Blogger "flyonthewall" offers a fine rebuttal to an Op-Ed in today's Daily News Record. The union busting stance of the editors is well-known and has been written about quite often as the vote in Congress concerning the The Employee Free Choice Act gets closer to a vote.
The Op-Ed writer, Julia Ciarlo Hammond, "is state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, Virginia’s leading small business association," and as such is a fervent supporter of the right to work laws, and very much against unions generally. Her point of view supports the notion that unions are "bad for business" and are essentially undemocratic, and don't do as well in preserving the rights of workers as businesses themselves do. Her use of buzz words and catch phrases continues the right wing onslaught against unions in their obvious goal of laying them low, forever.
[I recommend reading the Op-Ed before you dive into this rebuttal.] Here's Fly:
This op-ed lacks links to the relevant information and is misleading at least. I just don't see where the secret ballot is being removed from the current National Labor Relations Act. If someone has the facts to show differently, please provide that information.
"Struggling", "family-owned", "union bosses and their friends in Congress", "persuading", "dictate wages and benefits", "union intimidation", "stay in business", and quite a few other words are simple buzzwords to coerce and intimidate, just what some employers may do to employees who would like to be represented by a union. A fact check would reveal this occurs, just as a fact check would reveal that some union members may try to persuade.
Check the NLRB website for cases of "unfair labor practice" charges against both employers and unions. This occurs now under current regulations. This new amendment would increase penalties for both employers and unions for these unfair labor charges. It goes both ways and not more so to the employer. The NLRA does not include coverage for all workers. The public needs an education of labor laws and we are seeing "shouting" here, as Colin Powell would say.
Shout all you like, but provide the laws, regulations, rules, and policies to back up your shouting, otherwise what you say is irrelevant to those who are informed and misleading to those who simply listen to those who "shout" loud enough and long enough to make them believe what someone says is indeed true. If you simply hate unions, that is fine, but back up what you are shouting by pointing everyone to relevant information and facts.
This woefully misnamed bill would replace secret ballots with a process known as card check.
This is woefully a misleading statement. According to the current regulations Sec 108.18 "Investigation of petition", a "petition" or "signed cards" must be presented to the NLRB. Does the proposed Employee Free Choice Act remove this "investigation"? I don't see it being removed, as the new amendment states "the Board shall investigate the petition." Employees must sign their names and will be verified, along with many other requirements of this "investigation". There will be a "card check" for validity regardless if less than a majority present a petition or signed cards.
The current regulations require that at least 30% of the employees must sign a petition or card to trigger an "investigation of petition". The investigation will determine validity of signatures, along with other requirements of the NLRA before an election is determined appropriate. If the investigation meets the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act, a secret ballot will take place. Challenges to the election may take place and hearings may be held. Read the regulations and you will see there is a process that must be followed, offering appeals and many other obstacles to overcome.
With all the buzzwords in this op-ed, it is being made to appear that if a signed petition or cards are presented that show a majority, it is an automatic determination that a union will be certified. This is not true and the petition or signed cards of the majority must face scrutiny just as a petition or signed cards of 50% or more as evidenced in section 7 of the new amendment.
The current proposed Employee Free Choice Act amendment states "notwithstanding any other provision of this section", keeps in force the current regulations for an "Investigation of petition" and a secret ballot if less than a majority sign a petition or card. All this amendment does is remove the secret ballot if a majority have presented a signed petition or cards that must pass "Investigation of petition" under the current act and is simple common sense. Why hold a secret ballot when clearly a majority have already passed muster under the current "Investigation of petition" and a majority has already been determined?
Once the union had enough signatures, contract negotiations would begin.
This is a misleading statement. It should read Once the union had enough signatures, the National Labor Relations "Board shall investigate the petition" and verify "the validity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives," to be determined under section 7 of the new amendment by the NLRB for "investigation of petition", and then "shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)" if "a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes". The majority will be investigated and not simply assumed to be a majority.
The NLRA protects both employers and employees, yet this op-ed seems to imply differently with buzzwords attacking only unions and not employers, who also "persuade" employees by coercing, harassing, and intimidating, with threats to their livelihood by making threats to close down or fire employees. You will see many cases of this at the NLRB website and many employees returned to employment under order of the NLRB. I can see employer concerns and I give no credibility or am willing to listen to anyone who is so one sided and does not see that some things go both ways, such as being "persuaded" by big business bosses and their friends in Congress. See how them buzzwords work both ways, something this op-ed lacks. Can anyone back up what this op-ed implies, as I just don't see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment