercial on TV and whoever has the better commercial wins.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 am
You certainly get a good look at the “left leaning” posture of the Gallup organization. Seems to me that the better headline should read something like, “58% of Well-informed Americans Oppose the EFCA.” As well, I’d be curious to see the distribution when the “very closely” and “somewhat closely” were combined.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
People need to be more involved and understand both sides of the argument before they say they agree. These new laws have serious implications to the American employer. I follow it closely and find this very scary. This new bill can end up driving our businesses right out of the ball park. Wake up and smell the coffee, people.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
It is very sad that those people who understand this bill are in the minority. And that those individuals who don’t have a clue what the bill is about, are not only in the majority, but acutally favor the bill. We are a sad country where people can tell you all four of the american idol judges and give you a debriefing upon the history of each contestant, but they don’t have a clue what is going on with national or international politics that could have monumental effects upon their daily lives and livelihoods! The way the concept is currently stuctured is not going to have a positive impact upon businesses, especially those smaller businesses that are dealing with the hard blows of the economic down turn.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
It’s a travisty that lawmakers will use a poll such as this to push through their agenda. It is clear the public that has taken time to learn about the EFCA understands the ill effect on the worker as well as the employer.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
Brian has a good point! 6 out 10 who “follow the bill closely” oppose it; but 6 out of 10 who follow the bill “not at all” are in favor of it. Yet the article headline is: “Gallup: Americans favor Free Choice Act”. By tagging the Gallup name to the article, many people will assume credibility. True, the raw data indicates that more Americans are in favor of the bill than oppose it…but do we really want to consider the 39% of those polled who aren’t following the bill at all when they say they are in favor of it?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
This is a good example of why bad bills get passed by politicians who claim they are following the “will of the people”. What an incentive to keep the average American ignorant of what is happening!
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
They favor it because too many people willingly believe lies, and are either too stupid or too lazy to look into it for themselves. Strike another victory for Socialism and empty promise.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
This disturbs me greatly!!! Where was this poll taken? Unfortunately some americans have decided that the government will “always” do what is in the best interest of the people!!! WRONG!! People need to get involved in what is happening in our government today. They are giving away the farm and expecting the tax payers to lay down, turn a blind eye, and let the goverment make all our decisions. “Free Choice”, teribbly missleading!!!!
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 am
It the same lack of knowledge and understanding of policies that resulted in an amatuer in the white house who is driving this country to socialism. It is a failure of our education system and American apathy that are now coming home to roost. They listen to the evening news pundits and take it as gospel.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
I think the name of the act is the biggest issue when asking people for their opinion. What employee wouldn’t want “free choice?” If people don’t know what the act represents, they may support it just because of the name. That may account for some of the shift in opinion when people who know what the act involves. They may realize it really isn’t about “free choice.”
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
These results are precisely what the writers of the bills know about most citizens who vote; that the name on the bill is more important than the content or consequences. What should be done is pass legislation that the name on a bill must accurately depict the nature of the bill and in this case the “Employees Get Railroaded by Unions Act”. For all the great things that America has done we still like to out stupify each other into doing what we want. Saddening to say the least.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
At a time of financial crisis we as a nation should be focusing on ways to improve our economy, in part by improving efficienc\y and output. Instead the administration is focused on a variety of issues that are creating conflict and division. This legislation will kill efficiency and competitiveness, increase the cost of doing business and create unnecessary political posturing in the workplace. IT IS BAD LEGISLATION!
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:34 am
It is inconceivable how EFCA is even a point of discussion for Washington when there are issues much bigger to resolve. But then, EFCA is just the tip of the iceburg that indicates the kind of environment we will have to operate in for the next four years. Bailouts and trying to breathe life into the shrinking union efforts in this country is political and not good business.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
Good point Liberty!
Maybe even something further that says that pollsters must give out a description of the bill to all people being polled also to help those who want to answer know what they are talking about!
I do not like the bill and the title is not descriptive of what it is. It is the opposite.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
Typical reporting tactics. The Headline doesn’t represent the content of the piece. Most people don’t bother to read an entire article and this “headliner” is a misrepresentation of the facts. Shame on the author. The “Headline” truly shows the bias of the author, Jim Giuliano. This is how bad bills get passed and politicians get elected. Look at the ramification of our elected officials not reading their own stimulis package that included bonuses to theives. Now they are trying to write another bill to cover for their lack of knowledge of their own stimulis package. This is CHANGE? This bill is not change, this bill is payback for union financial support in the ‘08 election and of course everyone wants to keep thier $185,000 jobs. It is going to be a long 4 years.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Usually these polls have more Democrats polled than Republicans, therefore pushing the poll in a certain direction. I imagine that the “uninformed” supporters are basing their opinion on the name “Free Choice”. After all, who wouldn’t want to support that!? This reminds me, if you put lipstick on a pig, isn’t it still a pig? I think I remember someone saying that not so long ago.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
This bill is taking away the employees right to a secret ballot, where they can vote without any pressure from either side. What’s next? Are we going to elect our representatives and senators by signing a petition? The secret ballot is a foundation of our nation. To take it away would be a step backwards.
Look at the results of the poll. The people who favor it for the most part do not understand it.
Why do you think unions have been losing members? Because most people have come to realize that most unions are self serving and do not really serve the employees. There are many laws today that protect the workers from the opressive policies of the past that brought about the need for unions many years ago. Unions today are obsolete and un-necessary.
Our financial crisis today in my opinion has been caused by greed by corporate America and the people in charge. I consider unions to be a part of this corporate America greed.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
What is happening to our great country?
Are we forgetting what made this country great?
– hard work, public involvement and great debates where both sides are heard.
We have become lazy; we rather go by what is presented to us in the media without all the facts than do the work ourselves to find the truth.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Not only will workers be “roadroaded” they will get to pay for the privilege. And, the part about the federal mediator making decisions if they don’t come up with a contract is bone-chilling. How a federal mediator, or any other government worker, can decide what a company can or cannot afford for its employees is a big question mark!
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:59 am
This is very disturbing news, indeed. As other postings here have noted, Gallup’s liberal leanings are revealed in the way the question was asked.
Every day the news from Washington seems to grow bleaker. Osama promised change… and boy is he is delivering. Weakening our nation’s defense, saddling our children’s children and generations to come with this bailout plan which is clearly not bailing anyone out of anything (unless, of course, you are an AIG executive who received a hefty bonus after getting the bailout check from you and I and the rest of the taxpayers), opening the door to greater deficits by the promise of “fixing” healthcare, lifting ethical limitations on stem cell research… the list goes on an on. And now, to put the cherry on top of this crap cake, he and his VP have been sucking the teat of organized labor their entire political careers. As with all political action dollars, this administration owes something for the dollars that were invested, and the Osama/Biden ticket plan to “dance with the ones that brung them” (for those who have seen the press conference Biden recently held with union officials in Florida).
This legislation is bad for America… bad for business… bad for the American worker… and REALLY bad for the current economy. Why there isn’t a larger-scale education campaign underway to help the public understand what a misnomer the legislation is puzzles me. It takes away “free choice”, for crying out loud, and submits employees to pressure from union organizers/sympathizers. Unions continue the rally cry that they will somehow “force” the big, bad, evil, greedy business to provide higher salaries and greater benefits – all at a time of record layoffs and plant closures. If this travesty passes, the picture will only get worse, and the only ones to benefit will be the unions as they laugh all the way to the bank to deposit those union dues.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Why don’t we add something to give the Union President a $1,000,000 bonus paid for by the employer if he gets a majority to sign the authorization card? Unions need an incentive so they will try harder. That would certainly help attract employers to open businesses in the U.S. so we could have more companies to tax to hep pay for the deficit.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
I totally agree with Bobbi and Lejeli views and thoughts on this legislation. The average American worker has no idea of what or why they are signing only listening to “union propaganda” and employers will have no control because it is going to be done behind their backs, not ableto let the employees know their side of the story. Sounds one sided to me, tipical government!
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Unbelievable!
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
This poll shows how silly it is to ask uninformed opinions and how completely useless those opinions are. Is it any wonder we have such pathetic occupants of Congress and the White House when the electorate abdicates critical thinking in favor of pretty sounding phrases and slogans? The EFCA is Orwellian doublespeak-sounds nice but does the opposite of the title. To take away the secret ballot of workers and the free speech of employers is fascist.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Having personal experience as a Manager of a company that went through the labor organization process I can say without question that the rules of this game are heavily slanted in the Unions favor as is. As other’s mentioned in the comments already, Unions campaigners and officials can say and do what ever they want to achieve thier campaign goals up to and including blatant lies, false promises, misrepresentation, employee intimidation, and even threats to them and thier families. The employer however cannot say ANYTHING about the process for fear of being slapped with an unfair labor practice, or worse a strike line. Even if Supervisors and Managers say nothing at all you will still have Union campaigners, Business Agents, and pro-union employees fabricate incidents to portray the employer as “the bad guy” and charge them with some unfair labor practices. It truly is already one sided as is, so to promote legilation to even further the one side who has all the advantages already is ridiculous and damaging to businesses that are currently struggling to keep thier doors open under current economic conditions.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
The people who know nothing about this are swayed by the name of it. After all, how can the “Employee Free Choice Act” be bad, with such a good name? To get a bill to pass these days, all one has to do is give it a pretty name. You could probably pass “double tax tuesday law” if you named it , “The Great American Re-Imburstmant Choice Act”, or “The Really Good Law that Good Americans Like Act”
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
The EFCA is just more of the Socialist ‘pablum’ being willingly ingested by an electorate too lazy and apathetic to do anything on their own. The majority that know little about the bll, but are in favor of it are the same ones that elected Mr. Obama as POTUS. All they know is seeking nourishment at the trough of public largess; the same trough funded by those of us who care enough to get involved and make informed decisions.
If the unions are truly pro-employee, why are they scared of continuing to have secret ballot elections by well-informed employees? If the unions are pro-employee, don’t they reduce fees toe reasonable levels, get rid of the conutry club memberships, chauffered limousines, etc., that eat up the fees the membership pays. Here again, an apathetic membership, only worried about ‘getting mine now’ does not demand better from its leadership.
Apathy is one step away from total dependence on government programs. Once government dependence becomes wide-spread, this great republic is doomed to go the way of ancient Rome.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
VERY BOTHERED!! This bill will not be good for the US or our economy!
Make sure your Congressional representatives know how you feel!
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
What concerns me is, after sitting across the table during meet and confer sessions with our employee groups, it became apparent that the labor groups did not have the employee’s best interest at heart, but only the specific labor group. At impasse, what had been proposed that the company could do in these uncertain economic times was accepted. Unfortunatly the employee members did not attend the labor group’s meetings, and if they did, they did not understand it all or did not ask questions. In the end they lost out on a years increase in salary due to the no retro clause put forth by management and accepted by the labor group. My personal opinion is that the media “tidbits” are misleading at best regarding most issues and that we, as employees, and voters, do not do our homework. The Congress takes something that should be said in one page and makes it 600 to 700 to appear impressive and look like they have done something. They certainly do not understand it all when they vote because their primary job once they get to Congress is to work to get reelected. This bill is misleading and should be sent out to the recycled paper bin.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
I think we all agree – this is an incredibly bad business and political move on behalf of Congress and the President. I’m generally in favor of many changes this new president has made; unfortunately I believe this is where he is falling short. It seems to me that because he had so much union backing during his campaign that this is his way of granting homage, without really understanding the implications on businesses and workers for that matter. In organizations that do a lot for their employees this can be detrimental to the culture. If a few unhappy individuals want to unionize this bill lets them know that it’s okay without truly understanding the fallout.
I have yet to find a single business person, not including HR, that finds this bill favorable. I understand the need for unions in industries where it just makes sense, like automobiles, but the fact that it can evolve into standard lines of business like administrative assistants, project managers, etc., makes me very concerned as a worker and an HR professional.
We should definitely continue to do our due diligence as HR leaders and write to our Congress and let them know that we are not in favor of this bill and why.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
This poll is sided the wrong way based on how the opinion question was asked. The only person getting rich is the union. The workers and the company will loose because of the costs associated with union processes. Think the government wastes time and money see what this “open door unionizing” will do pushed by the government on companies (big and small).
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Bothered? YES!!! The Democrats will have a field day with this poll. The news will not give the contents of the poll as explained here. And the Republicans don’t seem to care about publishing contradictions. But then, the news media wouldn’t run it anyway. The poll asks a very general question. It does not give the details of the bill that is the basis for real concern right now. This quote was just sent to me. “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”…Thomas Jefferson. He must be turning in his grave.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
This is the one of many examples of business bashing legislation that makes me want to retire and clip municipal bond coupons–nope, can’t do that, because we now have legislation requiring these tax free bonds to now be registered so that the government can keep watch over my income.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
Americans are such suckers for marketing ploys….”Free choice” sounds as American as apple pie but the law is as deceptive and corrupt as …..well as the Democratic party and the SEIU. Americans are also too stupid and lazy to do the research…..
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
The AFL-CIO bought this legislation and Congress is in line to deliver it. As Vice President Joe Biden stated in Miami, ‘we will stay with the ones that brought us to the dance.’ The labor-backed democrats got elected and now they must deliver! This bill is deceptive and down-right unAmerican! This has nothing to do with representing employees, it is about increasing the coffers of organized labor. Small business will be affected the most because they will not be able to pass on the increased costs to the customer. Not like GM did when new car prices went from $6k to $16K. This is one more way to prevent the economy from recovering. Folks, its small business that is the hope of America and the government doesn’t get it. What is the incentive to risk your own money to start a company when unions and the govenment want to tell how to run it and tax you so hard that the motivation is gone.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 am
I can’t believe we are letting our country morph into something it was never meant to be. Ignorance will be our downfall.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
Whoever summarized the Gallup Poll came to that conclusion–we don’t know whether that wording came from the organization itself. Is it Jim Giuliano who summarized and thus interpreted the gist of the poll in that light? If so, he used the answers to the first question as his headline. Anyone reading further would see the confusion and lack of interest about the issue.
I don’t think the Free Choice Act is a good idea either, but the bottom line is to treat employees equitably and honestly, which helps to avoid unionizing in the first place. I don’t see everyone rushing to sign a union card because of this bill, unless the employees were on the brink of unionizing anyway. If your employees are at that point, you have a responsibility to do what you can legally and ethically to turn them around.
There are so many other issues discussed here–some of us are supportive of Obama and his policies, but why are there ongoing polarizing comments about conservative vs. liberal, Republican vs. Democrat? Yet I bet that’s what we’ll continue to see in this forum.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
This isn’t employee free choice. This bill should be called the Labor Union Security Act.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The Free Choice Act is not a great idea. It is about keeping the employers completely out of the equation. I don’t care which party you belong to or support – this Act will ultimately hurt businesses, which then hurts everyone’s ability to keep their jobs.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
For those HR professionals who do employee surveys, it has been my experience that most employees are very leery of how the company asks each question. Company’s such as Gallup have been used as sources in TV game shows and by both poliitical parties it is like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval – accepted as truthful.
On the AFL CIO website they refer to survey data to support EFCA. If you dig down to the company that did that survey, it specialized in a long list of Democratic Party wish list for “change” and top Democratic Leaders.
I agree the survey questions were vague and “generally” gave the answer Gallup wanted.
On the gentlemen’s comment on Unions working for Auto companies – anyone can negotiate a “win win” expensive contract when your customers will continue to pay the final cost. When they won’t, you have GM/Chrysler.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Nothing new to us in California, who are living with the similarly-mistitled “Workplace Flexibility Act” of 1999, which makes it almost impossible to allow employees who want to work an alternative work schedule (i.e. 4-10s) to be able to do so, and creates draconian meal/break penalties and other inflexible pay-related rules to drive businesses out of the state. This has been the king of all “reverse-named” regulations but the EFCA will displace it on the throne!
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Just think, soon we will all be out of work and on the DOL because no one can afford to put union workers on the payroll and worse yet cannot afford to fire union workers on the payroll. Just where the socialist want us to be, dependent on the government for everything. (I would much rather call them tyrannist than socialist though, socialist implies they want to share power, not going to happen)
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Oh yes, we should make it easier for unions to come in and fill employees minds with visions of the wealth they will have once the union is in place. All while the employer has no opportunity to provide facts. I’ve been part of union negotiations and the field is already slanted greatly in the unions favor. They can lie, make innuendos, slander, and say anything they damn well please all while the employer has one hand tied behind their back. This bill ties the other hand and is nothing more than payback from our new mesiah. BUNCH OF FOOLS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. I for one will continue to increase outsourcing because of such foolishness. Not offshore mind you, the quality sucks. I don’t hire FTE’s any more, I outsource to local companies. Let them deal with this crap!
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Quit bashing this administration. This bill has been around for a year and a half longer than this administration. Furthermore, this administration walked into a complete mess left over by previous administrations. This can not be repaired in two months. I am not for the EFCA and have e-mailed the president and will also contact my local and state reps. This is what we all should do.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Why not ask a question such as: Would you be willing to give up the right a private ballot election to make it easier for unions to organize employees?
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I suppose that if a bill named the “Fair and Free Firearms Act of 2009″ that banned all firearms the poll results would be similar because no one is paying any attention and you can’t get anything resembling accurate information out of the news media.
Strong arm union organizing tactics to follow. Window washers getting union scale with stimulus $$ at $35hr.
Laziness, complacency and apathy all around……as the country burns Obama (Nero) bowls….. Weimar Republic redux…
George Miller of California? The same guy who has sponsored a bill that would “confiscate” all 401K money to increase government revenues. Wonder how long that will take to enact?
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I saw an earlier poll that said something quite different. Unfortunately I do not remember the source. The Poll stated, among other intersesting facts, that 72% of union members opposed the bill.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Fair and Free Firearm Act…LOL
I live in one of those redneck, Souther, Good ol Boy states and regardless of what was in that act, with a title like that, I would be afraid not to vote for it; I would probably get my tires slashed at the polling place!! LOL
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Peggy is a bit off target. Obama was the originator of this Bill in his long tenure in the Senate. 9and the Republicans said he has not done anything)
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Unfortunately even those that are not informed have the right to vote.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with Dave and Tashana. As HR at a company that has had two previous union drives (both failed), I shudder to think what this will do for our futures. This is not a good bill. Do they understand the pressure employees are going to be put under by their peers to “sign”? Intimidation is alive and well! This is just one more nail in the coffin of businesses in the United States. Is it any wonder that so many of them leave for other countries? Already heavily burdened by rising costs, worker’s comp, taxes, etc. – businesses in this country cannot afford to stay.
It’s a shame that the new administration has been bought by these union thugs. Obama said he was going to bring change and we believed him – guess we should have asked, what kind of change? Will it bring our country closer to that Socialistic State, where the poor and marginal workers are paid the same as employees who have a work ethic and actually work hard to do a good job? Will the fat cats raking in the money ever have to answer for their greed and gluttony, or will the backs of the workers bend ever lower with the weight of it all? This is a sad time for our country. Sadder still if we just sit and do nothing and let it happen. There are enough other laws on the books to protect employees from their “big, bad employers” – we don’t need a union to do it as well.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I will keep bashing this administration as long as it continues to use the same level of thinking that created problems to solve them. It’s one of those darn constitutional rights I get to exercise all I want. Don’t ya just hate that?
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Peggy, You are correct this has been around since 2007, but they haven’t had ‘big government’ backing until this administration. The mess was made long ago, by republicans and democrats alike. As this cannot be repaired in 2 months, which it seems they are trying to do, it was also not made in 2 months, 2 years or 2 administrations. ALL of congress had a hand in where we find ourselves today, but it doesn’t help when this adminstration is out to breakdown what our country has been built on from the beginning. Our fore fathers came over here to make thier own choices, to leave a place that government that told them what they had to do And who is running the government?? Big interest like the AFL-CIO. They are in bed together. The little guy goes without while they rake in the profits. And these are heafty profits. Like our CFO would say, “This is adult money we are talking about.” The company I work for has always treated its employees fairly and honestly. That is what we were built on by our founders, who are still involved in the business. What happened to free enterprise and being able to run you business the way you see fit? I also have sent out notifications to the president and our local reps.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
The reality is more business will end up shutting down or outsourcing if EFCA passes. Either way it is very clear that the American people will suffer. Wake up those of you in favor, it could cost you your job.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Thank you Peggy! I’m so sick of everyone using this forum as their soapbox to bash Obama. There are many of us, (dare I admit it) DEMOCRATS who think that this legislation is garbage. Give it a break you right-winged name-callers – We’ve put up with Bush for 8 years and this is only part of the mess he left us.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
The title of this article is misleading. Gallup’s asked if the process for organizing should be easier. Not whether respondents favored EFCA. EFCA is an attempt by labor unions to get to collect union dues in a manner that is the easiest possible–not much different than the effort you get out of unionized workers. Most of the dues collected (after paying for union staff perks) will be donated to Democratic politicians and Obama. That’s the main reason virtually all Democrats are for this ridiculous bill.
While most workers (including myself) spend a good part of the day worried about their job security, we have our President Teleprompter telling us that EFCA will help improve the enconomy. It won’t. Neither will more taxes, cap and trade, nationalized health care, and immigration amnesty. That doesn’t matter because it is more important to get the liberal agenda passed.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
It is an amazing fact to me that most of these comments support the companies perspectives virtually 100%. The scary ‘Big Government’ title and a few other right wing push-phrases are not enough to change the actual meaning of the legislation – it makes it easier for employees to have fair representation, and what’s wrong with that? Giving business a free hand certainly hasn’t worked to our advantage thus far . . .
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Rather than continuing comment in this forum, comment where it will do the most good- Contact your elected representatives from your jurisdiction. Make them aware that those who follow the plans and the ones who have to make it work are in favor or not in favor as your belief may be.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I agree that most people don’t know or understand this bill. If they did I doubt if they would be in favor of it. Wish these comments could somehow be emailed to the President so he would know how “The People” that are helping run US business really feel about all his laws and how bad they truely are for the US businesses.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
What not ask the question: “Are you in favor of eliminating the current secrret ballot system for only this card check when voting to unionize?”
That is the heart of the problem.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I’m amazed at the way Gallup phrased the first question. How about a little objectivity and say it like it is. Do you favor or oppose a law that takes away the right to a secret ballot?
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I can’t believe the Government would even consider passing this bill! The people voting on these results need to be informed of how this could affect businesses. Look at the auto industry. And they wonder why they are in such a financial mess! UNIONS!!
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
…Of those that follow the bill closely (and actually know and understand what this bill is) 58% oppose. To me, that is the only group that should be discussed! 58% of people who even know what this bill is don’t think it should pass. So… How in the world did Gallup come up with thier headline? I don’t care about the opinion of people who have never even heard of this bill, or understand the ramifications of it! That should have been the poll…what % of people have heard of the bill and understand it, and of them, what is thier position. Quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing the opinions of a bunch of people who don’t know much about anything. It’s not relevant how they feel about something they don’t know anything about! I’m begining to think that people should have to take a basic “what are the issues” type test (and pass) before being allowed to vote too. Had that happened this past election, we’d have had a different outcome.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
That’s how the political system works sometimes. Take away the rights of people under the guise of “free choice”. From my experience, union reps often lie to potential employee groups (under law, they are allowed to do that), unionize them and then bargain for less than they would have gotten by and get paid a fee for that right. Now this bill takes away employee’s right to vote privately and without intimidation. What a Country!
I’ve written my legislative representatives to ask them to vote against it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
People “don’t know what they don’t know”…if you haven’t really read something…or know the implications of a law…anything with a title like “free choice” sounds great. The names for these different pieces of legislation haven’t been chosen haphazardly. Want to beat a politician who doesn’t support the Act…gear your ads toward displacing someone who was so callous that they don’t support your free choice”.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Lots of ranting and emotion but not a great deal of logical thinking is displayed in the majority of the these comments. I have experience working in both union and union-free private sector organizations. Realistically, sometimes it is easier to manage in a unionized setting – because with a contract the basic question is always: is this complaint a violation of the contract or is it a gripe? If it is a violation there is a process to resolve it. If it is a gripe, and you have a good working relationship with the union committee, generally they will take care of it for you. Having said that I will add that I am not in favor of “card check” decision making. I am a firm believer in the power and the sanctity of the secret ballot. Finally, there are usually some serious underlying reasons why the majority of an organization’s employees make the decision to try to form a union and they usually are around compensation, safety, job security, working conditions, and favoritism issues. It may be that they have tried to have these issues addressed before and not gotten any where. In my opinion unions are born out of frustration, anger, fear, and most importantly a perceived lack of communication and respect…..that is when the argument that “there is power in numbers” really resonates with folks. People who feel appreciated and respected do not willingly get into the “us versus them” posture – it takes too much energy.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I agree with the comments about the misleading title “Employee Free Choice Act”. For those who do not understand the bill, how could they not approve a bill that gives Employees Free Choice? I would love to see a Gallup poll for “Do you want to end Women’s Suffrage?” I would bet that a great number of people would say yes because they don’t understand the word ’suffrage’. They would equate it to suffering, not realizing it means the right to vote. I am not trying to put down society’s level of education, just pointing out how many people do not understand what they are voting for.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I am totally against this bill for several reasons however if our Democratic (in name only) leadership wants to force the Employee Forced Choice Act down our throats, then I would accept it if they added one provision…make it just as easy to get rid of a union as it would be to gain one. Let’s do Card Check in reverse. If I get 50% + 1 of my employees in a unit to “vote” out a union, then the union must get the hell out of town.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Eric, you are too funny! I love your example!
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Patrice – my experience with the majority of union rep’s is their lack of ability to tell their “constituent” they do not have a contractual grievance – most are “politicians”. What the union doesn’t get in the contract they try to wrangle through the grievance procedure and develop a history of past practice.
Many speak to the increased cost of labor, but forget the additional cost of labor relations (HR staff/attorney fees); supervisor energies misdirected to pointless grievances (you say Gripes – most see Grievances); management time spent in negotiations directed away from running the business; employee morale degraded by stewards always cranking for personal support and “solidarity” against the Company – even on items most don’t believe in.
Don’t forget most Union bylaws forbid an individual for giving statements against their Union Brethern – there goes your harassment investigations. Don’t beleive for a minute the Union will do anything serious about others that are bullies, harassers, racist and similar ilk. They need those types in time of “labor actions”. They will tell those that complain to keep it within the Brotherhood, and not to take it to the Company.
Agree with your statement on what gets groups to Unionize – but they usually don’t get the dream of the middle class promised.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Patrice – I think you hit a key topic – “employees make the decision to try to form a union and they usually are around compensation, safety, job security, working conditions, and favoritism issues.” With the current state of the economy, our business (like many others) is now facing compensation issues (salary freezes/reductions), and definite job security issues with two rounds of layoffs and possibly more to come. With these issues at the forefront, and employees everywhere worried about putting dinner on the table, this problem is only going to intensify and cause more fear/anger/PERCEIVED lack of communication, etc… Combine that with the pushy unions that will try to walk their way to as many businesses as they can to pad their pockets, and you have a recipe for many more unions that would not have been likely a year or more ago (our company is a perfect example).
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
One respected pollster interviewed voters on election day – roughly 68% of those polled did not know who had the majority party in the legislature since 2006 (they said “Republican” because Bush was president) so it is accurate to say the most voters are “less than informed” about basic facts relating to our government and even more ignorant about an issue that has any hint of complexity or is deceptively named such as this union forming issue.
The once free (and professional) press that had for years provided a fair and unbiased source of information on issues has clearly taken sides and sadly can no longer be relied upon.
The word “secret” might best be called “uncoerced”. It doesn’t take much thought as to how this simplistic process can/will be used to bully votes.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Deanna – Amen sister, well stated! How many of you on this page voted for Obama? Not me but I bet some of you would like to have a “do over.”
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Judging by the comments here most of the people are against this “Union Security Bill”
Too bad the 53% of the voters who voted for “Change We Can Believe In” can’t see thru this, but they think Nobama is going to pay their mortgages and fill their gas tanks as well.
Most of them couldn’t tell which party was in power in Congress, nor who Pelosi or Reid were when asked after they voted in November.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I think you hit the nail on the head HRMOKC. There is so much percieved fear and anxiety that has been laid on us by the media that many employees are willing to do what it takes to maintain status quo – even if it means unionizing without looking at the big picture. Unfortunately, it will be the same uninformed group of people who vote in favor of this act, that will be signing up to unionize without having all the pertinent information.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Harold:
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Sounds as if some of our experiences working with unions have been somewhat different. So much depends on past history and how conflicts have been resolved. I worked in a mill, as a new Employee Relations Manager, where over a fifteen year period the number of grievences had dropped from 300@year to three or four. The reason was a very good Labor Relations/HR Manager who was perceived as fair, straightforward, and someone who could be believed. He did not stand for any guff and everyone knew that the quickest way to get fired was to lie to him. So he worked with the union and they worked with him and sometimes they agreed to disagree. I took those lessons with me when I left and they have worked for me in both union and union free environments. One advantage that I have is that bullies do not expect short fluffy blondes to push back – the element of surprise can be a benefit.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
It is unfortunate that they are buying into union 1950 rhetoric. This provides the union an opportunity to frighten people into signing. Do they have a clue as to what this will do to prices and services in this country?
If the government believes that the labor laws and protections they have put in place since the unions started forming early in the last century, they should strengthen them. Otherwise we are at the mercy of the unions.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I am from Canada – you do not want this legislation – union leadership hopefuls climb the ladder by bullying and intimidation so in essence the union leadership group are simply the toughest thugs in the workforce. The head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union has a Grade 10 education, so is the union head for the Ottawa transit union – who just held us all to ransom over a 12 week strike during a cold Canadian winter – talk about brutal – especially for the aged trying to get to doctors and hospitals. The reason they stayed out – they want to right to have the senior union members arrange their own schedules – which is clearly a management responsibility. Note the interchange of union right versus management responsibility.
Forget about a civil work environment, forget about collaboration, forget about performance pay. Back to the dark ages of hostile work environments and mediocrity.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The EFCA is a terrible idea, and shows how the national democrat party sucks up to organized labor.
The real reason unions are losing membership in recent years [except for the public sector] is that workers realize they are usually better off without them. As a labor relations practicioner and former union officer, I’ve seen many instances of lieing, trickery, and intimidation by union
organizers trying to get cards signed. Does anyone really believe this won’t happen if EFCA becomes law?
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
What it says to me is that the opposition to EFCA has been effective rallying those that might oppose such legislation and have made it seem like the worst possible thing and distorting the bill especially by saying it ends the right to a secret ballot. Of course these groups that purport to care about workers are all funded by business — hmm. There will come a time when this issue comes to center stage and people will pay more attention, but workers now are more concerned with the economy and can’t focus on this yet.
I’d like to see Gallup’s results by income of the respondent.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Right before the Roman Empire fell, the people wanted two things:
1. Their games
2. The Government to provide everything to them
Anyone see any similarities?
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I am almost surprised, but not totally, about the degree of fervor against this pending legislation. This has become a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Let’s deal with this bill and how we feel about this particular bill. Most of us are against it, for various reasons. There were so many bills passed by Congress under Bush, and so many Presidential “signings,” and even bills passed in many states that many were against, but I don’t recall the passionate and angry responses from HR people. How do you feel about employees carrying concealed weapons, or having weapons in their cars in our parking lots? Maybe most of you are okay with it–then I guess this is a Conservative Republican vehicle for commentary?
Face it, Barack Obama has been elected, and there will be bills we’ll be in favor of, and bills we’ll be against, as they affect the workplace. This one we’re mostly all against, whether we’re on one side of the aisle or the other. All this rhetoric about a “do over” with our national election–we as a whole do not like this bill. It may fail. We hope it does. If it doesn’t, we have to do what we can to keep our companies union free by improving communication. Tashana, Peggy, Mary, Patrice and several others prefer constructive input rather than destructive.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
What’s next — elimination of the secret ballot when electing Congressmen, Senators, and the President? To me it is the same as eliminating the secret ballot when choosing to give up direct dealing with your employer in matters of wages, hours, benefits, etc. and having those items set COLLECTIVELY by a union. Workers will be intiminated to sign cards by peer pressure and will lose the ability to make private decisions via secret setting. If this bill passes inflation and economic stagnation will continue and be exacerbated.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Wendy– Let us know when the Obama Administration proposes a bill that is good for HR. Unfortunately, we are seeing legislation from the Democrats that hurt corporate America. I am not aware of the Bush Adminstration proposing that employees can carry guns. What type of “signings” hurt HR? Too many people in HR think that they don’t have to worry about business issues. That is probably why so many cry that they don’t have a seat at the table when they shouldn’t be seated.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Talk about misleading headlines. A large majority of people that are following the bill oppose it. Shouldn’t that be the lead? Why not say most uninformed and disinterested Americans support the bill. No reporting the fact that a majority of union members oppose this act. The true supporters are union leaders and their beholden in DC.
Why are there no penalties for union misconduct as if they are innocent bystanders in the process? The unions may bully anyone even at their home with no consequences. Another one-sided, anti-business piece of legislation that is pure payback to huge supporters of the president and congress. I believe if most Americans were provided with the details of this legislation and that it is designed to overturn secret balloting for union representation, most Americans would oppose.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I must admit first I have not taken time to read all 77 responses to this post. But, I get the gist. I agree with Wendy about the conservative leanings of most respondents, and I also agree with being against this bill, even though I did vote for Obama. (We will not agree on every single issue.) I attended an HR meeting last week with other HR reps and with a lawyer presenting on this issue. We need to not panic on this. There are effective things we as employers can do and say to oppose unions without intimidating workers’ rights. The rationale among proponents for the EFCA, I believe, is that sometimes workers have been intimidated by employers with regards to considering unionization. The HR group I attend doesn’t believe that, probably because we are non-profit human service agencies and don’t engage in intimidation ourselves. But, we can point out to those considering signing cards the benefits we provide, which are competitive, and we can be transparent about the percentage of payroll those benefits cost. We might want to be careful about saying things such as we will go out of business if the union does come in. But we can say, if asked (and maybe if not asked) that people should not join a union because the union cannot guarantee better benefits, and we can tell employees that there will be mandatory union dues to pay from each month’s pay. As for mediating a contract if initial negotiations don’t result in one, well, they can’t get blood out of a stone. The union and the mediators can examine the books and they can see the situation. In the situation of for-profits, we (you) can be open with educating your employees about the benefits they already have in place and follow every labor law so employees can see they are being treated fairly.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
It doesn’t matter under whose administration these laws are proposed. What matters is whether and how they affect us as HR professionals. If we’re opposed to the EFCA, as most of us are, we should focus on what we can do to address the problems we anticipate we’ll experience, rather than blame the Administration under whose watch it was passed. I think all this blaming is so non-productive. I’m not criticizing the anger–let’s write to our Senators and Congresspeople, but if it passes, let’s at some point “get over it” and cope with whatever fallout it may create. But others who’ve commented already know how to handle or avert the union environment. Let’s ask them to share their experiences, because that’s being proactive and helpful. If you’re so afraid of unions (I can sense the fear in many posters), you will have them at your door because I suspect that that’s indicative of the type of relationship your company has with its employees–confrontational, no doubt.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Wendy, As far as my right as a US citizen to keep and bear arms, you bet your sweet bippie that I appreciate that right and will fight to keep it. As far as guns in vehicles, it is an every day occurance at my workplace!! And we also sponsor concealed weapons classes. But I guess that is something else that the new administration is going to get on thier soapbox about after this one is settled. We have a very good relationship with our employees and my company is very employee friendly. What I dislike the most is the way this issue is presented. I am all for being proactive and my company has been, but this is threatening the small businesses. Don’t assume that you know our anger is because we are lousy business people or that we have questionable relationships with our employees. I have seen what unions can do to a workplace and it is not pretty. They are in it for themselves, to line thier pockets with other peoples hard earned money, and they were a very heavy contributor to the current administration. The fact that they are counting on America to not realize what is going on, is almost as appaling as America not knowing. These are the people that some voted for with the hope that they would lead us into good change, not something that will kill the small business owners.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Ref: J. Buckley comment—how naive. She’s obviously never dealt with a private sector organizing effort.
Consider what’s been happening in the public sector as it becomes more and more unionized—wages and benefits are outpacing the private sector, and it’s done on the backs of the taxpayers because the politicians count the public sector employees as their voter bases. Private industry can’t pass along cost increase without productivity improvement and stay in business. Check into what’s happened in Canada under unrestrained union organizing.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
DH – I did say I was against the EFCA. I did say there are things employers can do to present our case. Many people in HR seem to think our hands are tied and our mouths are taped shut and we cannot do a thing. You’re right as to my not experiencing an organizing effort. I just listened to the attorney presenting – he did vote for Obama – and is very experienced (30 years worth) in strategies to keep unions out. I agree we don’t need unions in all sectors any more. I do not want unions in my workplace. I agree the public unions have made employee benefit, retirement, etc. expenses very burdensome. Just remember if they go away entirely or their influence is completely insignificant, the pendulum of all of our employee benefits could swing too far the other way. Balance is what is needed.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Judy, it is not about whether we have unions or not. It is much more basic than that. It is removal of an individual’s right to a secret ballot which will be taken away. If this becomes law, then what is next? Where does it stop?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
This bill is irresponsible. Look at what unions have done for us so far, auto companies needing bailouts, post office that has terrible service so no one wants to use them for shipping stuff anymore now they are cutting jobs. I think if people pass this bill they should be held responsible for the failure of American enterprise and freedom and violation of the fundamentals of our constitution. I was going to purchase a profitable business this year but now I’m thinking of leaving this country to do business somewhere else. What ever happened to freedom? The name of this bill is a marketing ploy. We have plenty of laws to protect employees, we don’t need unions anymore. What is the DOL for if everyone starts going union then we can get rid of the DOL, lets cut all of the Department of Labor jobs next. Oh wait we can add that to the bill too. What are people thinking?
March 24th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Judging by the comments here I see most agree this bill is not conducive to the betterment of our economy or to capitalism.
The big picture as some alude to is that all of the measures being rammed down our throats are not meant to succeed but to fail. Once they fail it will be so much easier to implement the ultimate goal which was socialism all along.
Remember Obama comes from Chicago where union politics has a long history of corruption. Why should anyone here actually expect something else? Really!
He (or more accurately Pelosi/Reed) has already paid off the teachers unions, paved the way for his pals at Acorn and saddled our childrens grandchildren with unbelievable unpayable debt…..
This guy is a pawn – he does not/appears cannot actually lead – he mimics others in history and when asked a series of legit questions on 60 minutes he laughs and chuckles (without his teleprompter) to the point the interviewer has to actually ask if he is “punch drunk”. How can anyone respect this imposter?
The president punch drunk? These measures are all meant to get to the end game which is the elimination of that “evil” called capitalism. Try not to get swept up in the many diversions like Barney Frank calling out the supreme court justice, or the Limbaugh nonsense, or AIG bonuses and the host of unconstitutional legislation being dumped on us…..if it all fails – socialism (or worse) just walks right in….easy.
Keep you eye on the ball…..he wants capitalism to fail. This legislation will certainly help the effort.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I agree that people should understand the details of the act before indicating whether or not they favor it. I do believe that the sentiment amongst many Americans given the bailouts and such is that big and small businesses do not care about the little guy or the average worker and the unions do… If the unemployment rate wasn’t so high and other polls about how content american workers are with their jobs (I have read many where the majority of responders indicated they weren’t satisfied with their jobs)didn’t yield such poor results;I think the majority of people responding this poll may have a different opinion about this act (especially if they are willing to read into the details of the act).
The fact is there are too many employers engaging in unfair employment practices and people (who work everyday) know it! I don’t agree with this act, but I think I understand “why” a lot of people think the legislation is necessary.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Jim is absolutely correct….ask college kids about the parallel and wait for the blank stare…..
We all will be planting victory gardens soon like Ms Obama….in sleeveless shirts
March 24th, 2009 at 8:46 am
We might also want to consider watching Fox News and reading the Wall Street Journal along with any diet of NY Times and MSNBC….where these matters are actually discussed in detail and where our intelligence is not usually under assault by condescending commentators and lack of coverage.
March 24th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Can people be this idiotic? It is not FREE CHOICE!! Employees will be bullied, coerced and made to feel compelled to vote YES or risk being alienated by their co-workers. Why would anyone vote yes to take away their right to privacy in these voting matters? Here is just another example of how government and UNIONS want to dictate to EMPLOYERS how to run their businesses. How many businesses has America already lost, and how many more will be lost to competeing countries before people start to realize it’s OK for American businesses to profit? It’s quite ok for employees wanting to be treated fairly, and fairly compensated for what they do. Just let the markets determine that, not some bully union who takes no responsibility to a company’s bottom line. How well are our car companys doing compared to foreign competion? Huh?
March 24th, 2009 at 9:13 am
If you dont know anything about it, then your opinion does not count. Shame on Gallup for spinning this poll left……but what else should we expect. One of the ironies behind this bill is that most union members that I know are AGAINST it. Why would they want more competition for thier jobs?
March 24th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I agree with many of Wendy’s comments. Some of you who post are making your comments way too personal. I really do think that HR professionals need to be balanced (almost like judges) and not swing too far in one direction or another on an issue. Yes, most HR professionals (including me) are going to take issue with the EFCA, but is there anything more we can do than whine about what is imminent? Also, I think it is your right as an American to subscribe to whatever political philosophy you choose, but again, let’s get over the whining about Obama and his administration and see how HR can come out of this like a real partner with a solution.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:58 am
In our Louisville SHRM organization we are developing training classes on helping individuals prepare for and plan as to training both Supervision (which we should do anyway on NLRA issues) and communicating to employees on EFCA if it passes in a manner that is professional and legal under the NLRA.
I strongly everyone to read EFCA, flowchart the proposed timelines with current organizing timelines and become adept at answering your employees questions.
If you are a government contractor, take notice of the penalties for ULP’s in you are involved in an organizing drive – it is horribly punative and a big hammer to make a company not fight an organizing drive.
The current AFL CIO website has a lot of information but significant links for research. (It reads much like N. Pelosi’s and Rep Miller (CA) website.) Check out Wikipedia and search for EFCA – excellent links there also. You don’t have to drink the Kool Aid, but you need to know where the opposition is coming from.
Relax – watch some great NCAA basketball this weekend – a “meaningful diversion”.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Chaos folks it all about creating chaos….Sol Olinsky (1930’s) is Obama’s dead mentor – a socialist/communist who guided his experience as a community organizer on and the tactics being used by his administration so skillfully.
His “team” is perfectly expendible….he is a user from the get go and he is using his pawns to draw the heat away from himself as they do his bidding to later get used up and cast out. Thus, he remains unscathed…..”it was them” (Bush)
While we debate the small stuff he is orchestrating the big collapse. What will HR do then? Probably won’t matter at that point. Every day that goes by makes even a Nostradamus prediction look more credible….
Free Choice? Not much left.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Just another example of the media putting a spin on a seemingly credible survey by a credible organization (Gallup) to sway public opinion. I believe in freedom of speech wholehartedly, but I think authors of articles on political topics should disclose their party affiliations so people know which way they lean! I think we know where this author’s opinions lie!
March 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
So far you have described Obama both as a pawn and some kind of maniacal orchestrator of chaos… I think you need to switch to decaf?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Independent. No party affiliation. Feel better – your turn.?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
– In a setback for organized labor, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday he will oppose a bill that makes it easier for workers to form unions.
Specter was the only Republican to support the Employee Free Choice Act two years ago and unions were hoping he might be the crucial 60th vote needed to overcome an expected GOP filibuster of the measure when it’s taken up this summer.
In a floor speech, Specter called it a “very emotional issue with labor looking to this legislation to reverse the steep decline in union membership and business expressing great concern about added costs, which would drive many companies out of business or overseas.”
March 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Red M3 – “business has no opportunity to provide facts” – yes, we do! We don’t have to wait for the organizers to walk onto the property. We can be proactive and give our view to our employees, including the specifics of their present benefits and that unions require dues. (That right there should open their eyes.) Also, point out that there is no ballot if the EFCA passes in its present form. No ballot, I’m guessing, is why you’re feeling that business won’t get their say. Again, be proactive. To Wendy and Peggy, good for you – don’t just vent here – vent to Congress and the President. Try to keep some perspective. I know the UAW is not admired here (to put it mildly!) but pay attention to the fact that they are actually working with auto makers now (forced into it by the perilous state the companies are in, I imagine) to accept furloughs instead of layoffs, to trim benefits, etc. I also think many people in that Gallup poll will change their minds when they actually understand what the bill is about. Yeah, it’s pretty ignorant to form an opinion based on little or no information.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Good point Judy re the need to be proactive. However even when you show some people the facts they don’t believe it. I think sometimes there is a culture of us against them and unions solidify that. My best memory of such conflict was with a maintenance department at a hospital. We brought up the local chamber data from the chamber web site and they still don’t buy it. We showed them national labor data that supported our claim they had excellent salary and benefits and they still don’t buy it. There are those who refuse to believe facts and would rather have a bumper sticker that reads “my president is Jimmy Hoffa”. Well I’m done with those types. I run my own show now and outsource as much labor as possible. My biggest objection to the legislation is the run to socialism we seem to have now days. The economic crisis seems like it’s being used as a smoke screen while all sorts of socialist agenda items like this get slipped in.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Re: Ryan March 24th, 2009 at 2:52 pm:
First, it’s certainly not a setback. Way to take a stand, Mr. Specter!
Second, look at his comment at the bottom of your post – he hits the head on the nail. Is it so important to reverse the decline in union membership at the expense of companies going out of business or going overseas? Isn’t that the point of organizing, to provide stable employment? The EFCA would cause an increase in the loss of American jobs, and would drive American production costs up, making us less competitive in the world economy. This of course would cause the loss of even more jobs… and further weaken our economy. The United States of American can not afford to be weak at this point in our world history!
Third, at a time in American history when we all need to come together to fight for our way of life, promoting unionism will only further split Americans by promoting the “us/them” mentality that is so prevalent in most union workplaces. I was hopeful that the election of a minority to the highest post in the world would break down the barriers between races – Let’s not replace that with creating barriers between the working class and white collar America! We’re all working for the same things!
Back to the main point of this poll, we need solid reporting from folks putting these things in writting. How could this even get published with the flaws in the poll? Who cares if someone who has no idea what the EFCA is supports it? The have no bearing on the poll, and it’s just a waste of time to even consider this a valid poll.
GBA!
March 25th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Well put Ted. I don’t think much else needs to be said than that.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:11 am
EFCA…COBRA admin changes…other federal…AND STATE…”Freedom” acts and initiatives. New Jersey is working to beat the Fed at chasing away jobs.
For the first time in my life, I am glad to see my HR career coming to a close. Unless business and HR professionals keep the pressure on, the profession – even the “soft side” disciplines – are going to be buried in administrivia and cumbersome regulations that add zero value to anything. I have always been a can-do person, so to say this is very hard for me.
Good luck all !!!
March 25th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Mr Obama was sure to thank his union supporters last night and reassure them money is on the way. This bill will pass without problem.
Specter just wants to be contrarian to get himself noticed as voting his conscious…….
Mr Obama has said government (honest and forthright money managers like Frank, Dodd, Geithner, Schumer, Pelosi, Reed, Schumer et al) should be allowed to step in any time they feel it necessary to exercise managerial control over “private business” to prevent some perceived and mostly undefined “systemic collapse”.
Oh and as predicted, the world community (G-20 members Russia and China to start) have announced they want a new currency to base the world reserves on. So we will have massive debt and worthless paper to pay off the $860B in interest alone.
Biden said Obama would be making a very bad decision – let us take a wild guess that this will be to change our monetary system over to a new world based standard. It is only logical he will do it.
Polls are sure to report a 58% improvement in the public’s outlook on the economy (LOL).
March 25th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I wish the political commentary would end now. The rhetoric is “off topic” and becoming a hot-button issue for those (and I’m counted among them) who have different viewpoints, and who are just as passionate about their beliefs. This is not the venue for it. I see how many bulletin boards (on SHRM as well) become co-opted by politics instead of HR issues. How some of you feel about the Democrats is obvious. Enough already.
Let’s move on to what we can do if the bill passes (and we all seem to want it to fail) to keep our companies union-free.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:01 am
To those who claim that people who weren’t following news on the EFCA were influenced by the name – pay attention! The question did not mention the name of the bill: Those who were influenced by the name would have to have been following news about it.
To those who claim the question (”… would you favor or oppose a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize employees?”) did not accurately describe the bill – I challenge you to describe it any more accurately in a single sentence.
To those who claim the headline is misleading and evidence that Gallup is left-leaning – (1) it’s a headline and so by definition misleading, (2) Gallup didn’t write the headline, HRMorning did.
Finally, who says those not following the news on EFCA closely are uninformed? I know about it; I understand it; I have my informed decision – but it will not directly affect me or my company as much as many other issues, so, no, I’m not following the news on it closely at all. But thank you for wanting to take away my right to have an opinion.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Wendy’s point is good regarding it might make sense to have postings about what we can do to react to EFCA should it pass as it or in a “modified” version. However, EFCA is about politics. It is that simple. For unions, it means more revenue (i.e., the dues of workers). What will they use it for? Perks and political contributions. Where will the contributions go? About 90% or more goes to Democrats. Why is EFCA suported almost exclusively by Democrats? Follow the money trail. Union members generally are half Democrat and half Republican, but the union leaders give virtually everything to Democrats.
Some other comments mention that if we use proactive measures maybe EFCA won’t be so bad. Wake up. The unions want EFCA because it would be a radical change in the organizing process. I used to work for a union. I could get employees to sign cards and I am not a very good salesman. It is not hard. You give a one-sided pitch or annoy them enough and they will sign. EFCA also requires arbitration if a contract can’t be reached in 90 days. This could be devastating to every company and, yes, to non-profits too. Do you want your company to be forced into a mishandled union pension plan? The Teamsters Central States plan is over 17 billion in the hole. Every company that is in the Teamsters plan is responsible for their portion of the unfunded liability should the plan tank, or the employees decide to decertify.
EFCA is all about politics. Responsible politicians would laugh it away. Some can’t because that’s were their campaign war chests come from.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:13 am
It’s very true that the EFCA is all about politics, but it’s not necessary to go outside the boundaries of the problems we’re going to find if this bill is signed into law. I suggest we leave out how some feel about the Administration and the Democrats as a whole. These partisan, even angry comments need to end. I say enough already. Let’s give rational advice. We don’t like this bill for many reasons. We agree that we don’t like it, we don’t all agree on why (some use logic, some use partisan rhetoric, some express personal beliefs and experiences), but let’s discuss how to deal with it if it passes. Regardless of our political views, how do we handle the fallout that the passage of this bill (which may go through several amendments) could bring? If we can’t move forward within this venue, then the topic is over and we’ve all had our say.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:16 am
maybe someone could list the first five or so basic issues most HR professional will face if it passes (stuff that is common to most industries) and then we could all brainstorm idea for handling them??
March 25th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Best Idea Yet Lajeli. Will attempt to curtail the assault on socialism….
March 25th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
My suggestions:
1. Management needs to do an analysis of your strengths and weaknessesk, with out deluding themselves. Being frank with ones self is important.
2. There is kind of a standard list of 10-12 items companies should check off to see how they stand with employees.
3. Do a threat assessment of your employees, who would most likely be interested in or have a need for a union. They are not all bad people but some will follow the President’s lead. This is a short list of who to keep a heightened awareness of their activities – not harass them.
4. Do NLRA training with Supervisors NOW – the list of do’s and do not’s are the same. Just ULP’s have a heightened problem for the company.
5. Make a decision if your company wants to educate your employees before the vote or wait until the vote is over and then educate only if it passes. Managment needs to be prepared and get over the emotional period.
6. Don’t treat your employees, any of them as the enemy.
7. Check your postings – the Beck decision DOL poster is still on the DOL website (relates to employees’ not having to join or pay dues to Unions, and was designed for federal contractors.)
8. Get your Safety issues fixed if you have them.
9. If you have Supervisors with behavior issues (harassment, etc.), they need to be put on notice that they must change.)
March 25th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Harold, great suggestions. We all seem to be in agreement that the EFCA in its present form would not be good for our companies. Let’s take some proactive steps. I hear you, RedM3, and I hope employees will be more open-minded than those in your experience. Remember, everyone, this is a tough economy right now. I’ve heard stories where there are 700 applicants for one job, as an example. So, I don’t think many want to bolt and I don’t think many would want to strike (we in CA can remind them of the results of the market strike a few years ago) – and, can we emphasize that EFCA (if passed in its present form) takes away the right of secret ballot election? If not, guess we just have to continue to treat people well, and fairly, and educate them, and do whatever else is in our power to keep our workplaces attractive as is. Some companies probably really would have to go out of business if a union came in and was able to force an unaffordable contract through. I’m not sure if we could say that, though.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Wendy keeps directing everyone away from the politics of EFCA, when that is really all that really matters. If EFCA does not become law in the next 18 months, it will all depend on the elections of 2010. If the number of Democrats in the US Senate goes from 59 to 60, EFCA is virtually assured. HR professionals, for the most part, are asleep at the wheel. If we care about our business, if we care about not becoming like Germany or Canada (economies that are always marginally good or just a mess) then you can’t vote for Democrats. This is sad, but it is a fact that Democrats politicians can’t say no to labor unions.
March 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Especially the SEIU who has a voiciferous leader with a goal of unionizing every business and who allocated $30M to Obama’s campaign effort to help raise $500M – virtually making their pet project (this bill) a reality for the 2M+ union members who represent immigrants, health care professionals, government employees……the ramifications are staggering.
How just coincidental all of these measures seem to be to the unenlightened masses who can’t accept the political realities because they were promised “change” when what they really got was a whole lot more of the same. You simply can’t seperate the politics from this topic no matter how hard you try.
Asleep at the wheel is right Dave.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Where are they trying to take this country? Didn’t Obama promise to keep the jobs HERE? How could this help to convince the employers to keep their jobs HERE?
April 20th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Everyone needs to continue to communicate by mail and email to your various congressman to fight EFCA, even a watered down version. Also contact those members of the Congress opposed to the bill and thank them for their continued vote against EFCA.
In preparing for managment labor training this week, I researched the DOL’s OLM website and looked up the annual reports of the TEamsters and UAW. How many of you realize that Teamster Trustees make over $120,00/year, and organizers/ representaives in both Teamsters and UAW make well over $100,000/year. This did not include perquistes. With executive salaries like that I would call Unions “big business” also. Most Union executives also belong to several pension plans – the “local”, the “regional” and as an employee of the National Union, that pension also.
Why does the Union movement need EFCA – the NLRB website annual report shows that success rates for current secret ballot elections has a high rate of success, and the rate has been on the increase for several years?
EFCA is depending on data that is several years old to mislead people into thinking the process is not fair and balanced. The pendulum has been swinging back toward the Unions favor for several year.
Make your analysis based on facts not on rhetoric and right as many congressman as possible.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Pollsters should be held accountable for the questions they pose. The very first question should be “How closely are you following the issue?” or “What do you understand this issue to be?” If the pollant has no knowledge or understanding of the issue, his/her opinion is moot. To parphrase satirist Tom Lehrer “…Those who don’t know what they are talking about should simply shut up.” I am very concerned that the American public has taken freedom so for granted, and so apathetic they don’t seem to mind giving it up. I even hear people say “we need a little socialism.” How many people leave the US to defect to a socialist country? Our forebears would be so disappointed in us.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
This turned out to be a big ruse….aim high knowing you only wanted to get something else – the proverbial foot in the door – “Fast Track”
So now Unions can rampage in your business free as they choose to organize while you do nothing and in 5-10 days a vote is cast….not much time for any business to mount any effort against this highly organized and well funded gang taking over their business.
They will take over because if no agreement is reached in 90 days then a “government appointed” official enters the picture and tells YOU the business owner how to run your business.
The same thing is being done with Healthcare….lofty goals espoused but the compromise they vote for is equally as devastating…..for all of us. Obama is showing how much of a gangster from Chicago he truly is….he promised the moon but is giving us a cesspool of debt.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I couldn’t say it better than HR Says. I’ve been actively opposing this bill since 2007 when none one seemed to care. Now some are caring now but not willing to do much about it until it bites us in the rear, probably with some sort of “son of EFCA” bill that will be equally as damaging to business. This admin just doesn’t care about small business, or any business for that matter. Where does BO seem to think his jobs are coming from? Silly me, of course, from the federal government who is taking over everything because they are the experts on EVERYTHING! Wake up America and learn the facts. Understand what you are signing and what you are voting on. Daily I’m becoming more frustrated with the ramrod tactics of this administration and how most are standing by watching the train roll by.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Well said – DMG. It certainly does feel like a steam roller; we have EFCA and health care being push down everyone’s throat. It almost seems like they want to get something done to see if it works.
The “compromise” might be acceptable to unions, although they will whine that it’s not what they want. I spoke with a person who used to be a big union organizer who now assists companies in their effort to remain union free. He told me that the unions’ big interest in this whole fiasco is the guaranteed first contract that they will get with arbitration.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Whoever said “people get the government they deserve,” was absolutely right. How sad.