Employee Free Choice Act
Addendum for Monday August 25, 2008
My statement in a comment below, “After certain outrageous abuses are eliminated and other troublesome problems are addressed legislatively, such as child labor, minimum wage, worker’s compensation, workplace safety, maximum workweek, etc., what function do labor unions serve at all?”, is related to Seth Godin’s, More vs. enough.
As Seth pointed out, there is a relationship to Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory – Two factor theory:
” . . . . job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction acted independently of each other. Two Factor Theory states that there are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of factors cause dissatisfaction.”
But, it is not now totally clear to me what the relationships are.
-oOo-
Me, putting my foot in it on Daily Kos:
From what I’ve read this morning here on Daily Kos[ Big Business Goes After Unions to Defeat Democrats ], which is everything I have read about the Employee Free Choice Act, it looks to me that the proposed legislation is not about fairness in the union certification process, it is about shifting the advantage to labor organizations.
If, for example, the problem is “Anti-union managers are free to campaign to every employee, every day, throughout the day; but pro-union employees can campaign only on break time,” a fairness-based solution might be to prohibit anti-union managers from campaigning throughout the work day.
Or, if “management can post anti-union propaganda on bulletin boards and walls — while prohibiting pro-union employees from doing the same,” then the law might be changed either to prohibit anti-union propaganda on bulletin boards and walls, or to allow pro-union propaganda in an equal amount and location.
Or, if the problem is that “employers can force workers to attend mass anti-union propaganda events [but] pro-union employees [are] not given equal time,” then union organizers could be given equal time by law.
There is a huge disconnect between these specific given examples of unfairness during the election campaign process and the proposed solution, which is to eliminate the election campaign process altogether rather than to fix it.
If the present process is unfair, and it does look to be that way from what little I know, then the Employee Free Choice Act seems equally unfair, but on the opposite side. This does nothing to eliminate unfairness. It is simply a re-allocation of power by means of a political/legislative agenda.
Does me being “pro-fairness” mean that I am thereby being “anti-labor”?
Tom Fox
Louisville, Kentucky
-oOo-
Additional links:
Wikipedia – Employee Free Choice Act
Wikipedia – Right-to-work law
ALF-CIO (pro-union) – Employee Free Choice Act
American Rights at Work (anti-union) – Employee Free Choice Act
—
Jim Gillman’s WordPress blog: June 11, 2007 – The Employee Free Choice Act
Hi Tom,
First, I want to identify who I am and what I do. I am a union organizer who tries to help workers get first contracts. I am not blind to Unions faults as there are plenty. In fact, Unions often times have been at the forefront of holding workers back from gaining true power and strength in the workplace.
Sitting on the sideline, it is easy to say, “well, I am all about fairness and not giving either side a distinct advantage.”
Your idea is fair but based little in the reality of organizing. The anti-union playbook is simple Tom. If I were to crush a Union campaign the first thing that I would do is fire the worker who was starting the campaign. The one who feels passionately and is respected by their coworkers. Living in an “at-will” employment means just that point.
The next thing that happens is called “captive meetings” at these meetings workers are encouraged to denounce the Union and this is done under the umbrella of fairness. They are simply trying to “give their side of the story.”
These are not multi millionaires that we are talking about who have other options. These are working class people who have husbands, wives and children. They are scared to be fired and trust me when I say that the Companies ability to leverage someones job over their head is a major, major issue.
I don’t expect EFCA to pass, because people are scared and afraid. The workers have the right to decertify as it is after a year. Trust me, they do. There are good unions and bad unions just as there are successful businesses and unsuccessful businesses. T
Finally, the reason why EFCA is good for workers is three points,
1st – Card Check. Companies have proven since the Taft Hartley acts in 1948 that all they care about is profit and the multibillion dollar union busting groups that have started up are aimed entirely at workers. This places the decision between the worker and the Union, where the decision rightfully belongs
2nd- Arbitration to settle contract disputes: Instead of truly bargaining in good faith, a Company realizes that it can wait out the union for a year. The workers will get fed up and decertify the Union. This prompts the Union to become more radicalized in order to gain a contract.
3rd – Tougher penalties on Companies – Other than small businesses, most companies can laugh and sneeze at the fines that come down. The fines are paltry usually a thousand bucks or so. The Company will be held to a tougher standard than they have ever been before.
When Unions have more density than everyone benefits. The market has to fight to keep place with salaries.
Comment by runtmg — August 24, 2008 @ 3:41 pm |
Thanks for your comment, runtmg.
I honestly have not given much time to the issue, and I jumped into that Daily Kos discussion with zero premeditation. Now I’m scrambling to come up with opinions about things I haven’t thought about before.
Having now firmly established my own personal basis as being rooted in ignorance tinged with apathy, I’ll say this:
Your remark, “When Unions have more density than everyone benefits,” if true, is something that ought to be obvious. But, alas, it isn’t obvious to me. I am tempted to suspect the main beneficiaries of union organizing are the unions themselves.
After certain outrageous abuses are eliminated and other troublesome problems are addressed legislatively, such as child labor, minimum wage, worker’s compensation, workplace safety, maximum workweek, etc., what function do labor unions serve at all?
The expense of maintaining a large standing army — or labor organizations — between wars, is expensive. So why do it?
The alternate concept is this: “If you do not like your current working conditions or pay, go find a better job.”
Why is that so frightening or difficult?
Comment by tomwfox — August 25, 2008 @ 10:13 am |