The Employee Free Choice Act - what do you think?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

PRO

The Employee Free Choice Act

A growing, bipartisan coalition of policymakers supports the Employee Free Choice Act, proposed legislation that would ensure that workers have a free choice and a fair chance to form a union. Simply put, the Employee Free Choice Act will allow workers to once again choose to form unions without the fear of being fired.

The legislation would give workers a fair and direct path to form unions through majority sign-up, help employees secure a contract with their employer in a reasonable period of time, and toughen penalties against employers who violate their workers' rights.

Why is this bill so important? It's plain as day: workers are struggling in this country. Today's workplaces are tilted in favor of lavishly-paid CEOs, who get golden parachutes while middle-class families struggle to get by.

The Employee Free Choice Act can restore the balance, giving more workers a chance to form unions and get better health care, job security, and benefits – and an opportunity to pursue their dreams.

Corporate interests are fighting the Employee Free Choice Act with everything they've got. They're protecting the status quo – a rigged system which allows employers to intimidate, harass, and even fire workers who try to form a union. We're not talking about isolated incidents: 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers during union organizing drives.

Protecting the right to form unions is about maintaining the American middle class. It’s no coincidence that as union membership numbers fall there are growing numbers of jobs with low pay, poor benefits, and little to no security. More than half of U.S. workers—60 million—say they would join a union right now if they could.

Why? They know that coming together to bargain with employers over wages, benefits, and working conditions is the best path to getting ahead. Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union workers, and are 63 percent more likely to have employer-provided health care. Without labor law reform, economic opportunity for America’s working families will continue to erode.

CON

Employee Free Choice Act may increase economic uncertainty

Michael J. Lotito

Monday, December 8, 2008

The world economy is in turmoil. Detroit automakers are asking Congress for a bailout. And organized labor chimes in with a demand for Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act to save the day. According to the unions, implementing the act would stimulate the economy by allowing unions to organize workers more easily and share any largess of an economic stimulus package with the individual worker. Organized labor is mistaken.

The Employee Free Choice Act contains a mandatory arbitration provision that has received little attention. This arbitration provision presents economic concerns that run contrary to labor's assertions that the bill would rehabilitate the economy.

The bill would permit a government-appointed third party - who has no stake in an employer's business or any understanding of the company's inner workings - to impose a binding two-year collective bargaining agreement upon a company.

A quick review of history shows why this is a bad idea. In Canada, all 10 provinces once operated under a law similar to the Employee Free Choice Act. Today, that law has been abolished in all but four provinces. Recently, an arbitrator in one of the Canadian provinces still operating under the free-choice-act-like law increased wages by 33 percent. The company eliminated jobs. Basic labor economics show that when jobs are eliminated, unemployment (supply) increases and wages elsewhere (demand) decrease.

Under the Employee Free Choice Act, an arbitrator may increase wages. Labor claims that an increase in wages would be good for the economy. This is true only if the employer can afford to pay them. Let us not repeat the Canadian experiment.

...

In addition to possibly eliminating jobs, companies may be forced to raise their prices. Worse, because being subject to Employee Free Choice Act's arbitration provisions seems so onerous, businesses may move or open operations overseas that they otherwise would have opened in the United States.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hell yes!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hell yes!

What are your thoughts on the second article I posted? Specifically, the Canadian example.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hell yes!

What are your thoughts on the second article I posted? Specifically, the Canadian example.

Scaremonger BS. It's the same BS argument against raising the minimum wage. The statistics show that the economy improves whenever the minimum wage has been increased.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hell yes!

What are your thoughts on the second article I posted? Specifically, the Canadian example.

Scaremonger BS. It's the same BS argument against raising the minimum wage. The statistics show that the economy improves whenever the minimum wage has been increased.

It's scaremonger BS because you say it is?

A little substance would be nice.

[alienlovechild 75]

The Employee Free Choice Act doesn't allow for a secret ballot allowing for intimidating employees by union goons. If yhou never worked in a factory, would probably wouldn't get it.

It will also speed up sending jobs overseas. It only benefits union big wigs who want more dues paying members.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Employee Free Choice Act doesn't allow for a secret ballot allowing for intimidating employees by union goons.

I have heard some harrowing stories from legacy AT&T employees who had 'encounters' with 'union goons' when AT&T was in turmoil in the 80s. I believe you.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Hell yes!

What are your thoughts on the second article I posted? Specifically, the Canadian example.

Scaremonger BS. It's the same BS argument against raising the minimum wage. The statistics show that the economy improves whenever the minimum wage has been increased.

which reminds me, when did cali vote in that minimum wage increase?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hell yes!

What are your thoughts on the second article I posted? Specifically, the Canadian example.

Scaremonger BS. It's the same BS argument against raising the minimum wage. The statistics show that the economy improves whenever the minimum wage has been increased.

It's scaremonger BS because you say it is?

A little substance would be nice.

Sorry. I was multitasking.

The central argument is that if regular employee wages are raised arbitrarily, that it will be to the demise of the company. This is age old argument but one that lacks consistency when you look at executive pay increases. IMO, leaving regular employee wages entirely up to market forces (labor supply and demand) then most often, the regular employees get the short end of the stick. Those factors should come into play, but so should cost of living, etc.. I'm not a labor negotiator, so I'm not sure exactly how the arbitration process works, but cheap labor shouldn't be the bottom line to a company's profitability.

[Heracles 417]

Wages are not the issue when it comes to unions. It is the fact that unions get to set the rules. Most companies realize you get what you pay for. You cannot pay minimum wage and expect to deliver a high quality product. Any company with a bottom dollar mentality might as well move to China.

Have a look at schemes such as jobs bank from the UAW where workers got paid up to 95% of their wage once dismissed for two years. It is this sort of ####### that bankrupted various companies. Anyone ever seen union contracts, they can be hundreds of pages thick. How the hell are we expected to compete with the rest of the world when management has to waste time dealing with unions.

Fair wages need to be legislated federally so it is a level playing field for all state. Otherwise if California increases the minimum wage to $12, companies will just shift their operations to another state. Which is basically what happened to the Midwest. A company would have to be stupid to setup a plant in a highly unionized state.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hell yes!

What are your thoughts on the second article I posted? Specifically, the Canadian example.

Steve be lookin for a.............................

[jundp 191]

I am not pro-union. I think in theory unions are a brilliant idea, however, the reality is that often companies end up getting screwed by employees who are too lazy to do what is required of their profession but there is no recourse because the employee is walking the line of the rules as set up by the union. Maybe lazy isn't the right word. Sometimes, from what I have seen, the unions end up "protecting" its members to the detriment of the company or other workers. I don't see how this is a good thing.

[Heracles 417]

The thing about unions is that if their theories and methods are so feasible, why do they not setup a company themselves. After all we are a free market where they too can open up a company and run it however they please. Instead, they prefer to tell everyone else how to run it.

This is not the 1920's where companies can get away with exploiting their workers. On the other hand, if unions what to complain about something they should complain about the millions of illegal immigrants who are driving down, suppressing, wages as they work bellow the table. I know the unions downunder are quite proactive with it. Hence why blue collar workers can earn up to $150K, with ease.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am not pro-union. I think in theory unions are a brilliant idea, however, the reality is that often companies end up getting screwed by employees who are too lazy to do what is required of their profession but there is no recourse because the employee is walking the line of the rules as set up by the union. Maybe lazy isn't the right word. Sometimes, from what I have seen, the unions end up "protecting" its members to the detriment of the company or other workers. I don't see how this is a good thing.

Just as companies get bilked by the millions by incompetent executives. Unions cannot supercede the authority of the company itself. What they do is provide a bargaining option that regular workers do not have if the company can easily replace them.

[Heracles 417]

Just as companies get bilked by the millions by incompetent executives. Unions cannot supercede the authority of the company itself. What they do is provide a bargaining option that regular workers do not have if the company can easily replace them.

The fate of a company falls on the shoulders of executives. Whereas what responsibility does a union worker have? They go to work then go home. If the company fails, it is not on their shoulders. They don't have to figure out how to generate a profit, keep people employed or develop a breakthrough new product.

Then, lets not even mention the $100k broom pushers the UAW protects. In 2009 unions simply have no place in a post industrial economy. Countries like China on the other hand, they need unions.

As I said before, the biggest threat to unions and blue collar workers in America is the millions of illegal immigrants who are still employed here. When a business has a choice between a $50 per hour union worker or a $8 off the books illegal immigrant, who do you think they will choose. Until that is sorted out, we can demand they pay people $500 an hour but a business will still pick an illegal immigrant because they can.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Aficionado