Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or "Card Check"

Important information for business owners to understand.
Posted by at

12 comments:

Monticello Chamber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Monticello Chamber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 18, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Monticello Chamber said...

Dear Monticello Chamber Member:

On February 17th, it was my privilege to speak with you about the $792-billion “stimulus” package that Congress had passed only days before. Obviously, this impacts you as taxpayers, business owners, and community leaders. But, the original topic on which I was to speak was card-check legislation working its way through Congress. This, too, will have tremendous consequences for you and your business. So, let me take this opportunity to share some thoughts on this topic.

Right now, legislation is making its way through the Congress, with the support of the Administration and all of the labor union lobbyists, that would revoke a worker’s right to a secret ballot. In fact, Congressman George Miller (D-CA), the Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, just held a large rally in favor of this legislation. And, President Obama’s pick for Labor Secretary, Congresswoman Hilda Solis, was a cosponsor of the card-check bill.

I am deeply concerned about this legislation – which is, in my opinion, misnamed the Employee Free Choice Act – and what it stands for. The right to a secret ballot is one of the most cherished of American freedoms and it should be protected.

Under card-check legislation, if union organizers collect enough cards from employees indicating interest in a union, the union would be certified. Employees would be forced to make a decision about whether or not to support union organization right in front of their co-workers and right in front of the organizers. And, there is much evidence of the use of intimidation, discrimination and even harassment in such circumstances. Under current law, such decisions are made by secret ballot with full confidentiality.

Last year, I joined with organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – as well as groups that serve unionized employees like the Fraternal Order of Police, the American Hospital Association, and others – in opposing this bill. I am very concerned that it lacks protection for workers and destroys the cherished right to a secret ballot. Regrettably, the Employee Free Choice Act passed in the House on March 1, 2007. But, the Senate failed to vote on it. And, now in the 111th Congress, a renewed push for passage is being fueled by support from the new Obama Administration.

I have just cosponsored alternative legislation that would instead ensure workers have the right to a secret ballot, the Secret Ballot Protection Act. And, I will continue to stand in strong opposition to card-check legislation. If you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact my office.


Sincerely,

Michele Bachmann

Member of Congress


Sincerely,

Deb Steiskal

Constituent Services Officer

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

110 2nd St S Suite 232, Waite Park, MN 56387

Office 320-253-5931 Fax 320-240-6905

Cell 202-580-5690

February 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Monticello Chamber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 19, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Monticello Chamber said...

Senator Amy Klobuchar
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Klobuchar,

As business organizations and trade associations representing more than 25,000 businesses from across the great state of Minnesota, we are writing to urge you to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) legislation, better known as Card Check that will undermine the interests of both employees and employers and hamper economic recovery and growth.

EFCA effectively eliminates the secret ballot election and would force employees to make the important decision about whether or not to unionize in front of union organizers, during a stealth organizing campaign. Because these campaigns are conducted outside the employers’ knowledge, the proposed bill would limit an employer’s ability to counter false and misleading rhetoric and would disenfranchise workers who oppose unionization.

During Card Check organizing drives, workers have to publicly declare their support or opposition to union representation, exposing them to intimidation, harassment and coercion. Although current law permits use of card check procedures in certain circumstances, the federal courts have explicitly said that card checks are inferior to secret ballot elections as a method for discerning the true wishes of employees.

As an elected official, you know the importance of ensuring that citizens are free to express their views in the privacy of the voting booth — without someone looking over their shoulder. As a country we should not seek to deny workers this fundamental principle of American democracy.

Just as bad, the proposed Card Check legislation includes a “binding arbitration” provision that would allow federal government arbitrators to dictate wages, benefits and all other terms and conditions of the workplace under a union contract, and then deprive workers of the chance to vote on that contract. This expansion of government power could put many employers out of business.

Given these difficult times, it is more critical than ever, that businesses have the flexibility to meet the needs of a challenging economy if we are to create an environment in which businesses can grow and create jobs. EFCA is inconsistent with this critical goal.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to oppose EFCA.

February 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Monticello Chamber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
February 23, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Monticello Chamber said...

February 13, 2009
VERNUCCIO: When Mexicans have more rights than U.S.
By F. Vincent Vernuccio

The Obama Administration and its nominee for Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, are seeking to all but eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, a move called "card check" in congressional shorthand.

As the Administration and the Congress contemplate one of the most dramatic changes in labor law in the past 50 years, it would be instructive to look at a similar debate raging in Mexico.

Mexico's highest court, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, last year unanimously ruled in favor of secret votes for workers considering which union could represent them in collective bargaining agreements. While Mexico's labor law differs from that in the U.S., any step to safeguard workers' freedom and privacy is a great advance in an economy long bedeviled by measures that destroyed jobs while strengthening unions.

Mexico's highest court affirmed a lower court ruling which cited as justification for their decision the United Nation's Universal Human Rights Declaration and Convention number 87 of the International Labor Organization. The declaration and convention established that secret ballots permit employees to exercise democratic principles while open voting allows for undue pressure and coercion. The National Association of Democratic Lawyers, a group of labor lawyers, academics and labor organizations in Mexico, called the secret ballot "an essential element for respecting workers' rights and for the democratization of unions and the country itself." Democratization and the secret ballot have always been the hallmark of worker freedom and protecting the rights of workers to organize. Mexico is the latest example of other nations following America model for a free and fair workplace-ironically, just as the Obama Administration seems to be abandoning it.

Hilda Solis, President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant, who became a union shop steward. No doubt he educated his daughter on the struggles of the Mexican workplace and would have longed to see this day when Mexicans could freely decide to join a union without coercion. Until the card check movement of the Orwellian-named "Employee Free Choice Act," Solis herself fought for the rights of workers to vote by secret ballot. In 1997 while she was a California state senator, Solis introduced a bill mandating "only secret ballots may be cast by affected employees at any election held pursuant to [adopting or repealing an alternative workweek schedule for overtime.]"

Similarly, on August 29, 2001 sixteen members of Congress, including fourteen Democrats, encouraged the Mexican Junta Board of Conciliation and Arbitration to "use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections." Reps. George Miller, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Pete Stark, James McGovern and others signed that letter.

The National Labor Relations Board, in the United States, has protected American workers from the coercion that takes place without a secret ballot. Currently if just 30% of workers in a business express an interest in union representation, the NLRB supervises a secret ballot election.

If card check is enacted the privacy of the voting booth will be exchanged for a public signature drive run by union activists. Union officials would be free to knock on a worker's door any time of the day or night to collect signatures. Chillingly, they will know who refuses to sign. Jan Janson, former UNITE-HERE organizer testified at a congressional hearing that she had "personally heard from workers that they signed the union card simply to get the organizer to leave their home and not harass them further."

Mexico should be proud of their achievement protecting workers' right to a secret ballot. Unfortunately while Mexico is a taking a step forward, Obama's America is poised to make a giant leap backward.

Does President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress really want American workers to have fewer rights than Mexicans?

F. Vincent Vernuccio is a former Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management in the Department of Labor.

© The Washington Times. Displayed by permission. All rights reserved.
You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.7280?icx_id=/news/2009/feb/13/when-mexicans-have-more-rights-than-us/ into any web browser. The Washington Times, LLC and The Washington Times logos are registered trademarks of The Washington Times, LLC. The iCopyright logo is a registered

February 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Monticello Chamber said...

Employee Free Choice Act
(also known as the Card Check bill)

Overview
The Employee Free Choice Act, better known as Card Check, has the potential to dramatically reshape the economic and political landscape of our country. It strikes at the fundamental nature of our democracy: the right to a secret ballot.

Card Check is the top priority of a newly reenergized organized labor movement and it’s the leading edge of a strongly anti-business agenda being pursued by many of today’s labor unions who firmly believe that their time has come and that they are on the verge of winning significant victories.

What is the Card Check Bill? How does it work?
The principle purpose of the Card Check Bill is to make it easier for unions to organize. Under current law, if union organizers collect signatures from at least 30 percent of the employees in a bargaining unit, the federal National Labor Relations Board will hold an election to determine whether to certify the union. This process, established and refined through decades of experience, carefully balances the interests of employees, unions, and employers in order to ensure that workers can hear all sides and then make up their minds and vote in private, without intimidation or coercion. Today a majority of elections are held within 39 days and a majority of union elections are won by organized labor.

Because union density has dropped so low (to about 7.5 percent in the private sector), organized labor is seeking to change the rules and make it easier to organize. The card check bill would do just that – instead of determining whether a union would be certified through a federally-supervised secret ballot election, the union would be certified the moment it collected a majority of signed authorization cards. The Card Check Bill would therefore eliminate the campaign period and the legal requirements that regulate it, not to mention eliminating the ability of employees to make an informed decision in private. Instead, employee decisions on unionization would be made in front of union organizers greatly increasing the opportunity for coercion and pressure in the union organizing process.

A secondary, and less well known, purpose of the bill is to amend collective bargaining law so that when a union is recognized for the first time government arbitrators will set all the terms and conditions of the union contract unless the union and the employer can meet unrealistic timelines. Today, the law requires that the parties bargain in good faith and recognizes that the union, representing workers, and the employer are in the best position to determine whether an agreement is acceptable and whether compromising on one goal in order to achieve another is acceptable. The Card Check Bill's mandatory interest arbitration provisions would remove any incentive for the employer or the union to adopt realistic bargaining positions, as each would be posturing for the arbitrator, and would give the arbitrator control of the most basic business decisions. It would also deny employees the right to vote on ratification of the contract.

Finally, the Card Check Bill would increase penalties for employers, but not for unions or others, who violate union organizing laws.

The Post Card Check Environment:
If Card Check passes, a significant number of employers who haven’t worried about union organization or have held it at bay, could see large segments of their workforce rapidly unionizing whether workers really want to or not. Small businesses which have not been attractive targets for union organizers in the past will see rapid union penetration into their workforce.

Card Check goes beyond just adding members. With an increase in membership comes expanding revenue in the form of dues, an exponential increase in the resources that could be put into politics, and a much larger and more robust influence on Capitol Hill. Unions have an ambitious legislative agenda. Potential impacts could include:

• Petitioning the National Labor Relations Board to allow the creation of “mini-unions” – small cells of organized employees within workplaces that don’t represent a majority of workers, but which can force employers to bargain with them on pay and benefits.
• Broad expansion of Family Medical Leave Act, including paid time off, paid sick leave and the application of FMLA even to the smallest employers.
• Passing legislation to resurrect the Clinton administration’s rejected ergonomics regulation — imposing billions of dollars of new costs on businesses.
• Added mandates and funding to encourage aggressive enforcement by federal regulatory agencies such as OSHA.
• Expansion of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Equal Pay Act to trigger more class action lawsuits against employers.
• Repeal of the existing statute of limitations and caps on damages for most employment discrimination lawsuits.

Legislative and Political Landscape:
In 2007, Card Check passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 241-185. The bill had a slim majority of support in the Senate, but fell to a filibuster on a 51-48 vote. 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster (known as cloture).

The political dynamics have changed as a result of the 2008 elections. Card Check advocates have expanded their majority in the House and in the Senate.

Consideration by the House is expected early in 2008 followed by the Senate debate. Sixty votes is a significant but reachable goal for the bill’s proponents. However, the bill’s sponsors and organized labor have forgotten that there are people like you, who care about democratic values and who care about freedom in the workplace. The people who want to take away your secret ballots and take over your workplaces are already out on the field. We all need to make sure we’re in the game as well.

February 25, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Monticello Chamber said...

Time To Do Away With Secret Ballots?
by Mike Eastman
The secret ballot is cherished by most Americans as a cornerstone of democracy. It has served well to protect voter privacy and to help ensure that decisions in elections are made free from coercion and intimidation. Secret ballot elections have been an important part of how workers decide whether or not they want to unionize. However, organized labor’s top legislative priority would effectively abolish secret ballot elections for organizing and would instead substitute Card Check, a process that does away with the privacy of secret ballot elections and opens up union organizing to greater potential for coercion.
What Is Card Check?
The principle purpose of the Card Check Bill is to make it easier for unions to organize. Under current law, if union organizers collect signatures from at least 30 percent of the employees in a bargaining unit, the federal National Labor Relations Board will hold an election to determine whether to certify the union. This process, established and refined through decades of experience, carefully balances the interests of employees, unions,
and employers in order to ensure that workers can hear all sides and then make up their minds and vote in private, without intimidation or coercion. Today a majority of elections are held within 39 days and a majority of union elections are won by organized labor.
Because union density has dropped so low (to about 7.5 percent in the private sector), organized labor is seeking to change the rules and make it easier to organize. The Card Check Bill would do just that—instead of determining whether a union would be certified through a federally-supervised secret ballot election, the union would be certified the moment it collected a majority of signed authorization cards. The Card Check Bill would
therefore eliminate the campaign period and the legal requirements that regulate it, not to mention eliminating the ability of employees to make an informed decision in private. Instead, employee decisions on unionization would be made in front of union organizers greatly increasing the opportunity for coercion and pressure in the union organizing process. Once enough workers were persuaded to sign, the union would automatically be certified, and it would not be possible for workers to have a secret ballot election.
Why Does Card Check Matter to You?
Workers would lose a vital privacy protection—the ability to vote in a secret ballot election—if Card Check became law. Doing away with this protection would open up the union organizing process to even more potential for coercion and intimidation as their important decision over whether or not to unionize would now be public. It would also encourage "push-button unionism" - a union could quickly garner enough signatures,
especially at small businesses or in small bargaining units, in a very short period of time and a union could be certified before the employer had a chance to respond to allegations or unrealistic promises or before workers opposing unionization even knew there was an organizing campaign was underway.
What You Can Do
Organized labor is pouring literally hundreds of millions of dollars into a 2008 campaign to elect a "filibuster-proof Senate" that will rubber-stamp Card Check legislation (among other things) next year. Let your Senators and Member of Congress know that you oppose this despotic legislation. Learn more about Card Check at http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
June 11, 2008 at 04:11 PM in Card Check, Unions | Permalink |A Blog for Business

February 25, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Monticello Chamber said...

The Employee Free Choice Act: A Bad Deal For
Small Businesses and Employees
by Marc Freedman

A Blog for Business
As bad as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is for large employers, it is a far worse threat to small businesses. Under current law, organizing small employers is not very cost effective—small employers are rarely worth the effort and expense given the number of new members the union will get. Under the EFCA, that equation is totally transformed. A small employer (let’s think in terms of less than 50 employees) can be targeted with only a few organizers meaning that many employers who were previously below the unions’ radar will now be directly in their cross-hairs. The prospect of becoming an involuntarily union company should be particularly frightening to small employers as they tend to operate differently than large employers. Their relationship with their employees is usually quite different and much more personal. Similarly, employees in small businesses understand better how the business operates and the pressures it is under. The EFCA threatens to undermine all of this by raising the very real possibility of a union interjecting itself between these employers and their employees. If a union comes in, the small business person WILL lose control of how the business is run. In the union company environment, no longer would employers be able to communicate directly with their employees, on a personal basis. They would have to go through the shop steward and union leadership. In some industries like construction, they would even lose control over who they have as employees, as the union would provide the employees according to their priorities such as seniority or how much they favored that particular contractor. If the EFCA is enacted, an employer could think they are doing right by their employees and go home on a Friday night thinking things are fine. When they open up on Monday morning, they can find out they now have a union they did not even know had
targeted them. Getting a majority of signatures—for a 25 employee company that’s only 13—can happen over a weekend. Once the union has the number of required employees to be recognized, the problems are only just beginning. The next step is to bargain for the first contract. This is a daunting, and chilling process, especially for a small business who has no experience with a union. It will also be expensive, beyond the terms of the agreement, as retaining competent legal counsel is all but required. As if the card check provision of the EFCA were not enough, the bill also contains a provision which totally stacks the deck against the employer during these negotiations. If a contract is not agreed to in 120 days (not a long time in the context of first contract negotiations), the matter is submitted to binding arbitration. In this environment, the employer will always lose; it’s only a question of by how much. The union will come in using the promises they gave the employees to get their signatures as their demands i.e., higher wages, greater benefits, more job security (read: less ability of the employer to use employees as they deem appropriate). The employer will respond with what they can give. The arbitrator will likely seek to find the middle ground. Wherever that is, it will be more than the employer can provide and the union has lost nothing as they have "no skin in the game." So favorable is the binding arbitration process to the union position that union negotiators should be expected to drag out the process intentionally to get the matter into arbitration. Not only is the binding arbitration a horrendous provision for employers, it is also a bad deal for employees. When the arbitrator
comes up with the contract, it is imposed on the company for a minimum of three years without employee approval or further review. Under normal contract negotiations, employees have the opportunity to ratify the contract. Under the EFCA, there would be no ratification by employees, so this provision represents the second vote employees would lose under the EFCA. The Employee Free Choice Act may represent the surest way to put small businesses out of business, leaving those employees free to choose their next job. Learn more about Card Check at http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm June 12, 2008 at 04:19 PM in Card Check, Unions | Permalink www.chamberpost.com/unions

February 25, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Monticello Chamber said...

Congress Should Protect the Private Vote

By Glenn Spencer

Congress is about to consider legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, or Card Check. While few people have heard of this bill, it is the most sweeping rewrite of federal labor law in 70 years. Card Check would essentially abolish the protection of a private ballot during union organizing campaigns, would likely eliminate workers’ ability to vote on a union contract establishing the terms and conditions of their employment, and would impose substantial new penalties, but only on employers.

Not only is this bill bad for business but it is equally bad for workers. Workers would effectively lose their right to a secret ballot and would also potentially lose their right to approve the terms and conditions of their union contract. So why this legislation and why now?

Over the past 50 years, union membership has declined sharply. Unions view Card Check as critical to bringing in new members. Unfortunately they do so by infringing on the rights of workers and employers.

The legislation itself is fairly short, with just three principal sections. The first deals with the way in which unions organize. Under the traditional process, union organizers ask workers to sign cards indicating an interest in an election. Once more than 30% have signed, the union can ask the federal government to hold a secret ballot election. After a campaign period that averages about a month, during which both the union and the employer can make their cases to workers, the government supervises the election. If the union wins more than 50% of the vote, it is certified, and collective bargaining begins.

Under Card Check, union organizers could skip the election and would only need to collect signature cards. Once they get more than 50%, the union would automatically be certified and a secret ballot election would be prohibited. The signature cards would be signed publicly—essentially meaning that a worker’s “vote” would be public. Union organizers would know who had, or hadn’t, signed a card supporting the union and could relentlessly pursue those who refused to sign until they got their majority. It’s not difficult to imagine the tactics that might be used to get those workers to concede to unionizing.

Supporters of Card Check argue that the current election process allows employers to put too much pressure on workers to oppose the union. In fact, pressure on workers comes from all sides in unionizing campaigns. The beauty of the secret ballot is that the worker makes the final choice in the privacy of a voting booth and no one—not the union, not co-workers, and not the employer—knows how he or she voted.

Supporters of the bill also claim that workers could still choose to have an election under Card Check if they wanted one. Technically that’s true in that the law doesn’t specifically abolish elections. But once union organizers have the 50% + 1 of the signatures they need, such an election would be against the law. Therefore, in effect, the only election workers could have is one they thought they would lose. And even if workers wanted an election, nothing prevents union organizers from pursuing signatures until they cross the 50% threshold.

Claiming that workers could still have a secret ballot election under Card Check is a bit like saying you could still get off an airplane after it’s taken off. Theoretically possible, but in reality out of the question.

The second provision of the bill deals with the collective bargaining process once a union is certified. Under current law, the parties get together, negotiate over the terms and conditions of employment, and through a process of give and take, reach a contract. Typically, workers then get a chance to ratify the contract by means of a vote. In a majority of cases, the process works.

The Card Check bill would completely undermine this collective bargaining process through binding arbitration. Under binding arbitration, the parties must reach a deal within 120 days. If they can’t, a government arbitrator would step in, write the contract, and impose it on both sides. This unilaterally dictated contract would be binding for two years.

This has several unfortunate ramifications for both workers and employers. Because the contract is binding, workers would be denied a ratification vote. Even if they thought they got a poor deal, they would have no say over the terms and conditions of their union contract, including pay, benefits, and work rules.

Additionally, employers could be stuck with a contract that is completely incompatible with their cost structure and business model and would just have to figure out how to live with it for two years. The only alternative is likely to be bankruptcy.

Finally, binding arbitration removes any incentive to compromise. Instead, the incentive is to put forward the most extreme proposals possible and hope that the arbitrator would give you most of what you want. The collective bargaining model that has worked for 70 years would be completely undermined.

In addition to employers losing in this scheme workers lose too. Under current law, workers often get the chance to vote on their contracts—and they sometimes reject the deal. But when government bureaucrats are dictating the contracts, melding together widely divergent positions taken by labor and management, it doesn’t matter what the workers want—the Employee Free Choice Act would deny them a chance to vote.

Supporters of Card Check claim that binding arbitration is needed because employers sometimes refuse to bargain in good faith. In most negotiations, however, a contract is reached. It may not always happen as quickly as unions would like, but it is critical to get these contracts right because they set the template for all the contracts that follow. This takes time.

Moreover, federal law recognizes that there are situations in which an agreement simply isn’t possible. While the law makes clear that a contract is the desired outcome, it never intended for it to be a guaranteed outcome. And federal law never contemplated a situation in which government arbitrators, who may know nothing about a business, would be given the authority to step in, take over negotiations between two private parties, and dictate wages, benefits, and work rules.

The final provision of the bill imposes substantial new penalties—but only on employers. Also, the law requires that employer misconduct be investigated by the federal government first—effectively turning the National Labor Relations Board into a one-sided enforcement agency that only goes after employers.

The effect of this provision is that many employers, particularly small businesses, would be too scared of penalties to say anything to their workers about the impact of unionizing. Workers would be denied equal information, and employers would have their free speech rights chilled.

Clearly, there are numerous problems with the Employee Free Choice Act. Nevertheless, unions claim that the bill is essential to “restoring the middle class.” In reality, though, states with the largest number of union members are worse off than those with the fewest across a number of measures. States with the most union members have higher rates of unemployment, slower rates of job growth, slower economic growth, a higher cost of living, higher tax burdens, lower rates of homeownership, and less entrepreneurial activity. Card Check isn’t a ticket to the middle class. It’s a ticket to economic stagnation.

So who should worry about Card Check? Workers who value the protection of a private ballot. Workers who want a say over their contract. Small business owners who don’t want to see their businesses taken over by aggressive union organizers. And everyone who realizes that in today’s tough times, the last thing we need is productivity-killing work rules imposed on wide swathes of our economy.

Congress will take up the Card Check bill this year. Unions are pressuring them to pass it. Your elected officials need to hear from you too.




Glenn Spencer, is the Executive Director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative (www.uschamber.com/wfi) at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

February 25, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Monticello Chamber said...

WASHINGTON, D.C. — By now, many people know that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act — also known as "Card Check" — would strip workers of the protection of a secret ballot vote in union organizing elections. This inherently undemocratic proposal would make it cheap and easy for unions to corral new members — and the union dues that come with them.

What most people don't realize is that the Card Check bill would also give the federal government the power to set wages, benefits, and work rules for employers in a wide variety of industries throughout the economy.

Under this bill, once a union is formed, employers would be under a strict deadline to reach an agreement on all of the union's demands. If no agreement is reached after just 120 days, the matter would go to a federal arbitration panel, which would then write and hand down the union contract. That contract would bind both parties for two years with the same force as if it had been agreed to through full and fair negotiations.

For the first time a federal authority would set private sector wages, specific work rules and other work place restrictions, including forcing employees into underfunded and unsustainable pension plans.

This one provision would overturn more than seven decades of American labor law, all built on the principle that the government's proper role is to ensure fairness and protect workers — not to dictate outcomes.

The practical result of this radical change would be to incentivize unions to take extreme positions in collective bargaining and then stonewall, expecting the government arbitration panel to at least "split the difference" on their list of demands. Once the government steps in, the employer would lose all control of the workplace.

This would also create an opportunity for unions to force provisions into contracts that they could never get at the bargaining table, such as productivity-killing work rules, union approval of restructuring, and restrictions on the use of new technologies at the workplace.

In addition to employers losing in this scheme workers lose too. Under current law, workers often get the chance to vote on their contract — and they sometimes reject the deal. But when government bureaucrats are dictating the contract, melding together widely divergent positions taken by labor and management, it doesn't matter what the workers want — the Employee Free Choice Act denies them a chance to vote.

Unions say that radical action is necessary because employers and unions don't always reach a first contract despite prolonged bargaining. However, this possibility was understood when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted 72 years ago. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government has no role as blunt instrument of coercion principle in 1970, noting:

"… it was recognized from the beginning that agreement might in some cases be impossible, and it was never intended that the Government would in such cases step in, become a party to the negotiations and impose its own views of a desirable settlement."

The process isn't perfect, but the reason it works is that neither side holds all the cards, there are rules of fair-play, no side is compelled to accept terms that could result in its demise, and the government acts only as referee not dictator.

Perhaps some of those rules could be strengthened and the government could be a better referee. But the Card Check bill sets a time limit for the process and then transforms the government from referee to dictator.

Seventy-five percent of respondents in a recent poll said negotiating is the preferred method for developing contracts rather than allowing government arbitrators to impose a contract.

It's not labor law reform to permit government arbitrators who don't know the business or the employees or the market to write labor contracts — it's a prescription for disaster.


Thomas J. Donohue is President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

February 25, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)