President Obama told a town hall meeting yesterday in New Mexico that "there aren't enough votes in the Senate to get it passed," referring to the controversial Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), or what's known as "card check."
“There may be areas of compromise to get this bill done,” Obama said at a town hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “That’s what we’re working on.”
Filmmaker and radical liberal Michael Moore suggested months ago that the card check provision, which allows unionization through the collection of a majority of employees' signatures, could be jettisoned, and the bill would still accomplish its goal of strengthening unions.
Reason? Fines on employers (but not unions) would skyrocket, and employers would also have a gun held to their heads to cave into a contract within 90 days of unionization or have one crammed down their throats by an arbitrator.
In fact, card check may have been thrown into the bill just to assure passage through compromise of the other measures. Recent statistics show that unions win 67 percent of unionization votes, but that employers stall on the negotiations front so that only 56 percent of new unions ever get a signed contract. EFCA would solve that dilemma tidily for the unions.
My suggestion: Scrap the whole sorry piece of legislation and read this article on why unions already hold the advantage.
Showing posts with label unionization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unionization. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
EFCA Sponsor Says Card Check May Go Bye-Bye
Senator Tom Harkin, D.-Iowa, says compromise is in order to save the Employee Free Choice Act, specifying that the card check provision will no doubt have to be dropped.
“Compromises are going to be made,” said Harkin, 69. “It probably won’t be card check [as part of the final law], because too many people are opposed to it now.”
Card check allows organizers to unionize a company by merely getting 50-percent-plus-one of the employees to sign off on the idea. No election need be held, but the union (har de har har) could still ask for one. Business is unilaterally opposed to it, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling the EFCA "Armageddon."
(New York Governor David Paterson has already created card check in his state by fiat--executive order. Henceforth, all businesses receiving government assistance in just about any form in his state will be subject to card check unionization.)
Harkin said he's hoping that the compromise bill he's negotiating with fellow senators will win the "grudging support" of both labor and "some business."
For its part, labor says card check is non-negotiable and absolutely essential, and from the business side comes the stance that, even with card check gone, the EFCA is still Armageddonish with its binding arbitration provision.
The proposed law mandates a two-year binding contract be imposed if the company and union fail to agree upon a contract after 90 days of direct negotiations and another 30 days of mediation.
In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
Evidently not.
“Compromises are going to be made,” said Harkin, 69. “It probably won’t be card check [as part of the final law], because too many people are opposed to it now.”
Card check allows organizers to unionize a company by merely getting 50-percent-plus-one of the employees to sign off on the idea. No election need be held, but the union (har de har har) could still ask for one. Business is unilaterally opposed to it, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling the EFCA "Armageddon."
(New York Governor David Paterson has already created card check in his state by fiat--executive order. Henceforth, all businesses receiving government assistance in just about any form in his state will be subject to card check unionization.)
Harkin said he's hoping that the compromise bill he's negotiating with fellow senators will win the "grudging support" of both labor and "some business."
For its part, labor says card check is non-negotiable and absolutely essential, and from the business side comes the stance that, even with card check gone, the EFCA is still Armageddonish with its binding arbitration provision.
The proposed law mandates a two-year binding contract be imposed if the company and union fail to agree upon a contract after 90 days of direct negotiations and another 30 days of mediation.
In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
Evidently not.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Hostage-Taking Trumps Card Check Anyday
As is their wont, the French reject American culture while embracing and perfecting it, in their own inimitable way.
Take the example of unionization. France is widely unionized. You can hardly visit there without the garbage collectors or air traffic controllers or railway operators going on strike for this or that. They all work for publicly operated entities, which are in turn union strangled, oops, I mean controlled. Anyway, a one- or two-day strike makes for a nice little holiday, n'est-ce pas?
Here in the United States, we argue over card check and whether that should be allowed as the preferred option for union organizing.
In France, they don't argue--they take hostages.
The latest example comes from the Molex Inc. plant in Villemur-sur-Tam. Owners are threatening to close the plant and have been negotiating with the union, but the union smells a rat, sensing that Molex wants to shift operations to China.
Hence the logical thing to do is take two executives hostage until the company agrees to leave the equipment and workers all in place.
So far, this sounds like a Gallic version of the Republic Windows and Doors stand-off in Chicago of late last year. There, employees staged a sit-down until they got their severance packages.
In France, we'll just have to wait to see what happens.
Hostages are, however, treated civilly during these stand-offs. Last month, an executive held hostage at 3M was even treated to moules et frites (mussels and fries, a traditional dish) as a snack.
Like I said before, why check cards when you can just hold some hostages until you get what you want?
"Sign here to recognize our union, or we'll keep you hostage until you do" works faster than gathering all those signatures.
Take the example of unionization. France is widely unionized. You can hardly visit there without the garbage collectors or air traffic controllers or railway operators going on strike for this or that. They all work for publicly operated entities, which are in turn union strangled, oops, I mean controlled. Anyway, a one- or two-day strike makes for a nice little holiday, n'est-ce pas?
Here in the United States, we argue over card check and whether that should be allowed as the preferred option for union organizing.
In France, they don't argue--they take hostages.
The latest example comes from the Molex Inc. plant in Villemur-sur-Tam. Owners are threatening to close the plant and have been negotiating with the union, but the union smells a rat, sensing that Molex wants to shift operations to China.
Hence the logical thing to do is take two executives hostage until the company agrees to leave the equipment and workers all in place.
So far, this sounds like a Gallic version of the Republic Windows and Doors stand-off in Chicago of late last year. There, employees staged a sit-down until they got their severance packages.
In France, we'll just have to wait to see what happens.
Hostages are, however, treated civilly during these stand-offs. Last month, an executive held hostage at 3M was even treated to moules et frites (mussels and fries, a traditional dish) as a snack.
Like I said before, why check cards when you can just hold some hostages until you get what you want?
"Sign here to recognize our union, or we'll keep you hostage until you do" works faster than gathering all those signatures.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
H.R. 1355 Replicates EFCA Without Card Check
Introduced in the House of Representatives on March 5, the National Labor Relations Modernization Act (H.R. 1355) is like EFCA's little sister.
The main difference is that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) allows for instant unionization when a majority of employees sign a card--the infamous card check provision. What the Modernization Act calls for instead are elections within 30 days of 30 percent of the employees' having signed cards (can't get rid of those cards, huh?), which vastly speeds up the system now in place.
The House bill, introduced by Pennsylvania's Representative Joe Sestak, like EFCA mandates mediation on contract negotiations (if the union wins the election), but only after 120 days, not 90, and it then allows another 120 days to reach agreement on a contract, not the 30 under EFCA. Then if there is still no agreement, an arbitrator can dictate a contract that would prevail for 18 months, which is six months shorter than EFCA's provision.
Like EFCA, the Modernization Act stiffens penalties on employers for interfering in the election process or retaliating against employee organizers and advocates. It also gives the union equal access to employees prior to the election so the employees cannot be "brainwashed" by their employers.
The bill looks to stand little chance. It's languishing in the House Education and Labor Committee with no co-sponsors, but something like this may eventually see the light of law if Senators keep backing off EFCA.
The main difference is that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) allows for instant unionization when a majority of employees sign a card--the infamous card check provision. What the Modernization Act calls for instead are elections within 30 days of 30 percent of the employees' having signed cards (can't get rid of those cards, huh?), which vastly speeds up the system now in place.
The House bill, introduced by Pennsylvania's Representative Joe Sestak, like EFCA mandates mediation on contract negotiations (if the union wins the election), but only after 120 days, not 90, and it then allows another 120 days to reach agreement on a contract, not the 30 under EFCA. Then if there is still no agreement, an arbitrator can dictate a contract that would prevail for 18 months, which is six months shorter than EFCA's provision.
Like EFCA, the Modernization Act stiffens penalties on employers for interfering in the election process or retaliating against employee organizers and advocates. It also gives the union equal access to employees prior to the election so the employees cannot be "brainwashed" by their employers.
The bill looks to stand little chance. It's languishing in the House Education and Labor Committee with no co-sponsors, but something like this may eventually see the light of law if Senators keep backing off EFCA.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
China: Laboratory for EFCA-Style Unionization
Can't blame 'em. Business owners in China's manufacturing belt, their businesses up in smoke in the worldwide recession, are fleeing the country and leaving their workers high and dry--and yuan-less--rather than cope with China's restrictive labor laws.
Of course, you can also call them rats for absconding with their companies' loot while leaving their workforce with no money to survive on. China's recent Labor Contract Law supposedly protects workers from unannounced factory closings and loss of pay, but many owners have been doing an end run and disappearing.
To date, some 20 million migrant workers, who relocate from the provinces to work in factory-rich Guangdong Province and send money home to their families, are now unemployed.
Since all workers are unionized in China (but have no right to strike), the national union is fighting back, and so is the government.
"We will use all labor-related laws to help migrant workers keep their jobs in this difficult time," Zhang Mingqi, vice-chairman of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions said at the start of the National People's Congress (NPC) session.
Some owners were also hopeful that the government would not enforce the Labor Contract Law and other provisions, but that's not going to happen, evidently.
Xin Chunying, the deputy director of the legislative affairs commission of the NPC Standing Committee, said the Labor Contract Law will not be amended because of the current global economic downturn.
"The crisis has nothing to do with the law. We won't amend the law because of the downturn," she told a press conference of the ongoing NPC session Monday.
Anyway, all this looks eerily like what will happen in the United States if the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA--see yesterday's posting) passes. In a word, chaos. In two words, disappearing companies.
Of course, you can also call them rats for absconding with their companies' loot while leaving their workforce with no money to survive on. China's recent Labor Contract Law supposedly protects workers from unannounced factory closings and loss of pay, but many owners have been doing an end run and disappearing.
To date, some 20 million migrant workers, who relocate from the provinces to work in factory-rich Guangdong Province and send money home to their families, are now unemployed.
Since all workers are unionized in China (but have no right to strike), the national union is fighting back, and so is the government.
"We will use all labor-related laws to help migrant workers keep their jobs in this difficult time," Zhang Mingqi, vice-chairman of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions said at the start of the National People's Congress (NPC) session.
Some owners were also hopeful that the government would not enforce the Labor Contract Law and other provisions, but that's not going to happen, evidently.
Xin Chunying, the deputy director of the legislative affairs commission of the NPC Standing Committee, said the Labor Contract Law will not be amended because of the current global economic downturn.
"The crisis has nothing to do with the law. We won't amend the law because of the downturn," she told a press conference of the ongoing NPC session Monday.
Anyway, all this looks eerily like what will happen in the United States if the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA--see yesterday's posting) passes. In a word, chaos. In two words, disappearing companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
