Currently, the number of Americans who approve of unions is at an all-time low, and the majority of people are now saying unions hurt the economy.

Only 48% of Americans approve of labor unions — down from 59% a year ago, found a recent Gallup Poll.

That’s the least amount of support unions have received since Gallup started the annual poll in 1937 — just after Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, giving most private-sector workers the right to join unions.

The highest approval rate unions ever received: 75% in 1957. The lowest — until now: 55% in 1979 and 1981.

News gets worse for unions

In another knock against unions, the percentage of people saying unions hurt the company where workers are organized rose to 46%. In nearly every other poll opinions were heavily skewed to the positive for unions.

There was an even larger jump in the percentage of people (51%) who said unions mostly hurt the U.S. economy. This marks the first time more Americans have said unions hurt the economy more than help it.

Signs of hope for some employers

These results come as a breath of fresh air for employers feeling threatened by the prospect of the EFCA’s passage.

But even if it makes it into law, there appears to be a dwindling number of Americans who feel unions are playing a positive role in the economy.

Just before President Obama appeared at the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh, Specter promised union officials that by year’s end Congress would pass his new EFCA, and that it would be  “totally satisfactory to labor.”

Here’s an outline of Specter’s current bill:

• Dropped from the original bill: the controversial card-check option allowing workers to organize by getting their co-workers to sign pro-union cards, instead of having to hold secret-ballot elections in the workplace.
• Added: A provision limiting the time between organizers’ declaration that they have enough support to call an election and the day of the vote, to reduce the potential for employer intimidation, according to Specter and others bill supporters.
• Organizers would get guaranteed access to workers if employers held mandatory anti-union meetings on company time. And the penalties for employers convicted of breaking labor law rules would be triple what they are now.
• Mandatory  “last best offer arbitration” if labor and management can’t decide on a contract. In that type of arbitration,  a mediator has to pick one labor’s offer or management’s offer, but can’t “split the difference.” That means neither side can make an unreasonable offer as a bargaining ploy and hope that an arbitrator settles on some half-way measure to make everyone happy.

The bill would need 60 votes to break a filibuster, and Specter predicted that number is reachable, since conservative Democrats have hinted that they’d vote for a bill that didn’t include the card-check provision.

Almost hidden by larger stories about healthcare reform and the Sotomayor hearings, the EFCA appeared in a new form after several compromises by the White House and Congress.

Several reports indicate the bill’s supporters have agreed to drop the controversial card-check provision. What they want in exchange:

• A provision that mandates no more than a 10-day period between the time a union petitions for a vote and an actual election
• Granting union organizers with equal access to company property
• Banning mandatory employee meetings held by the company

Those provision closely follow what Sen. Arlen Specter (PA-D) asked for in exchange for his support for the bill.

Some of the provisions of the original EFCA bill still live in the newer form, such as:

• Increased penalties for employers who improperly interfere with union activities, including providing triple back pay to employees who are unlawfully discharged or discriminated against while involved in union activities during an organizing campaign or in the period before a first contract
• Civil fines of up to $20,000.00 per violation if an employer is found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees’ rights during an organizing campaign or while bargaining for a first contract
• Injunction power by the National Labor Relations Board,  which would be able to seek injunctive relief in federal court where there is cause to believe that the employer has discharged or discriminated against employees, made threats to discharge or discriminated against, or interfered with employees’ rights to organize or negotiate a first contract
• A beginning of bargaining within 10 days of certification
• When the union and employer are unable to reach a contract within 90 days of the first meeting, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and request mediation
• If after thirty 30 days from the request for mediation no agreement has been reached, the FMCS must refer the dispute to an arbitration board which could fashion a collective bargaining agreement.

A vote on the compromise is expected by September.

Health care
Labor leaders in general are in favor of passage of Obama’s healthcare initiatives. They want to kick around some of the specifics:

They oppose enacting a tax on employee-provided health benefits to help finance healthcare reform. Fact is, a lot of union members get their health coverage through their employers, so organized labor isn’t keen on taxing the benefit.

They support the so-called public option for health coverage, in which a government entity offers insurance and competes with private providers.

Employee Free Choice Act
The original proposal sought to make unionization easier by offering a “card check” provision instead of a vote. The bill has hit a speed bump because supporters haven’t been able to rustle up 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and the seating of liberal Democrat Al Franken isn’t seen as the tipping point for getting passage.

All of that has forced union organizers to look at alternatives and compromises. They’ll be looking to the President for encouragement and ideas.

Bottom line: The card-check provision of EFCA may be dead, but the bill isn’t — yet.

Typically, keylogging is done secretly, so the employee is unaware of it. Just as typically, it’s implemented because the employee is under suspicion of using a computer in an unauthorized or illegal way. So far, so good.

However, some targeted employees have dredged up a section of the  Electronic Communications Privacy Act as a defense — and a reason to sue employers for invasion of privacy.

Title I of the ECPA amended the federal Wiretap Act covers the “interception of electronic communications,” making it an offense to “intentionally intercept . . . any wire, oral, or electronic communication.”

Test case
The issue came up in a California federal-court case, Brahmana v. Lembo.  The question was whether a key logger that records keystroke information in transit between the keyboard and the computer’s central processing unit violated the EPCA.

The short story is that the court didn’t find the company general keylogging to be  in violation of EPCA.

There’s a complication because, using the keylogger, the company captured some of the employee’s confidential passwords and used them to access private accounts. The court is allowing the case to continue to determine whether using the passwords violated the EPCA.

So, at this point, the verdict is:

• Keylogging to track Internet usage? Probably OK.
• Using keylogging to access private info? Probably not.

President Obama announced that the Employee Free Choice Act’s controversial “card check” provision lacks the Congressional votes to push the measure over the top. That doesn’t mean the EFCA is dead, however.

The president has offered a compromise  version of the EFCA bill without card check — the controversial provision obligating employers to recognize unions after a majority of workers have signed cards, rather than after an election.

And now-democratic Sen. Arlen Specter — who had opposed EFCA and card check — said that he’d support a compromise EFCA bill with no card-check provision. On top of that, Specter has said he’ll support bill provisions that:

• speed up union elections
• allow employees to campaign at their work sites without retaliation, and
• impose stiffer penalties on employers who violate of labor-organizing rights.

So any final bill is likely to be tougher on employers than existing legislation, and won’t exactly be EFCA-lite.

Lincoln made the announcement at a political gathering in her home state — the site of Wal-Mart’s headquarters.

Union organizers, however, saw a sliver of light in Lincoln’s statement: “I cannot support that bill, cannot support that bill in its current form. Cannot support and will not support moving it forward in its current form.”

AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale said you have to read between Lincoln’s lines to get the true meaning — that the EFCA will be modified and that senators like Lincoln will support the bill after modification.

Vale’s response: “This certainly isn’t devastating …  it’s political science 101.A bill is introduced and then Congress works through the process of committees, amendments, and debates and 99 out of 100 times the final bill is different from when it started.”

The three employers are Costco, Starbucks, and Whole Foods. They’ve hired former Clinton Administration attorney Lanny Davis to work the cloakrooms in Congress and spread the idea — which they’re calling “The Third Way.” Here are the three main parts  of the proposal:

• No card check or mandatory arbitration. Instead, there would be secret-ballot elections that would have to be conducted by a definite, ironclad date from the time a union petitions for an election.
• Union “equal access” to employees during working hours. Under unspecified conditions, union organizers would be able to make their case to workers during working hours — on the presumption that employers would be making their case against organizing.
• Tougher penalties for unfair labor practices. There would be no mandatory arbitration wherein contract terms are dictated — as is proposed in the EFCA now –  but it would apparently include an expedited timetable for negotiations.

Another group from the service industry is offering another compromise also with three parts:

• Unions get equal access to employees if 30% of employees sign cards.
• If a union succeeds in getting more than 50% of employees to sign cards, then it may petition the NLRB for an election to be conducted in 15 days.
• If a union succeeds in getting 70% of the employees to sign cards, then the union would be certified without a secret-ballot election (EFCA as currently drafted permits certification once more than 50% of employees sign cards).

The new bills introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are identical to last year’s bill, which passed the House but was stopped in the Senate by a filibuster.

Both versions of the new legislation still contain:

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.

Where’s it headed?

What happens next? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that the Senate will not act on the legislation until this summer.

Senate action would require 60 votes to invoke cloture on a filibuster to take the bill to the Floor for a vote on final passage. There’s been some back-and-forth by senators who voted for cloture last time the bill came up, so at this point no one really knows how a vote might turn out. Some senators and the AFL-CIO have said they expect some changes to the original bill before a cloture vote is taken.

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.