Union Organizers Hope House Bill Will Reinvigorate Unions

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256225,00.html

Union Organizers Hope House Bill Will Reinvigorate Unions

Friday, March 02, 2007

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — Congress is one step closer to helping unions organize easier and faster in the workplace — a move that has many Republicans and business interests girding for a fight and the White House threatening a veto.

By a 241-185 vote Thursday, the House passed a bill to modify the National Labor Relations Act to allow employees to bypass a secret ballot election and instead unionize by gathering "check cards" with signatures from a majority of employees in the workplace.

The bill, called the "Employee Free Choice Act of 2007," would be the most significant change in the law since 1947, labor experts say. It would also impose stiffer penalties on employers who violate union protections under the law, and force contract negotiations into binding arbitration if the employer fails to agree on a contract with a newly formed union within 90 days.


Striking Goodyear workers picket outside plant, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Unions and their supporters behind the act hailed Thursday's vote as a victory for the middle class.

"There emerged in the last election a critique on the economy — people said they want the economy to work better for the average American. This is the centerpiece," said Stewart Acuff, national organizing director for the AFL-CIO, the largest umbrella union in the country, with 10 million affiliated members in its ranks. "The government can't mandate a middle class, but it can create a climate for it to expand."

But the prospect of new rules making it easier for unions to gain a foothold in the workplace has sent a shockwave through mostly Republican ranks in Congress, as well as the pro-business community outside. Despite the 230 co-sponsors — seven of them Republican — on the House measure, critics insist that changing the way employees can vote for a union is not popular with ordinary workers.

"This bill is bad for America and Americans don't want it," said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., in a statement Wednesday.

"I just think this is a wrong-headed approach," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., who serves on the House Committee on Education and Labor. He said the bill is being pushed by big labor interests seeking to pump up declining union membership.

"The really amazing thing about this, is we all know — as Americans — the value of the secret ballot," he told FOXNews.com. "They (members of Congress) are yielding to pressure from big labor."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is expected to introduce similar legislation in coming days in the Senate where observers expect more serious resistance from Republicans. President Bush has said he will veto the measure if it makes it to his desk.

Critics say this is a fight over the time-honored "secret ballot," and charge that the new card check scheme will leave rank-and-file members open to aggressive recruitment tactics by the unions.

FULL story at link.

[GrantDem]

1. Unfortunately it will probably meet a filibuster...

in the Senate. This bill is exactly what is needed to overhaul a grossly flawed process. This legislation will actually alleviate aggressive tactics by making organizing fair and eliminating the aggressive tactics of company officials and hired "consultants".

[dkofos]

2. WIll it get thru the Senate??

Or will they filibuster this one too??

[rmgarrette64]

3. Filibuster

I'm afraid I have no doubt at all on this point. It will not get through the Senate.

I'm not even that sure it should. I thought this bill was a very bad idea early on. Some other DUers pointed me at some of the abuses of the current law, and I admit there are problems. But in the end, I still don't think this law is the right way to correct employers' abuses. Let's say we turn it around. Should employers be able to end a union by the same type of card check this law lets start one?

An actual ballot is still the right thing to do. We need a better solution to fix employer pressure than this. And, I might add, we need to be aware of Union pressuring employees also (my sister's experience with a Union was largely negative, and is probably a large part of my initial strong opposition to this law.)

R. Garrett

[dkofos]

4. People should not be intimidated for any reason, but

especially not for wanting to join a union and be represented.

They do vote for their own union reps, so they should have no one to
blame but themselves when they are poorly represented. And I know it happens.
People equate voting with popularity contests. When you do that you get
poor representation, just like political elections, (see GWBush)

[Omaha Steve]

5. I agree with Obama see my other post

From the article this post is about.

But supporters balk at this, saying the "Employee Free Choice Act" protects workers from hostile management practices that fight — sometimes illegally — to prevent unions from forming at all.

Right now, when employees want to form a union, they have to get a petition signed by a majority of employees and present it to the employer. If the management wants to, it can accept the union immediately as long as a majority of employees sign check cards and 30 percent of them agree to bypass the secret ballot.

If not, the employer can pursue a secret ballot election, the date of which is determined by the National Labor Relations Board. Acuff said most employers prefer to set a date for elections, buying time to thwart the union, especially when it's clear a majority of employees want to unionize.

"(The election date) is usually six weeks to two months or even six months to a year — that's time enough for the employer to run its intimidation and retaliation campaign. It should not be like that," Acuff said.

The bill that passed the House Thursday would take the decision out of the employers' hands and allow for check card unionization all of the time, if that is what the employees want.

[enough already]

6. This will never see the light of day in the Senate

Fucking nazis.

[ddeclue]

7. Except it will be filibustered to death in the Senate or vetoed by the Bush admin

or the Labor Department will see to it that it is meaningless via one of Bush's signing statements.

Doug D.