About Us

  • Welcome to NJ Business Matters -- spreading the message of free enterprise and the importance of a healthy business community in the Garden State. NJBusinessMatters.org is the blog of the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey. To learn more about us, visit www.cianj.org

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Famous Blogs Reading Us

  • Oregon Live
  • The National Association of Manufacturers
  • In The Lobby

Employee Free Choice Act

November 28, 2007

Forced Unionization On Tap Tomorrow in Trenton

Tomorrow the Senate Labor Committee will consider a resolution urging Congress to pass legislation the Senate and big labor have already determined will not happen. SJR 68 sends a message from the New Jersey legislature to Congress insisting that they pass the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act.

Organized labor has morphed itself from an entity that attempts to advocate for the interests of workers into a political machine. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that since 1994, labor has contributed nearly half a billion dollars to Democratic campaigns.Now holding the majority,big labor's big kickback comes in the form of the comically-titled “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA).

Here are some facts. Under current law, a union seeking to represent a group of workers must garner signed authorization cards from 30 percent of that group's workforce. Once that is attained, the union petitions the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to administer an election via secret ballot.These elections are ordinarily held within six to eight weeks and union organizers can demand the names and home addresses of all the organization's employees and pay them a visit. As you can imagine, the possibility for some intimidation exists. If, after this organizing drive, a majority of employees vote “yes” in their secret election, an organization becomes unionized. The National Labor Relations Act has never been significantly amended and allowed union membership to flourish in the post World War II era.

However, for decades, unions have seen their national numbers decline. With every era of decline came a new culprit. First it was President Reagan; then it was President Bush; then under President Clinton it was the bad economy; then it was the good economy. Anything to avoid confessing that they were selling a product no one seemed interested in buying. The decline could have something to do with an astute point the Wall Street Journal noted when editorializing against the EFCA—the most heavily unionized private-sector industries such as airlines and Detroit automakers—have been shedding jobs. Unions have earned the reputation of providing short-term wage gains in exchange for long-term job insecurity— and that is a swap workers are not willing to make.

Enter the EFCA, which would do away with the messy secret-ballot process and instead lower the bar so that workers would be represented by a union if more than 50 percent of employees sign authorization cards. Employees would still be subject to home visits, only they would now be making their final decisions in the presence of union organizers and coworkers. Of course, if workers want to leave their union, they will find the EFCA is a one-way street.

It undermines democracy. American elections—from your 4th grade student council representative in which children put their heads on the desk to the election of the President—are done via secret ballot. EFCA spinsters will tell you that the current system is ripe for employer coercion. Ask yourself what better protects the sanctity of an election—a secret ballot or a public declaration in the physical presence of partisans.

Even worse, the EFCA is laden with clauses that would throw initial contract negotiations into arbitration.That would deny workers at a newly unionized company the right to vote on their first contract.

Given all this, it is no surprise that a Zogby poll found that 71 percent of union members do not want to see the secret ballot discarded. As noted, organized labor stopped being about labor and started being about politics and institutional protection long ago.

Saying this is the wrong message to send to Washington just doesn't seem sufficient.

October 02, 2007

The UAW's Awakening

Yours truly was on vacation toward the end of last week, but even in the far reaches of the desert, we received this column in Saturday's Wall Street Journal. The Journal hails the new agreement between the UAW and GM as another step forward in bringing union contract negotiations more in line with what is economically possible in a competitive global economy. The editorial writers also point out the same flaws in the modern labor movement we noted during our posts on the mistitled Employee Free Choice Act,

Our friends in the AFL-CIO often think we're too critical, but we're not responsible for taking union membership down to 7.4% of the non-government American labor force last year. (See nearby chart.) The reality of a dynamic world economy did that, assisted by the failure to adapt by union leaders and corporate managers. These columns support collective bargaining, and our belief has long been that if a company's workers vote to join a union, they and the company deserve what they get.

The problem with unions is not all that dissimilar to that posed by entrenched management: Once they win comfortable contracts, they often become impediments to the kind of innovation and flexibility essential to success in today's economy. So in the name of "job security," they undermine a company's--or a nation's--competitiveness. The result, over time, is less job security for everyone, especially the union workforce. There's no better example of this than GM, where the UAW now represents about 74,000 hourly workers, compared to 246,000 in 1994. Some security.

August 07, 2007

Agreeing to Agree Tonight in Chicago

Over on the Labor Pains blog, Bret sets the stage for tonight's anti-business demagoguery AFL-CIO's "debate" on Chicago's Soldier Field with several of the Democratic candidates for President. All of the candidates to appear publicly support the misleadingly-titled Employee Free Choice Act.

Maybe we'll hear something along the lines of what the head of the Postal Workers union told the Associated Press,

"I'm a believer and my union is a believer that we've got to wrest control from the capitalists from the Republicans, from their friends in the White House as well the Congress,'' (emphasis ours).

The love-fest begins at 7:00 p.m. tonight.

July 03, 2007

Down, But Not Out...Unfortunately

One of the toughest parts of working in public policy is that even the most misguided ideas never seem to completely disappear. That's what makes Richard Berman,  Executive Director of the Center for Union Facts, so accurate in his letter to The Examiner,

Secret ballot elections are still endangered, despite bill’s defeat

The death of the Employee Free Choice Act has been greatly exaggerated. The action in the Senate was simply a dress rehearsal for the real battle in 2009, when union leaders hope to have elected a new (and more compliant) president.

The truly frightening part is that a bill that would virtually eliminate secret ballot elections in the workplace made it to a floor vote in the U.S. Senate. Community and business leaders should spend time now educating the public on this anti-democratic bill, rather than waiting for union leaders to pick the time and place of the next fight.

Richard Berman

Executive director, Center for Union Facts

McLean

While Congress is now out of Washington for recess its July 4th district work period, be sure to tell your representative how important the secret ballot is to you in keeping the process of unionization as free from coercion as possible. The Employee Free Choice Act may be defeated, but big labor is sure to continue to push for its big kickback.

June 27, 2007

Well If You Don't Have Anything Nice To Say

Big Labor and its friends on Capitol Hill have been particularly rabid when it comes to the now-defeated Employee Free Choice Act. From the official Teamsters news release:

"Today’s vote shows us who is standing with workers and which politicians are in collusion with corporate America to destroy the middle class," said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa....

"The legal system that is supposed to protect workers is broken, and workers are paying a terrible price,” Hoffa said. “Corporations trample on workers with reckless disregard for the law and they must be stopped"

Well we haven't met the corporations who trample on workers with reckless disregard, but we do know that a majority of union households prefer to have unionization determined via secret ballot.

And here's what Senator Kennedy had to say to opponents of the bill,

June 26, 2007

Senate Rejects Card Check Bill

The US Senate just voted against "invoking cloture", effectively killing the deceptively-titled "Employee Free Choice Act". Sixty votes are required to end debate, and the cloture motion failed 51-48. Later this afternoon, we'll link to the roll call vote so you can see who cares - and who doesn't - about protecting the secret ballot in unionization drives.

The roll call vote is available here. In this case, a "NO" vote is a vote for the secret ballot and against the so-called Employee Free Choice Act.

June 22, 2007

Burden of Proof and Unionization

Yesterday, the Senate Labor Committee voted 3-0 (with one abstention) to advance legislation that will create an accounting nightmare for New Jersey businesses that are recipients of public funds.

S2701 prohibits non-union employers from using public funds to oppose unionization drives within their organizations. While the bill may have been drafted in response to public entities, such as Rutgers, engaging in such activities, the bill has much broader implications.

For example, hospitals in the state of New Jersey are required to provide "charity care" for the uninsured. Given this requirement, the state reimburses hospitals for part of their expense. The hospital is therefore the recipient of public funds. S-2701 requires the New Jersey hospital to prove that the money it received from the state is not the same money used in unionization drives. This could require separate bank accounts, limit intra-company transfer of funds and prevents the hospital from using its own money the way it sees fit.

CIANJ strongly opposes the legislation. A similar bill has already been passed in California and is currently being challenged in the US Supreme Court.

Cloture Vote on Employee Free Choice Act Set for Tuesday

The hopelessly-titled Employee Free Choice Act is scheduled for a cloture vote (which would end debate) on Tuesday. Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate on a bill. If not, the legislation is effectively halted. Over on the Kreitzman Mortensen & Borden Labor blog, they have a round-up of all the blog buzz surrounding the EFCA. Be sure to check it out.

As we noted yesterday, the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates an employee's right to a secret ballot and to vote on the first union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. There is still time for workers and business owners to contact Senators Lautenberg and Menendez and ask them to protect the secret ballot.

June 21, 2007

Today in Washington: Yea or Nea on Card Check

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to take a key vote today on the haplessly-titled Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would eliminate the guarantee of a secret ballot for workers considering unionization. Even AFL-CIO President John Sweeney acknowledges the bill does not have the necessary votes to "invoke cloture", but he is adamant about building momentum for card check in 2009. As if it'll be a better idea then.

Regular blog readers know the current system requires signatures of authorization cards before a union can represent a group of workers. Following acquisition of the signatures, the National Labor Relations Board administers an election via secret ballot. If 50% +1 of voters vote "Yes", the union represents all the workers at the bargaining table.

The trouble for unions is that they have been losing about 40% of their elections recently, and have been hemorrhaging membership overall. First they blamed the NLRB under President Regan, claiming it was slanted against unions. Ditto for George H.W. Bush's administration. Then with a favorable board under President Clinton, they blamed the bad economy. Then, amazingly, they blamed the good economy. Anything to get around the fact that people just weren't buying what the unions were selling.

The EFCA gets around that whole messy elections process. Now, if 50%+1 of workers sign authorization cards, all would be represented by a union. The trouble is workers have no guarantee of privacy when given their cards, and would be asked to sign them in the presence of their co-workers and union organizers. In some cases at the home of the worker (unions have the right to ask for the home address of each worker as part of an organizing drive). As you can imagine, the process wouldn't be without coercion.

What's worse, workers wouldn't even be guaranteed the right to vote on their first union-negotiated contract. The EFCA contains provisions that would send the first contract negotiations to arbitration if no deal can be worked out in two years.

The legislation won't pass today, and if it does, the President has vowed to veto it. Nevertheless we'll get a good chance to see who cares, and who doesn't, about a secret ballot this afternoon.

Also, ever timely, the General Assembly will vote on a resolution urging Congress to pass the EFCA and for the state to communicate that message to members of Congress. Great timing. Good thing for e-mail. 

Update: With the near-collapse of the energy bill, it is now unlikely the Senate will be able to consider the Employee Free Choice Act today.

June 13, 2007

End Game

Over on the fantastic EFCAUpdates blog (where there are whispers the Employee Free Choice Act could be acted upon this week), is a post focused on the mandatory arbitration aspect of the ill-titled legislation. Here at NJBusinessMatters we have been focusing on the fact the bill removes the secret ballot requirement of unionization. Also of great importance is the section of the EFCA that would increase the likelihood negotiations would turn into arbitration.

The EFCA sets a mandatory time frame for a newly-formed union to negotiate its first contract. If negotiations do not produce a contract, an arbiter would automatically be brought in. As evidenced in the post, this gives union representatives incentive to allow the negotiating process to be dragged out. From the perspective of the worker, not only would they no longer be given a secret ballot to form a union, they are also not guaranteed a vote on their first union-negotiated contract. Heck of a free choice.

As the EFCAUpdate authors explain in the case of DirecTV provider DirecTECH,

The fact is, unions don’t set wages. Neither do employers for that matter. In today’s system, wages are set by the labor market. DirecTECH’s pre-unionization wages were likely set at the level it deemed was necessary to attract and retain enough qualified workers to perform its customer’s installations. Sure, it might be able to attract or retain better qualified workers if it paid higher wages, but it is obviously satisfied with the applicant pool and turnover rate created by its current wage scale. Why should an arbitrator be empowered to order DirecTECH to pay more?

The employees, of course, can try to affect the labor market by withholding their labor and by encouraging others to do the same. If the employer feels that it has to pay more to service the customer, then it will either do so or go out of business. But the DirecTECH union apparently hasn’t gone on strike. It just wants the DirecTECH to “give” employees more money and dreams of the day when an arbitrator might order the company to pay above-market wages.

The issue then is where those above-market wages will come from. DirecTECH could raise its prices, but an arbitrator would not be able to order DirecTECH’s one and only customer to pay those higher prices. The customer would be free to find another company willing to perform the work at market rates. One might argue that the higher rates could simply be taken from the company’s profits, and that is true. But an arbitrator would not be able to order an investor to keep his or her capital in an enterprise that is not providing a desired rate of return. DirecTECH’s owners could simply decide to invest their money elsewhere.

Somewhere, somehow, the free market is going to exert its will on the process.

June 04, 2007

Freedom Without a Ballot

In Saturday's Boston Globe, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney lays out his case for supporting the misnomered Employee Free Choice Act.

Both you regular blog readers know that the EFCA is big labor's most recent attempt to stop the hemmoraging of their membership. First they blamed President Reagan and President Bush's National Labor Relations Board. Then under President Clinton, they blamed the bad economy. Then under President Clinton, they blamed the good economy.

Now, as spelled out in Saturday's Globe, the blame falls on American companies who, according to Sweeney, embark on all sorts of nasty intimidation tactics to get their way. I guess he didn't see the story on SEIU Local 49.

So once again we ask a simple question: What is the best way to avoid intimidation? We would argue that keeping a secret ballot, which is completed by an employee with no one else present, is the best remedy. Thankfully, the best proponents of the EFCA can hope for is to see their bill vetoed.

Labels: ,