Obama to AFL-CIO: ‘We will pass EFCA’
March 6, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, Special Report, policies
In a videotaped address, President Obama promised a group of union leaders that the controversial Employee Free Choice Act will become law.
The bill would make it easier for unions to recruit workers because it would give them the option of joining a union simply by signing cards rather than through secret-ballot elections in which companies can campaign against the union. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have been campaigning against the legislation.
The Employee Free Choice Act is expected to be introduced sometime this year in the U.S. Senate, where it likely would be amended before being sent to the U.S. House. Here’s a copy of the Senate version , and there’s a summary below.
Obama’s announcement went out to about 100 union leaders who were meeting with Labor Secretary Solis in Miami.
What’s in the bill now
Here’s the summary of what the bill looks like right now:
- A union would have the right to be recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of your employees if a majority of those employees sign authorization cards.
- If a majority of employees sign cards, an employer must begin bargaining within 10 days after the union is certified.
- If the union and the employer cannot agree upon the terms of a first collective-bargaining contract within 90 days, a federal mediator steps in.
- If, after 30 days of mediation, the union and employer still have not agreed on a contract, a federal arbitrator would be empowered to determine the terms of the agreement, and your employees would lose their current right to ratify the terms of the agreement.
- If an employer is found to have unlawfully terminated pro-union employees, the law would provide for liquidated damages of three times back pay. In addition, you’d be hit with a $20,000 penalty per occurrence if the National Labor Relations Board or a court finds against you.
Tags: AFL-CIO, EFCA, Employee Free Choice Act, obama, union
March 9th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Will this Act put in place the same method for an existing Union shop to become Decertified? In other words, if a group of employees are disatisfied w/ their union representation can they go thru the same signing of cards by a majority of employees allowing them to become de-certified w/o having to go thru the 6 week voting process.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:26 am
this is as unbalanced as you can have it. The union will go to peoples homes to convince workers and their families that worker should sign cards. The union is not required to stick to facts. They can promise anything to get employee to sign card. When they negotiate contract all the promises are subject to change. Frequently the “contract” looks nothing like the “promises and the proposals” put forth by the union. In this country a fair and equitible election usually means a secret ballot. Are the unions now afraid of a fair campaign? The NLRB is in place to protect the employees rights with a fair campaign, and the unions consistantly hold the NLRB accountable. So what is the real issue here? Does the federal overnment think we need more unions now? If that is the case then why are local governments outsourcing as much as they can? like curbside trash pick up, recycling, cafeterias, and security. Even the US Transportation Security Administration has outsourced airport security at a number of airports such as San Francisco, Kansas City and 8 more…Where is the compelling need to change from a secret ballot?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am
If employees think that this will be another easy way out to equalize life in general in today’s economy, they have another thing coming.
The majority of businesses are small, jobs will be cut back to accommodate the additonal expenses and wait until the employees start paying thier union dues that could have gone in their pocket. What “looks and smells like a rose” may not be a rose!
March 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am
This is insane! I know this subject has been beat to death in the last several weeks, but this bodes ill for employers. I work as an HR Generalist for a printing shop of roughly 85 employees, and we recently had to establish a short-term furlough to 32-hour work weeks and increase employee benefits premiums substantially. With those unforseeable circumstances, I’m afraid we are at an increased risk of getting a union established.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:38 am
This whole EFCA issue really bothers me for several reasons. First of all we live in a country where we can vote for issues and leaders privately and not be intimidated due to voting in private. The unions want to be able to intimidate so as to increase their paying membership. Secondly I think about the state of our economy and throwing the union into the mix will really just add another unneeded burden to business trying to survive. Thirdly I think about all of the unionized businesses and where they are right now. Who will pay for the unionization of businesses? We will. All the cost of doing service will be passed down to you and me just so a few union leaders will have more money to embezzle or fund the politics that many of us are against. I see no purpose for unions in todays world but I do believe that there are many good people caught up in a bad system.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:52 am
This should be called the “Employee Free Intimidation Act”….
March 9th, 2009 at 10:06 am
I think all employers are bothered by this….and we need to start preparing now and figure out ways to educate the employee’s on this issue. Any ideas that can be passed around would greatly be appreciated.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:12 am
This is insane–when did America become a Nazi and Socialist society? I hate to say it..but I told all the Obamites so.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
At a time when the economy needs increased productivity in order to pay for the billions of $’s in new government spending we should not be introducing productivity killing bureaucracy that inevitably comes with Unions…..
March 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
This is payback for the millions of dollars the unions ropped on the Obama campaign. Thanks to them, Obama was able to saturate the airwaves in the battle ground states, which may have been a deciding factor in the outcome of the election. The unions made an investment and now it’s time to collect their return.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I still support President Obama but this is one issue we don’t see eye to eye on. I am NOT a supporter of unions.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:46 am
The EFCA is a little like buying something ater you’ve seen a great looking product on TV, only to find out that what you bought is not exactly what you thought. I wish I could get the Federal governmrnt to help me market the products of my company as they are doing for unions. Every new member represents a sale (and uncrease of revenue) for the unions. But, sending the product back is a whole different problem.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Did you know about this?
SEN. DEMINT INTRODUCES THE SECRET BALLOT PROTECT ACT OF 2009
The bill amends the National Labor Relations Act to guarantee that workers are given the protection of secret ballot union elections before being forced into monopoly bargaining.
Currently, the bill has 13 original cosponsors, including: Alexander, Burr, Bunning, Coburn, Cornyn, Corker, Enzi, Inhofe, McConnell, Roberts, Thune, Wicker, and Vitter.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
When did this meeting with Solis take place? When was the video tape made?….before or after the elcetion
March 9th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The EFCA is INSANE!!! Obama is trying his hardest to turn America into a socialist country. I have a small business of 50 employees. I have not laid employees off. We are strong. Unions are nothing more than organized crime.
When are American’s going to wake up?????
March 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
2012 cannot come fast enough! Insane it is, but if we all would have watched and read media reports that were unbiased this is no surprise as to what would happen if we voted for Democrats or Obama. I am an independent voter, so I don’t sway one way or the other, but voted for who I thought was the right person for our country at that time, which wasn’t this administration. However there was a lot of big business that backed these administration policies and thought this is the right course for the nation. Let’s see if they will get a dose of reality if these pass! I wonder how many people will be echoing “I TOLD YOU SO”!
March 9th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I agree with the concensus here. This is crazy!! Has the federal governement not looked at all the industries they have had to “bail-out”??? With the exception of the financial industry, the business with their hands out and needing money are unionized. The auto industy, airlines, even the United States Postal Service seems to be unionized and they are considering cutting delvery days to make ends meet. Does anyone see the connection?? Unions just drive up cots. Someone really should research the number of lay-offs that can be attributed to unionization???
March 9th, 2009 at 11:11 am
D. Dukes – Thsnk you for the information and I will contact my representatives right away.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I am always amazed!! In years past I screemed about illegalls taking our work. I watched as little or nothing was done. I said these people are the slavery of today. Most of them great people being taken advantage of by business and our government that fails to enforce and or make rules to end the situation. Why not go after this issue and get it completly taken care of first. This alone would boost wages. I would like to see us treat these people, that work the way they do, the way they should be treated. I like running a company by the rules this union thing is going to add another layer of cost just understanding it. This is at a time when I am thinking about shutting the doors anyway. This is only going to lead to more subcontract labor. If you do not want to be in the union then you better be a subcontractor and we better figure out how to confirm to the subcontractor laws. I think if you are union you should be forced to buy union. Make sure that is in this law also. I bet these guys do not shop at Walmart LOL.. I would like to put my company production saftey and quality up against a union company any time. This law would change the way my people in my company think and how we been able to work together over the years. Now we will get a person with a voice and it will be a majority. This is instead of the best most productive people. This will silence them. Union employees work for a union. Company employees work for a company. If this is going to happen they better start enacting laws about companies over seas taking all our jobs. I have heard less than 3% of union people in the trades take the continuing ed classes that offered. I wish some days I could do that. I wish I had all the gaurantees in life so my woories would go away. Like when jobs do not turn on budget and I bring $$$ to the table to make payroll. Our top union companies are not setting great examples right now. Do we want more of this. Please send me the analyliss on how this is going to help our economy.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:15 am
I can not believe this is even being considered, their lobbyist must really have something big to hold over someones head. Considering the unions are a lot of the reason the auto industry is in the shape it’s in. Unions have outlived their relevance in most industries, I can see where coal miners might need them, but other industries are so monitored by their own insurance companies and OSHA that the safety factor is taken care of. Pay is generally area based, if you don’t pay what the going rate is you can’t get help anyway. Benefits also are just about a given even in the construcion industry, if you want to keep help you offer benefits.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
While it seems President Obama is going to pass this bill, the best thing we can do is contact our President and let him know how we feel about this act. Below is a link where you can email the White House or they even have an address where you can send an old fashion handwritten letter. Especially in today’s economic environment, this is making it unfair for employers to perform.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
March 9th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Union – Trust is another issue – my husband and many more lost their jobs in 2003 and the Union was not there for them. In fact – officers in his union stole all their money. All officers of the union were fired but who can trust who now. We now know were the union dues went. In this economy today we need more money in our pockets not the unions.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I think everyone has already said what needs to be said. I would personally love to hear Obama’s logic behind his backing of this insanity. How could anyone possibly explain why you would take away voting rights in this situation. It is a blatant contradiction to what our country stands for.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I am not happy about this union thing either but still a better change than Bush policies
March 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
The biggest problem is to co-mingle issues such as the Free Choice Act abomination with ANY former presidency viewpoint when we make comments. Our country is predicated on the secret ballot. Mr. Bush is certainly not the only one who fervently believes this. Please think independently on whether or not you want a unionized, socialized country or a free marketplace.
Cindy, do you really believe that the increase of unionization is better than anything you happen to dislike about past administrations??
March 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Since the federal government has been flat funding may programs over the past 5 years how would that work with a union. If there isn’t any more money, there isn’t anymore money. We can all see how well it is working for the auto industry. Is there a provision to keep unions out of federally and state funded programs? This is counter intuitive when funding is limited and wages often can not be increased so the employee will actually see a decrease in take home pay if they are required to pay union dues. To increase the money going to unions is the real reason for this change. It is a back door stimulus bail out for the unions.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Quite a few years ago I worked for a small company, and one of the employee’s husband, who was a union member, talked her and several others into voting the union in. Two years later, at most, everyone was dropping out of the union because all they were doing was paying dues. Their hourly wages did not increase like the union reps had convinced them that they would because they were already paid a higher hourly rate than industry standard, and there had never been any problems as far as working conditions were concerned. By the way, the woman whose husband had started it all quit shortly after the union was voted in.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:46 am
To answer your question Reid – no the decertification process would be very different from card check. The Unions want “that” process to be secret ballot so Company’s cannot discuss these issues with those employees who no longer wish for the Union to be the sole representative of the bargaining unit.
Employee Free Choice Act – take a second to understand what that is saying. Free to choose – but no SECRET BALLOT. The name of this bill and the concept and premise behind it is mind blowing.
Let me ask you this – why has auto industry not been able to keep up with Toyota? Its a two fold answer – management has not changed its practices or held a lean mindset in its production. Has the Union played a part in that – ABSOLUTELY. Unions in general tie managements hands and flexibility and adaptability are 10x more difficult to over come in a Union environment. People think that we send a lot of work overseas now – wait until this bill passes and changes over 70 years of Labor Law.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:46 am
CINDY WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? UNBELIEVABLE COMMENT “THIS UNION THING” HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN H.R.?
JUST A TRADE OFF FOR THE VOTES FOLKS. START EDUCATING WORK EMPLOYEES ON THIS “JOKE” AND DON’T TAKE THEM FOR GRANTED NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR YOU ETC. BAD ECONOMITC TIMES DOES FUNNY THINGS TO THE MIND ETC.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I’d like to echo what has been said above. This is nothing but a payback for the financial support of the President’s campaign. The unions are nothing more than operating as a business. As such, their membership is down which is their base source of income. What kind of a story can they spin, when in fact, so often, it’s a union shop that’s closed? Why is it they have not been growing? If anyone looks beyond the surface, people fundamentally have not needed/wanted a union due to the changes in law and company’s recognizing the need to operate with a satisfied workforce. That’s not to say that there aren’t still needs.
If the union would like to succeed, rather than use the “Big Brother” approach to force people – why not figure out how to more effectively partner up with the company to ensure it’s longevity?
In the 1930’s unions were needed because of strong arm tactics by management, now it appears to be doing a 180 degree turn???
March 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
How many times do I have to say that I do not agree with President Obama on the union issue? But I still have faith in HIM. Do you always agree with everything that one person says or does?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
To Al:
I have no clue what you are trying to say in your post and you ask ME what I’m smoking!
March 9th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I, too, am an Obama supporter, however, I’m not quite sure why he is passing this legislation. Where I work management already acts as if they are powerless against the union such that they allow the union steward to focus more on union activities than her own work. How productive is this when the company, not the union, pays her wages. I believe the more strings added on behalf of the union the more the employer becomes the puppet. Nonetheless, while I am a part of management, there are days when I do understand why people feel unions are necessary. As long as both sides agree to a contract and work together within those confines, there shouldn’t be a need to give the union any additional “strings” as I stated previously. This should work the same way for non-unionized companies as well–work within the confines and keep the employees happy such that they look forward to coming to work every day!!!
March 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
To Cindy:
Do you or do you not think that passage of the Free Choice Act is in the best interest of our country? Al is trying to point out to you that “union thing” is an uninformed phrase to use to describe the true issue at hand. You also seem to be “defending” Obama regardless. This doesn’t make sense to Al or to me. (Pardon me for speaking for you Al.)
March 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
To Connie:
So what you are saying is that because I support President Obama, I have to agree with everything he does? I do NOT support the Free CHoice Act and I think that unions have outlived their purpose. I do have independant thoughts and ideas that could be different than the Presidents. Heaven help us if we all thought the same as our leaders. As far as how I stated the “union Thing”, sorry it offended your “professionalism”. It’s REALLY not a big deal.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
How about the 90 day limit before the contract goes to a federal mediator? We currently have a union but will now be more hamstrung than ever during the negotiation process. The federal mediation service does not have to pay the bills or live with the work rules. The company does. There is also no doubt that collectively bargained companies cost more money.
Some management deserves what they get. But like everything which is legislated, everyone gets to deal with the same regulations, even if they have been a really good employer.
Sad…
March 9th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I cannot understand how it can be free choice without a sceret ballot. People can be pressured into signing a card while a person or persons is standing there watching. A secret ballot allows the individual to vote the way they feel without outside or undue pressure from peers. This bill in its present form is like saying that two teams will play a basket ball game but only one team will get credit for the ball when it goes through the hoop. The bill in its present form will encourage business to relocate outside the United States where the climate will be more favorable. Mr. Obama need to undertsand that you can make all the demands you want on business but you cannot force a business to stay open. This plan will encourage business owners to say “I Quit.”
March 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Cindy,
With respect, it is a big deal. We are looking at one of the worst legislative actions in years. This goes beyon Blue, Red, Dem or Rep. It even goes beyone Like Obama, Hate Bush- when you put this issue into a sophmoric phrase “union thing” you degraded yourself as a professional and led all the other professionals you are speaking with into thinking you simply did not have a grasp of the issue at hand. There is a time and place to be dismissive, for me this is not one of those subjects. If this bill passes it will forever change in what I feel is a negative way how private companies are allowed to do business. We have already started open discussions with our work force about this issue. Our books are open and our employee’s know what we can and what we cannot do- What I will not do is allow a member of my department to treat this subject with anything less than stern attention to the facts and what we can do to keep this company afloat and moving forward.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
This is a bad bill for many reasons, not just the fact that a majority of employees can elect a union under card check process and that card signatures can be cohersed by union representatives. I agree with Cesar, we need to focus on training our employees. Does anyone have suggested training materials?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
This is just the beginning of the changes in store for us during the next 4 years. Just look at what Obama has done in only 2 short months. He has spent us, our children and grand-children into oblivion. He has thrown money at all of the old Democratic special interest groups in the guise of stimulus. His adminstration has been guilty of not paying taxes. He has increased spending to all of the well known under-achievers of the world. His plans are to make us a socialist country, so why not let Unions run rampant. At the end of the day it won’t matter.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
And we wonder why American companies go overseas. This is going to send a few more over.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
1) The time to act is now. Contact your representatives, let them know how you feel. Check your local chamber….and any other business associations you may belong to, see what if any mass correspondence is out there that you might lend your name to. Become proactive –
2) Do everything you can to let them know why your company is a great place to work, as is. Make sure they know all you, as a company, do for them as employees. Make sure your are aware that you follow all the federal and state labor laws set in place and designed to protect them.
3) Treat your employees with respect. Make sure your supervisors follow company policy and protocol when communicating with employees. Supervisors can be your largest liability or your greatest asset when it comes to employee moral and how your employees feel about working for you.
Show your employees that a union is NOT necessary.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Better than contacting the White House, now is your opportunity to make yourself heard in the Democratic controlled Senate. The Senate is where the power is right now. They have the power to bury it, change it, or pass it with a veto proof majority. Some great points were made by several people. Call, write and/or somehow contact your state Senators and let them know how this will affect your business and the business in their own back yards — their own voting constituents! There is time to stop this thing in it’s tracks. Neither Obama nor Ms. Pelosi own the Senate. Make your voice heard where it counts!
March 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I am in hospitality industry. We have to negociate with union even if we decide to put a candy on top of a minibar because this will add more work for the members and therefore extra compensation is required.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
EFCA will require some very quick reactions from employers. Each response has some valid points, and the comments should be useful tools. I am working in Kentukcy with SHRM affilliates and Louisville labor counsel to develop training on how to plan, learn, and prepare for the probable onslaught of Union activity. Go to the AFL/CIO website and EFCA information for information (yes it is biased but as a professional HR person investigate both sides). Go to Wikipedia and look up Secretary of Labor Solis – excellent links to good information (yes, I know the problems with Wiki posts, but the links are solid and the history of Solis is enlightening as to her total pro-labor and extreme left wing upbringing, education and worklife. She sponsored the original bill with Obama.
We must quit crying in our beer, prepare for the almost inevitable passage and do our jobs. I spent 15 years doing labor relations and operations in Unionized environments and 12 years in non-union – take care of your employees, you do not want a Union or “individual” representing your employees. Good luck.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
EFCA…it’s only the beginning, friends. And Cindy, put on some sunglasses. Now that you’re out here in the light of day you’re going to find it’s pretty darn bright.
Let me list a few bills that have been waiting in the wings, many of which Obama was a sponsor:
*HR 6477…a repeal of right to work laws across the country. This would repeal section 14(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act
*S. 1792…an expansion of the WARN Act, increasing the notice period, changing the definitions of “mass layoff” and “plant closing”, increasing damages, lowering the threshold so more small businesses are covered…
HR 1542/S. 910…The “Healthy Families Act”, REQUIRES employers of 15+ employees to provide 7 *annual sick days. Oh, and btw, if you are already giving employees sick days, you’ll be required to ADD 7 days to the number. You can’t just say “we’re already doing that.”
*HR 4301/S. 2419…The “Working Families Flexibility Act”, would require (get ready, you’ll love this!!) that when an employer denies an employee’s request regarding a change in working conditions, the employee will have rights to challenge the decision through a series of escalation from employer to administrative law judge hearings, ultimately ending in federal court. “Change in working conditions” is defined as the employee’s request for a change in # of hours worked, start and end times, location of work (e.g. work from home). ALL the burden will rest with the employer to prove that the denial is justified. And yes, Obama was a sponsor.
*HR 1338/S. 766…The “Paycheck Fairness Act” will make it illegal for any employer to prohibit or discourage employees from sharing salary information. Also limits employer defenses to EPA claims, uncaps damages for both punitive and compensatory damages, eases restrictions on class actions suits. And if you miss those pesky old OFCCP surveys, you’ll get them back soon enough. So what if it was clear that the OFCCP was corrupt.
*HR 2049/S. 1244..The “Protecting America’s Worker Act” would increase OSHA penalties, allow criminal penalties for non-fatal incidents, impose significant mandatory sentences, etc.
*HR 3033…The “Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act” would require the creation of a database of contractors who have had civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings concluded by the federal government. A similar bill in the Senate (S. 606) would do the same. So…if you are a government contractor, look out. Any OSHA, EEO, ADA, FMLA, environmental, tax, antitrust, or consumer protection action could mean your ability to bid on government contracts would just…end.
*HR 1431…The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2007″ would make it pretty near impossible to deny an employee’s request for a religious accommodation. Further, you would have to accommodate requests for time off and/or dress and appearance standards almost without exception. Can you imagine a more hostile work environment than having to accommodate EVERY religion? You might want to attack me for saying it, but some people have bizarre, made-up religions (for example, sun worshippers that MUST wear short shorts to work every day!!) who do so just so they can impose their will.
*And lastly, I don’t think it is a bill, but the NLRB is considering requiring employers to bargain with minority unions. What that means is, if you have an election and only 30% of your employees want it, they get it. You’ll have to bargain with it, even though it lost an election. So…forget EFCA, any two that want to bargain are now called a union.
So, despite my heart-felt desire to say “Told you so” to HR people that blindly supported Obama, I won’t. But will you at least now acknowledge that he is, in fact, a wolf in sheep’s clothing? These bills will, hopefully, die quiet deaths. But in the weeks and months to come, keep an eye out for them. Our economy is strong when our businesses are strong. These will do irrepairable damage to our business base, and to our ability to compete in the world’s economy.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
My husband is a union member currently and I am in Human Resources for a non-union facility. I can tell you that the current state of a Union is not that as it was in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. The labor laws have changed over the course of the last 6 decades in such that workers rights are protected without Union Affiliation. Worker’s have the right to appeal employment decisions within the state, and work through the local EEOC; where there are professionals that hold the employer accountable for the employment decisions.
While the union may offer higher wages and possbily better benefits; the member is also obligated to pay dues for those services and depending on the type of union may give up some of the “fringe” benefits in order to receive those higher wages. The current unions cannot ensure work for everyone in today’s economy. My husbands current “union” employer is facing the same challenges as other “non-union” affiliates in relation to lay-offs and cut back of hours. The union has employees “sitting the bench” waiting for work, collecting unemployment, just as all the other employers being affected by the current economic crisis.
I do not see how this bill is going to increase jobs and stimu;ate our economy. From my standpoint it is no different than the numerous “stimulus” packages that have been passed with little to no effect on the current economic crisis.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Comment to Rhoda. There is a piece of EFCA relating to government contracts and contractors. EFCA isn’t a long or hard read and you should, as should everyone. If you take over a government contract and have to hire staff to do so, you must offer the positions to the dislocated/laid off staff from the losing company – union or no.
They also have planted penalties that the OFCCP can cause you to lose your contracts if you have Unfair Labor Practice charges. ULP’s are expected to skyrocket with the new legislation, especially where employees are fired/suspended for alleged “union activities” and can recieve treble damages of lost wages, plus you get hit for a $20K fine for each incident. In an article on the SHRM website today, the DOL is already promising increasing the budget for DOL enforcement, especially the OFCCP and NLRB. I expect that to roll right into OSHA requirements also. Solis truly believes the only medicine for employers is a large hammer and total leverage of employees over the employer. If you can find her testimony to congress when she intoduced EFCA, you will see what companies are looking forward too for at least 4 years.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
This guy is a joke, another sad example of the Obama circus interferring with your business. Sad to say I’m not surprised by any of it.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Everyone seems to be assuming that all these “employees” will automatically select on
these “cards” that they want to be in a union. Who’s to say that they will? These folks
are not some alien invasion force. They are american citizens, just like everyone else.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
To Cesar,
I read a lot of venting about this, but no one has answered your excellent question… what can we do?
First, we can try to prevent it’s passage by contacting our representatives in Congress and President Obama. However, that is probably a “long-shot.” As mentioned previously, this is repaying the unions for their assistance during the elections.
The best way to prevent unionization continues to be focusing on our employee relations efforts. We need to be honest with our employees, deliver bad news with a sincere level of compassion, deal with ineffective employees at ALL levels in the organization (from the lowest paid to the CEO!) by holding them accountable for achieving their results in a ethical manner, getting rid of work-place bullies regardless of their results, giving employees control over their own jobs wherever we can, and getting employees’ input on controlling costs and increasing revenue.
We can educate our employees about this legislation, but I would not recommend that if you have signs of poor morale such as high absenteeism, high turnover, low productivity, etc… That might speed up the unionization process at your organization. Remember also that President Obama also signed four union-friendly executive orders in February, one of them prohibits government contractors from using any funds from the government contract for certain union-avoidance activities.
Good luck!
March 9th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I used to support Obama because I thought he was smart. This is a dumb thing to do. Take away an employees right to a fair and secret ballot election, while allowing the Unions to harrass and intimidate the employees AT THEIR HOMES until they sign a card. And let’s not forget the 2nd part of this dumb Act…90 days to settle a contract or someone is appointed THAT KNOWS NOTHING OF THE NATURE OF YOUR BUSINESS to put together a binding document that the business has to live with! What about the non-profits?? I thought I lived in America!
March 9th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
To HR in Ohio (and Cesar) -
Yes, absolutely, we must do all we can to prevent the passage of the Free Choice Act in any form. My company is conducting meetings with all manager level employees from multiple locations using a PowerPoint presentation from a law firm specializing in union avoidance. I have used the Society for Human Resource Management Government Affairs letters and have mailed them to my representatives. Both of these are good approaches, but may not be enough. Talk to your friends, neighbors, and relatives. Write a “Letter to the Editor” of your local newspaper. Read the facts of proposed law. Don’t depend on blogs (even ones such as this). Think critically what this would mean for our nation.
Above all, do not take this lightly!
March 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
DD, my thoughts exactly….Once companies find out they have to unionize, they will close their doors and move to another country….There goes jobs! Right out the window! There must be a balance to satisfy labor and management. Unions are not the solution to the human condition. In fact, they demotivate people! I think you will see many Americans feeling a “Buyer’s Remorse” with this administration….if they aren’t already!
March 9th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I agree with DD. I told some people during the election that O’Bama wanted a socialistic society and I was booed out of the room (so to speak.) Now we are seeing the fruits of his labor. I can see a very dark 4 years coming. I will be amazed if we survive as a society.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
To Layla -
Thank you. Well said! I just hope that Cindy is a minority of one, but I fear not.
It is essential that we do all we can as HR professionals to not use “bashing” mentality and think critically. After all, HR professionals must be professional every day if we are doing our jobs for the sakes of our employees AND our employer.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I was part of a union back in 1983-1991. Believe me they did nothing for me except take my $8 a week. People are stopping any voluntary deductions now just to make ends meet. Do you think they will want to pay for something like this to have a union? There are enough laws out there now that protect the employees unlike 15 – 20 years ago. Why would they want to bother with something like this?
You all are using this blog more for political voices then HR help.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Our NEW president is out of step with American worker’s. Forget EFCA O’bama………….it ran it’s course of usefulness long, long ago and is now out of step. Forget it, forget it, forget it…………
March 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Where in this article does it say secret ballots would be abolished?
March 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
There is a reason unions are at a 7 to 8% membership from their glory days of 35% in the 50’s. They have in fact cost this country jobs by their outlandish demands which have forced companies to close. the union response is that it was due to mis-management of he company, not them. Union officials are in this for one thing, their own jobs. Where else can you have a nice job, tell the workers to go out on strike while you are ‘fighting’ for them, but you are still getting paid? All the legislation that has been passed over the years have made unions obsolete. Some unsuspecting souls working for a company, enjoying what they are doing, getting paid a competitive wage and enjoying good benefits will one day wake up and find out they are in a union without have one word to say about it. Then in time the demands of the union will put that company out of business and the union officials will not be there to help them. Wake up workers of America !!!
March 9th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
If the legislature seriously believes that no coersion will exist in card-signing, they are totally out-of-it. I have witnessed first-hand the intimidation tactics of the Teamsters and Steelworkers in getting cards signed — both in and out of the workplace. The secret-ballot election is (hopefully not ‘was’), the check-and-balance to this. I’ve had employees tell me that they signed cards because they were told these were ‘attendence cards’ at the union meeting. And that’s before EFCA. There will be no burden on the Union for honesty or education of the people they are seeking to unionize.
If EFCA passes, it will be the darkest day in American business, and the darkest day for the American worker. More funds for union fat-cats, more jobs overseas — more Americans in the unemployment line.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Secret ballot elections would not be abolished however, under EFCA, there would be no need for a secret ballot election, because the law would require recognition with signed-cards. The union certainly isn’t going to ask for election!
March 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
The world has gone nuts. If the socialist think this is going to be a fix all they are wrong. The unions have out lived their cause only picking pockets now. If you do not believe it just ask my wife the treasurer of her union one day ignored the next.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Unions are the problem, not the solution, and giving them more power is just going to further the immense cost and issues that already exist because of unions. We should be fixing these problems (aka removing unions), not making them more intimidating… how frustrating.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I have a small company with less than 50 employees. I have seen over time what unions have cost other businesses and the employees. I think that all employees should be educated so that the can understand that the union is NOT what is needed. The union was important in the 20s, 30s and 40s but laws have been implemented that protect employees for the most part. An employer who cares about their employees have also made things better for employees. This is something that cannot be implemented. It will surely cause more problems than our country needs.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Sue: Secret ballots are no longer a part of the process, if a majority of the employees sign a card.
As it stands now, secret ballots are step two. Majority cards, secret vote, negotiation. This bill effectively eliminates step two. You go straight from card signing to negotiation. The bill also takes away the “free speech” of the employer by eliminating the employer’s right to defend itself against unionization through presenting the other choice (non-unionization).
I believe that the title “Employee Free Choice Act” is misleading. It implies that
employees do not currently have a choice. Untrue. Isn’t a “vote” the same as a “choice”?
The entire bill is wrong. The process we have in place works fine. It allows for debate and information sharing on both sides. It allows for the employee to make their choice in a private (secret) ballot format. This type of vote is fundamental to our American process.
We cannot assume that we are safe. Many of these cards are signed without full knowledge of what the results of signing them are. In some areas and some industries, a large portion of today’s working demographic does not have a fluent grasp of the English language and are therefore easily persuaded to sign the cards. Sometimes these individuals do not even underst6and that they have the choice, and either through peer pressure, promises, etc., they sign the cards.
Today’s answer – be proactive. Treat your employee’s well and they will remain loyal to you. Show them, through action, they do not need a union.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
What is missing here is that contract negotiation is a negotiation, the employer does NOT have to start are the current level of wages and benefits. The employer can negotiate from zero. Depend on negotiations, wages and benefits could be better, they could be the same, or they could be lower. In today’s economy, a strong case can be made for rolling back wages and benefits. Okay, now who wants a union?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I am Pro Obama, but this ones stinks to the high heavens. It merely encourages business out of the US, or for those of us located in the Mid-west, move down South.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
How stupid are these people. It will just send more jobs overseas.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Best advice on here! Click on that link and let the administration know how you feel. I would suggest being polite and to the point, but do let them know how unbalanced this legislation is and how detrimental it will ultimately be to the worker, not just the employer.
HR in CO said:
While it seems President Obama is going to pass this bill, the best thing we can do is contact our President and let him know how we feel about this act. Below is a link where you can email the White House or they even have an address where you can send an old fashion handwritten letter. Especially in today’s economic environment, this is making it unfair for employers to perform.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
March 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
While I feel that the EFCA is fundamentally flawed and a waste of time when other more vital employment issues need to be solved…I am continually shocked at how the majority of you so-called “HR” professionals respond so negatively to anything that is deemed ‘pro-employee’.
I thought that was the reason that most of us got into this field in the first place. So employees are treated equitably and fairly. Human. Resources. Our positions are not all about the bottom line- because if we are doing our jobs our employees will WANT to perform for the company.
All I hear is the fear of management when I read these comments about how we are all of a sudden turning socialist. Fear of not being able to run your businesses in an authoritarian manner…ya, know…like a dictatorship. That’s what it sounds like you all want. To be able to rule your businesses and not be questioned. This whole “us” vs. “them” mentality is what pushes employees to seek retribution. I feel sorry for the people that work for you and I would look to Union representation as well if I thought that this is how management REALLY thinks.
Oh, and by the way, I do work in a Unionized environment and I feel that it has helped keep our management honest and makes it easier to treat our employees equitably. It creates a structure and transparency that cannot be matched, even by labor laws. I realize this may not be the experience with every Union, but in a weird way, I am glad for ours.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
This is a cash cow for the unions and a “financial stimulus package” for the Democratic Party….but it is unethical and reflective of the abysmal moral character of the elected leaders in that party. The argument that this legislation benefits the American worker is bull. The union that will benefit the most, SEIU, DOES NOT CARE about workers….they only care about lining their own pockets and securing enough power to support their self serving goals….and “Sell Out” Obama is in their hip pocket.
Mr. Obama, you can stop pretending that you are a champion of change and integrity….it doesn’t take a genius to see that you are both a liar and a thief….you are stealing from those workers who do not want to pay dues or to be represented by a union but this legislation will force both.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Cindy,
Don’t pay the negative and judgmental gripers any mind. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I proudly voted for President Obama, however, I don’t agree with everything he does. Come on people, we all disagree with leadership from the President to the office team leader. All this finger pointing and stone throwing is not going to resolve anything.
I’m wondering can someone please explain how you as an HR professional will handle this ACT once it becomes law.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Does anybody know….
1. In order for a union to represent employees does the employer have to meet a minimum of a certain amount of employees such as 10 or 50, before the union starts recruiting?
2. How long will it take for a law like this to take place?
March 9th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Another in a long line of paybacks to campaign supporters. Just once I would like to hear a statement from this president with a kernel of support for employers. For someone that claimed to want a transparent administration, he sure is showing how transparent he will be. No secret ballots for unionization…what next no secret ballots for elections too? Pretty soon he will try to remove the term limits for president.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
There needs to be a notification of a campaign to the employer. However, employer’s should not fear this act as long as they are treating employees with respect and are paying a fair wage with benefits that will provide at least a lifestyle above poverty level. If not, they should be afraid. It is about time that employers stop paying themselves huge bonuses while workers are making under $17,000 per year with no (or minimal) benefits as in SC. It is greed that has caused this economic downturn. Now, if everyone would work together, rather than badmouth each other, perhaps a real and workable remedy could come out of this.
Yes, I AM an HR professional, who cares about the lives of the employees. Those of us in HR should stop sucking up to evil bosses, and start caring about humanity!
March 9th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Oh, and well said, RA!
March 10th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Thank you Kathleen! HR professionals like you are rare these days.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:22 am
To Susan:
I can’t believe you call yourself an Obama supporter and then change your mind about him over one issue. He was ALWAYS very up front about this issue…even before the election. I didn’t agree with his stance on unions when I voted for him but still thought he was the better candidate.
Stick with him. I DO believe he has our best interests at heart. Do you always agree with everything one person says or believes in. I don’t. But I didn’t like ANY of Bush policies and not many of McCains.
Lets just support our new President and then do OUR part in getting back our country.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:38 am
to Kathleen:
You are so right. The best thing for the country is to work together and be part of the solution. I don’t agree with giving unions (don’t worry…I won’t say “union thing” again…I can’t believe how I got bashed over something so trivial) more power. IN fact, I would like them to all go away. They do more harm than good.
I AM an HR professional who can be both professional and a supporter of the President. I am good at my job because I CAN balance doing what is right for the company and what is fair to our employees. It IS possible.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Wow…Cindy, Susan, and Kathleen-
Maybe we could all gather around a campfire and sing Kumbaya…I’m sure that would help fix the mess that Obama is making of our country. Let’s get real and look past the BS. How can you support a President who is doing everything he said he wasn’t going to do. The only thing he wants is more power and to payback those that spent millions of dollars on his campaign. This isn’t about anything other than that. It certainly isn’t about HR professionalism and it certainly isn’t about being positive. You can stick a rose in a pile of crap, but it is still gonna smell like a pile of crap. Sure, we can do things to combat unions by informing and educating our workforces. We can take all the steps that have already been talked about, which are basically all the same old steps given in any “Union Avoidance” training. The point of this is that 2 months into this new administration, we are already seeing these radically liberal bills being put into motion. If we don’t stand up now and stop these things from happening, then what will be next? My mind can’t even fathom the crazy things that an administration as liberal as this one will come up with. When Hillary Clinton is considered a moderate in a group, we know it is a very liberal group. These people don’t care about business success. They just want more power and control of people’s lives. The beginning days of this adminstration remind me so much of the early days of the Jimmy Carter adminstration. We all know where that ended up. Basically, stating that you don’t support this bill but you still support Obama is like saying you support Castro but don’t agree with Communism. Use some logic…if you support him, then you support his ideas. If you support his ideas, then you support his way left liberal agenda, including socialism/marxism. Why weren’t people listening when he said, “we need to spread the wealth around?” Is that what you voted for?
To Kathleen- Those evil bosses/employers can do whatever they want, because guess what…it is their business. It is none of your business how much money they make. If you don’t like or agree with how they run the business, then go work somewhere else. If I owned a business and I had an HR Manager who thought the way you do, I would be finding a replacement real fast. You are part of the problem, not the solution. Greed is the reason companies stay in business. Maybe you should try working for a non-profit organization where it doesn’t matter if the company makes money or not.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Ease up DD – while we fight for the right of people to have secret ballot elections, and hopefully respect the outcome of a fair election. you bash Cindy, Kathleen and others.
I believe in capitalism and all the Bill of Rights.
You are giving conservatives a nasty reputation – work with facts not attacks.
Balancing personal beliefs in Human Resources and doing our job for the Company that pays us is always very difficult.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Megadittos to DD! Greed (in my humble opinion) is defined as people who do not produce anything or earn anything expect to receive something from others who earn and produce.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:18 am
To SMP:
Greed can start at the top also. People who already have enough but get greedy and want more at the expense of the working man. It is what has ruined out country.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Reply to Sonia on number of employees – from the research I have done since EFCA first came out there is no limit on the size of the company as we come to expect with other pieces of HR related regs.
Technically, a person self employeed, could join an Union, such as a skilled trades union, to access their apprentice programs.
Don’t forget, it doesn’t have to be a union, it can be a group of your employees that want a certain “individual” to represent them.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Cindy, I want to see all people succeed because this is what determines our standard of living for all of us in America. People have potential to do whatever they want to do. Yes, there are some that do not want to utilize their full potential but I hope they do. I hope you don’t believe in punishing high achievers because this is what Obama is doing.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:01 am
To SMP:
I do not think that is what he is doing. Not EVERY worker can be at the top or “high achievers”. Someone has to do the “grunt” work. Those people need a fair shake also.
But you still miss my point…I DO NOT support these changes for unions but I can support the President. I think he is TRYING to fix a country that is quickly sinking but maybe all his ideas WON’T be the correct ones. Hopefully, he will listen to what others are saying about this union issue being a bad idea.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:18 am
The American standard of living has plunged since Ronald Reagan declared war on unions and the working class. Forget middle class, it is just a term to make us feel better. You have zero power at the workplace unless you can pass one simple test. Give yourself a raise next pay-period and if you see an increase in pay you have power at work, you most likely own the place. No increase in pay equals zero power. The rest of the objections are no more than anti-labor rhetoric. Weekends off, 40 hour work-week, overtime, healthcare benefits, child labor laws,and many more benefits are all thanks to a union somewhere down the line.
Before Ronald Reagan, familys got by on one working parent. Today, both parents work well beyond the eight hour day and many are one paycheck away from financial setbacks. The “Trickle Down” is a miserable failure. Take an Honest look and open your mind, give the man a chance, anything is better than the boob from Texas.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Well said “DD” Anybody know how to get a job from a poor person?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Getting jobs from rich people isn’t going so well either
March 10th, 2009 at 10:41 am
RA – your drivel is astonishing, and only reveals how ignorant of business you really are. Your stipulation that “we want to be able to rule our busness without question” is, in your eyes, a perverted way to run a company, proves my point. Let me clue you in on somethiing – those that own the business just happen to be the same individuals that will suffer the economic loss if the business fails, wil be the ones that will lose thier investment in the company, and will bear the brunt of any legal liability and obligations relating to the business. So, that’s why they SHOULD, be able to determine how the enterprise will be run, including the wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment for its employees. I have worked in HR (including union shops) for years, and have a deep concern that employees be treated fairly – BUT NOT EQUITABLY. That’s because employees are NOT equal – in skills, abilities, performance and overall worth to the company. Unions want those distinctions eliminated, want to dictate pay levels for all employees, regardless of contributions, want to force the company to carry more employees than are necessary, and impair the company’s ability to utilize its workforce in the most efficient manner -
March 10th, 2009 at 10:44 am
To Steve O -
This entire discussion has deteriorated. Your “bashing” isn’t going to educate nor will it get us back to the initial topic. Regardless of one’s political affilations, each person owes it to themselves to become informed on the Free Choice Act. Hearsay, political rhetoric, and bashing isn’t going to address the salient points. HR professionals must educate themselves and are in position to do so which, sorry to say, isn’t necessarily where much of the general public finds themselves. Whether you are a HR professional or a wonderful Customer Service Clerk, you will be affected negatively by this very bad law. Help people understand the facts and then they will make their own decision – right or wrong.
To Cindy:
There has never been a job generated from someone who cannot afford to employ people. The term “rich” to describe a business owner is such a misnomer.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:46 am
If Obama gets his way, we will all be working for the government, giving them our weekly paychecks and letting them decide how much we deserve to earn. Since when has the government ever been successful at running a business? Is that what you voted for?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Steve O – I said it earlier and I agree. This is not a political blog but that’s what everyone is using it for.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:53 am
RA – your drivel is astonishing, and only reveals how ignorant of business you must really be. Your stipulation that “we want to be able to rule our busness without question” is, in your eyes, a perverted way to run a company. Let me clue you in on somethiing – those that own the business just happen to be the same individuals that will suffer the economic loss if the business fails, will be the ones that will lose thier investment in the company, and will bear the brunt of any legal liability and obligations relating to the business. So, that’s exactly why they SHOULD be able to determine how the enterprise will be run, including the wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment for its employees. I have worked in HR (including union shops) for years, and have a deep concern that employees be treated fairly – BUT NOT EQUITABLY, as you put forth as the enlightened way to treat employees – and there is a big difference. That’s because employees are NOT equal – in skills, abilities, performance and overall worth to the company. Unions want those distinctions eliminated, want to dictate pay levels for all employees, regardless of contributions, want to force the company to carry more employees than are necessary, and impair the company’s ability to utilize its workforce in the most efficient manner – AND THEY HAVE NO OWNERSHIP STAKE IN THE BUSINESS. Wanting total control over the decisions that relate to the preservation of the business does not imply that business owners should not, or do not, seek input from its employees, involve them in voicing their opinions about the enterprise, or allow them any number of forums to make contributions to improving the business conditions. Unions are NOT necessary to accomplish that, and by definition, increase the overall cost of doing business. Get it?
March 10th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Steve O , are you from Texas? Thank God for Ronald Reagan!
March 10th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Connie:
Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean they are “bashing.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Dear DD, Greed is excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.
Business is in business for one reason and one reason only. PROFIT! Share that profit fairly with your hard-working employees and productivity soars, morale is upbeat, and they won’t have a reason to go union.
Your philosophy is why people organize at work, they want a voice at work and deserve better than “it’s none of your business”. Their work drives profit, they are the producers of profit, the rest of the organization derive compensation from their labor and that compensation reduces profit.
Obviously your mind won’t change but perhaps others with the ability to question their core beliefs will give this idea some thought.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:06 am
To JayJay-
This is not a political blog, but the title of this post is all about politics. Obviously, since political officials write the laws that affect business and HR Professionals, then politics play a big role in shaping and forming HR. If as HR Professionals, we do not acknowledge the relationship between HR and politics, then we are often blind-sided by the laws and are unable to meet the challenges those laws present. We may not be politicians, but we damn-well better be invovled in the political process.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
DD – I understand. My complaint is the bashing of political parties on both sides. We need to focus more on our HR responsibilities and not Obama this, Bush that etc.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The proposed EFCA does not prohibit free elections at work. If you read the entire bill you will not find a word prohibiting a vote for or against a union. EFCA removes the time-span elections require at the work-place. Some employers exploit this time to stop free choice by intimidation tactics. The vote or choice is held by the simple signing of a card. (Card-Check) If employees choose union, EFCA protects the employees decision and it is up to management and the employees chosen representative to work out a deal within a specified time period. EFCA provides incentive to bargain in good faith and get a deal done. Interest-based bargaining techniques have proven very successful over the traditional adversarial negotiation techniques. The present way of organizing can be costly and non-productive at any company. Some forward thinking Fortune 500 company’s have found the interest-based approach very successful and productive. EFCA can actually streamline HR departments. Check it out, be informed, it will lessen the fear of change.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Attention all HR Reps-get your CEOs and CFOs involved. Have them notify their senators and congressmen! Prepare a template letter to for them to use. Provide the contact info for your local reps. The business owners, board members, and senior management members must get involved NOW. SHRM offers such template letters and the necessary contact info! Don’t delay, ACT NOW!
March 10th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Stev O:
You are correct, I think up the point of your last 2 sentences. The AFL CIO website states that Unions generally will not even request an election unless they have 70% of the bargaining unit sign authorization cards, as a significant number of signers change their minds in the ballot booth. Both sides have there theories for this. Both sides use tactics that are intimidation to some/communications to others, but the NLRA has much stronger oversight of Companies than labor organizations. You should see the harassment individuals in right to work states get in unionized plants when they refuse to join the Union and excercise their right to pay only the maintenance fee.
EFCA will obviously make the Union organizers jobs much more efficient. Also, without an election, you have the possiblity of 49% of the work force being forced into a Union without even knowing it was coming.
Having a union WILL NOT streamline an HR department. You will need to add help to process grievances, and most HR Managers that were in place when the union got in, were replaced by a combination of a labor experienced HR professional and additional labor counsel.
Read the speeches of Obama and Silas when they were pushing EFCA as Senators – the whole premise was to make it easier for Unions to organize – where unions loved the power the NLRA gave them in from the 1950’s through the early 1980’s, they want new rules when the world economy squeezed them.
Interest based bargaining is effective when you have a business climate and product that is in high demand and the company can pass the additional cost onto consumers. It fails when the consumer pushes back (auto makers, food processers, appliance manufactures, electronics, etc.) Someone has to pay for the this and it is the consumer.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Warren Buffet, an avid supporter of Obama during the election process, recently threw Obama under the bus on several pieces of his agenda. Of course, one of those pieces of legislation Mr. Buffet disagrees with is the so-called “card check.” To paraphrase his remarks, he thinks that the secret ballot is very important and doesn’t agree with anything that takes that away. Why does Warren think that way? He realizes that removing the secret ballot opens the opportunity for employees to be threatened or bullied into signing a card. Interestingly, he also commented on the economy being priority 1,2, and 3 and disagreed with the current adminsitration’s idea of “not wasting a good crisis.” He thought that there should be more focus on the economy than on items, such as card-check.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I think it’s good that even his supporters question his decisions or plans. Hopefully, he will take all comments whether it be from the democrats or republicans to heart.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
It is unfortunate that this type legislation even gets this far. For a person who allegedly favors the middle class, this president is playing into the hands of a corrupt and discredited system. Not having a secret ballot for either choosing a union or choosing to change a union is about as archaic as having state legislatures choose senators. It is anti-democratic and unfair to workers who should not have to be intimidated by union goons!
March 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I guess it’s pretty easy to see where this is going. The northern states with the highest concentration of unions have seen jobs lost and plants closed for years. The right to work states, primarily in the south and west, Texas in particular, have seen huge increases in jobs over the last few years because employees have not been threatened and coerced to join the unions. The unions have already destroyed the automakers and now they want to destroy the whole country.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Federal Legislative Action Alert!
Today, the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in Congress! The bill was sponsored by Representative George Miller (D-CA), the House Education and Labor Committee Chair, and Senator Tom Harkin (D-MA).
The legislation would amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow unions to use the “card check” process – and bypass the secure, private election format – each time they attempt to organize workers.
Background
The National Labor Relations Act currently provides two opportunities for employees to decide whether or not to form or join a union:
Private ballot election – When a union receives a majority of votes through a secret ballot election administered by the National Labor Relations Board, the union is certified as the sole bargaining agent on behalf of the employees, or
“Card check” recognition – When a union receives at least 30 percent of signed authorization cards, the employer can request that a private ballot election be held. (When a union receives at least 50 percent of signed cards, the employer can either recognize the union immediately or request an election.)
Legislation
The EFCA would dramatically change federal labor law. The legislation would allow a union to bypass the election process after collecting authorization cards from a majority of employees. Thus, employers would lose the right to request that an election be held.
If enacted into law, EFCA would:
Eliminate employees’ opportunity to vote in a federally-administered, private ballot election;
Require binding arbitration within 120 days after a union is certified through a signed card collection process, if the employer and the union are unable to reach an agreement;
Restrict an employer’s communications to employees about the workplace issues involved in the union organizing drive; and
Create new fines against employers for an expanded list of unfair labor practices
SHRM supports the basic rights of all employees to decide freely whether or not to join a union. However, we strongly believe that a federally-supervised, private ballot election is the best way for employees to make this decision.
In addition, SHRM believes the mandatory binding arbitration called for under EFCA could impose unwanted employment conditions on both employees and employers. So in sum, employees could simultaneously lose their rights to vote on union representation and to approve workplace contracts.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Hello Folks,
I am amazed at the polemical liscence that permeates most of the previous emails. Throughout my career, spanning 37 years, I have managed in union environments. Some of the unions include: The Teamsters, The UAW, RWDSU, The Biolermakers, The UFCW, and the IAM. There is nothing intimidationg about dealing with union leaders and union workers. In many ways they have exactly the same goals most Americans embrace. They want the most money and benefits that they can get from the companies they work for. They want a means for raising families and providing their children with the educational and training opportunities all of us want.
They are not Nazis or Fasciasts. They are generally good people who obey laws, go to church, support their local charitable and civic organizations. And please consider this; they have fought and died for America, whenever we have been in wars, in at least equal numbers to those Americans who came from a different economic environment. So we should cool the rhetoric and stop vilifying them. We should also show more respect to people like Cindy who clearly understands the value of making up her own mind when exercising her responsibility as a citizen of this great and free Country.
On a professional level, I would say to all of you, who are so concerned about the EFCA, that Companies get the unions they deserve! This does not mean that I support unionization. I DO NOT. It does mean, however, that now is the time for all HR pros to assess their respective employment practices and begin a process of eliminating anything that might persuade your employees to listen to union overtures. Railing at President Obama or Democrats will not protect you from a certification drive. Doing what is right for your Companies (including all your employees) will proove far more valuable.
Finally, my own view is that America has been far more damaged by the banking and investment people than by anything that blue collar, unionized workers have ever done. Blaming 8 % of our employee population (the approximate number of unionized employees in America today) for the state of our economic condition seems almost ludicrous to me.
Management is responsible for driving American industry, and when we do our jobs, we have nothing to fear from unions. They can do nothing that management doesn’t agree to, so we still have the right and duty to exercise the controls and leadership for which we are paid. Rather than railing at the EFCA, we should be committed to doing our parts in helping to deal with the enormous, economic catastrophe that we are facing. If that means if some of you think you should join together to try and stop and or modify this particular legislation, then you should make the effort. SHRM is a good place to start. They have an operative there who is committed to fighting the EFCW. Check it out.
All the best to all of you,
Jay
March 10th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Jay – I don’t beleive anyone has railed aganist union employees….but almost all are against unionization. Regardless of how each individual employee has contributed to the company or to our country is pretty irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that this law is BAD POLICY, and its enactment will surely create more economic instability and will result in more job losses as many companies will not be able to compete with lower cost competitors. Your statement that companies “deserve” the unions they get is an oversimplification and mostly untrue. Many good, well managed companies that treat employees well WILL, nonetheless, still get organized by savy union agents throught a card-check system. And the unions know that. If you are really saying that all you need to do is treat employees respectfully to aviod being unionized, I find that extremely ignorant of the reality of union drives and union tactics. For someone who has dealt with unions as much as you, I am surprised you make that assertion. The reason that unions only enjoy 8% of the workforce today is testament to the fact that their polices and systems fail – and result in companies going out of business, or transfering work outside of the country to areas that have competitive labor costs. This legislation is aimed squarely at reversing that trend, because unions have been increasingly unable to convince workers to join thier ranks. Good managment practices be damned with this law as unions will infiltrate those businesses because this law is EXACTLY intended to give unions a foothold in those companies through a back-door, stealthy campaign that the employees won’t know what hit them. I mean, how hard will it be to get someone to sign an authorzation card by saying, “hey, don’t you want higher pay, better benefits and job security – if so sign here” …I don’t care how well you treat your employees.. many will fall prey to unions due this this law.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Sad but true, many employees, some of whom work in HR, are of the mindset that “unions offer higher wages”. Unions offer nothing. They do not pay wages, they do not buy medical benefits – the employers do. I am surprised at how many employees in my company think the union “provides” for them when all the union does is bargain (code word for intimidation) for them. It’s a joke.
The most upsetting piece of the EFCA or “card check” to use the less inflammatory name used by the union thugs, is that this is only the beginning. Does anyone believe that a president elected by the unions will stop here? Right now Mr. Obama has vowed to take away American’s right to a secret vote on unions. Which vote is next? It’s shameful, but even worse, it’s frightening.
My state (HI) has a bill in the senate to “protect unions from prosecution from breaking laws during a labor dispute”. So, call it unions or the mob, same thing, but now they’ve become more brazen since our President has given them undeserved credibility and power. Pro Obama or not, on principle every single American should scream to their legislators that if they vote to take away a basic American right like a secret vote, then they will be voted out of office next time around. Oh, wait a minute, maybe we won’t have elections in the Obama world.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Dan & Debra,
I read your responses to my posting and was surprised. I have been through 4 organization drives and have dealt with union organizers as part of the process of preparing for certification votes. I have also been responsible for administering Labor Agreements in Plants located in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. I can ABSOLUTELY confirm that Companies get the unions they deserve. There is nothing complex about the process of getting unions. It is ALWAYS the result of poor or bad management.
Once you get a union, management has 2 options: they can manage the process (in which case companies can function pretty effectively) or they can abdicate their management responsibility to the union’s Plant leadership (in which case, inefficiencies and disciplinary problems invariably overwhelm the operations). In either case, MANAGEMENT
March 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Dan & Debra,
I read your responses to my posting and was surprised. I have been through 4 organization drives and have dealt with union organizers as part of the process of preparing for certification votes. I have also been responsible for administering Labor Agreements in Plants located in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. I can ABSOLUTELY confirm that Companies get the unions they deserve. There is nothing complex about the process of getting unions. It is ALWAYS the result of poor or bad management.
Once you get a union, management has 2 options: we can manage the process (in which case our companies can function pretty effectively) or we can abdicate our management responsibility to the union’s Plant leadership (in which case, inefficiencies and disciplinary problems invariably overwhelm the operations). In either case, we MANAGEMENT people are responsible for managing the relationship and we have great latitude in our dealings with union leadership and unionized employees.
Debra, your choice of the word “thugs” is unfortunate. My own experience does not support that characterization.
Regardless, however, my suggestion is that both of you contact John Raudabaugh who is a Labor Relations volunteer with the National SHRM organization in Alexandria. Your passion and commitment is clear, and John is focused on defeating the EFCA. Perhaps you might be valuable partners in that effort. At the very least, your kind of perspective may help guide the people who will be crafting the legislation, and John (and SHRM) has the ability to reach those legislators.
All the Best,
Jay
March 11th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Dan & Debra,
I read your responses to my posting and was surprised. I have been through 4 organization drives and have dealt with union organizers as part of the process of preparing for certification votes. I have also been responsible for administering Labor Agreements in Plants located in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. I can ABSOLUTELY confirm that Companies get the unions they deserve. There is nothing complex about the process of getting unions. It is ALWAYS the result of poor or bad management.
Once you get a union, management has 2 options: we can manage the process (in which case our companies can function pretty effectively) or we can abdicate our management responsibility to the union’s Plant leadership (in which case, inefficiencies and disciplinary problems invariably overwhelm the operations). In either case, we MANAGEMENT people are responsible for managing the relationship and we have great latitude in our dealings with union leadership and unionized employees.
Debra, your choice of the word “thugs” is unfortunate. My own experience does not support that characterization.
Regardless, however, my suggestion is that both of you contact John Raudabaugh who is a Labor Relations volunteer with the National SHRM organization in Alexandria, VA. Your passion and commitment is clear, and John is focused on defeating the EFCA. Perhaps you might be valuable partners in that effort. At the very least, your kind of perspective may help guide the people who will be crafting the legislation, and John (and SHRM) has the ability to reach those legislators.
All the Best,
Jay
March 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Dan & Debra,
I read your responses to my posting and was surprised. I have been through 4 organization drives and have dealt with union organizers as part of the process of preparing for certification votes. I have also been responsible for administering Labor Agreements in Plants located in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky. I can ABSOLUTELY confirm that Companies get the unions they deserve. There is nothing complex about the process of getting unions. It is ALWAYS the result of poor or bad management.
Once you get a union, management has 2 options: we can manage the process (in which case our companies can function pretty effectively) or we can abdicate our management responsibility to the union’s Plant leadership (in which case, inefficiencies and disciplinary problems invariably overwhelm the operations). In either case, we MANAGEMENT people are responsible for managing the relationship and we have great latitude in our dealings with union leadership and unionized employees.
Debra, your choice of the word “thugs” is unfortunate. My own experience does not support that characterization.
Regardless, however, my suggestion is that both of you contact John Raudabaugh who is a Labor Relations volunteer with the National SHRM organization in Alexandria, VA. Your passion and commitment is clear, and John is focused on defeating the EFCA. Perhaps you might be valuable partners in that effort. At the very least, your kind of perspective may help guide the people who will be crafting the legislation, and John (and SHRM) has the ability to reach those legislators.
All the Best,
Jay
March 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
In response to Mr. Corbett, I agree with much of his commentary concerning Unions, including companies deserve the unions they get. However, with EFCA it does open up avenues and issues that had become a part of the process in the NLRA.
As to the behavior of various Unions, my unfortunate experience was the Companies had abdicated their authority years before and had reached a situation where they had generally lost control of the ability to run the day to day operations. I have dealt with some very professional UAW representatives and many in the UFCW, UAW and another that fit Ms. Corbett’s vision.
Maybe in this day of enlightened labor relations and starting out on the right foot with a reasonalbe work force and representation it can work. The Big 3 Automakers and UAW claimed to have reached that point. Their actions speak very clear.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Harold and Jay – I really don’t think the issue is whether unions have reasonable people within their ranks, or whether they behave professionally. I have dealt with many unions myself, and most are good people. I beleive the heart of the issue regarding EFCA, and more specifically the effect of unions in the workplace is that the very presence of a union results in higher labor costs, less flexibility, loss of ability to make headcount adjustments based on performance or contributions, and exposure to potnetially cripling work stopages. If either or both of you think that the presence of a union does not increase the overall cost structure of the business, then I not only strongly disagree, but could prove you wrong with statistics and empirical evidence. So to say that this law is nothing to fear because unions are so reasonable is not something I, or most other HR people would agree with. And I think it incredibly naive to think that this law will only impact companies that “deserve” a union, or will only effect poorly managed companies. Even buying into your logic, if a company that “deserves” a union now gets one due to EFCA, and then proceeds to go out of business and layoff all employees, does this mean that they “deserved” that fate anyway..??? What good has come about in that scenario? This law will result in a massive increase in the amount of unionized workplaces, including those that treat their employees quite well – because unions will always “sell” their ability to get the employees MORE – even though doing so could well spell the demise of the company. This has nothing to do with good employers, bad employers, good uunions or bad unions..it has to do with a complete re-write of the NLRA, which has worked quite well for over 50 years, in order to tip the scales heavily in favor of the unions by allowing them to organize through a card check system that is neither secret, balanced, or absent possible intimidation. And writing laws that PROMOTE the presence of unions, especially in this economy, is simply wrongheaded and unnecessary. And, are you really saying the UAW and the Big 3 are a model of union-management cooperation….??? Surely I misunderstood your referecne to their plight…
March 12th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Daniel:
I agree with you to a point. I don’t think unions are necessary any longer but I also feel that if you treat your employees fairly, they are smart enough not to fall for a union’s “strong arm tactics”.
March 12th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Daniel, my last paragraph was trying to be polite. I agree with everything you state in your last commentary.
Louisville KY has lost thousands of jobs of real manufacturing jobs from Union shops since the 1980’s and continues to do so (American Standard, International Harvester, Bremer Biscuit, Fischer Packing Company, Johnson Controls Auto Battery Plant and a boatload of 2nd/3rd Tier auto suppliers for Ford, plus GE is cutting and slashing as we speak). Unions in this area were always quick to strike, constant work slow downs over grievances, and so on.
Labor Mangement Cooperation is really a true oxymoron.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Harold, I think it is a shame to see how many jobs were lost because of “greedy” union hacks. I wish people would wake up…. It has always been Labor against Labor….Enjoyed your oxymoron!
March 12th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I think its a shame to see the jobs lost because of executives’ greed also.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Executive greed exists for sure – heck, I am greedy and beleive I earn my paycheck for the value and experience I provide in my profession. Those jobs were lost because of greed in all areas – exec’s, union officials, the employees, stockholders and let us not forget excessive government taxation/regulation.
Cindy, do not forget that public traded companies are owned by stockholders (think 401k participants and pension plans) who demand a high return, otherwise they will not invest, and you have no company. The majority of stockholders don’t give a whoop in hell about the individuals working in the plants – as long as they are getting a return on investment. Greedy executives pay is public and set by the Board of Directors – they negotiate the best deals the board (and shareholders) will give in too.
Private companies are just that – private. The private company I work for has owners that and family shareholders that are very well off, but they have always provided a good 401k pension plan, competitive benefits, and in our area very competitive pay for all jobs. Have not had a lay off in 25+ years. I have been here for 12 years – we are not perfect, but their last unionizing activity was about 15 years ago. If EFCA would have been in place the 50-60% of the employees who signed cards would have been successful. The final NLRB supervised vote had barely 30% vore for the Union. There were no ULP’s, no terminations, no harassment by the Company.
The owner of any business has a right to whatever legal profits they can take from their capital and personal investment – if they squeeze too hard, they will break the golden egg – good staff leave, quality and service suffers and customers disappear.
How many restaurants do any of the “bloggers” go to on this site that pay their service staff so called Union wages and provide benefits on a regular basis – you probably can’t afford them, or the restaurants disappear.
You all have a good and safe Friday – watch some great basketball as a meaningful diversion.