Next, a 26 year old organizer can’t fire me or threaten me with my job. An employer can and often they do. To imply that majority sign up is this scary new system that will, all of a sudden, open workers to intimidation is ludicrous. It’s been used for decades and is proven to be less divisive. Also, there is plenty of coercion, intimidation and harassment going on right now. Only now, it’s frequently committed by the guy who signs the paychecks.

The original article lays out a rational explanation for which businesses would likely be affected by the Employee Free Choice Act. I think many of the people who have commented already have found that it’s harder to scare small and medium business owners with the facts. Especially in Virginia, companies that treat their workers with respect, pay fair wages and offer decent benefits are not the targets of this legislation. On the other hand, workers who are not treated with respect or compensated fairly benefit from forming a union and this bill evens the playing field for them. Because right now, the deck is stacked heavily against labor and towards management.

But all of this ignores the simple fact that our economy is in a tailspin and Big Business is fighting a piece of legislation that will help strengthen the middle class. The Employee Free Choice Act repairs a broken system and makes it easier for workers to bargain collectively for the wages and benefits they deserve.

“Under current National Labor Relations Board law, if an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act during an organizing campaign by using illegal tactics like firing workers as a result of their union activity, they are only required to post a letter of apology in the workplace.”

This is patent nonsense. Under Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA, if an employer fires a worker for union activity, the NLRB will issue an order that the worker be reinstated and given back pay. In fact, the vast majority of employers faced with a union campaign are afraid to say anything to employees for fear they will be misquoted and Unfair Labor Practice charges brought before the Board by the union. There are pros and cons to a union, and that information is vital to employee choice. The difficulty most employers have is getting their supervisors (who cannot be in the union) to talk to employees about those pros and cons, which is perfectly legal. Standard advice to an employer making speeches to employees is to obviously read the speech from a paper document. Standard language in the speech goes something like, “I’d love to be able to talk to you informally like I always have, but my lawyer says I have to read this speech so that no one can misquote me and claim I said something illegal” This represents the lengths most employers go to avoid being seen as coercing their employees. There were always exceptions, and those employers got stung by the Board and the courts.

It has long been the goal of unions in organizing campaigns to shut down an employer’s response to the organizing campaign. In the 70’s there was a movement to change the law to shorten the time period between the filing of the union’s petition and the election. Confusion caused by inadequate time to learn the facts was the friend of the union organizer. Thus, there developed a premium on consulting outfits or big law firms who were ready to descend on an employer with materials and advice this afternoon if they got a phone call this morning. Most times, when employees found out that the union promises were mostly ephemeral, they lost the election. Adequate time is the friend of the real knowledge and understanding and the enemy of confusion.

Our “friends” in Congress recently provided us a good example of this same idea. When the September bailout was precipitously passed, you will remember that it had to be done “Right now”, that secrecy surrounded the event, and the result was poor and uninformed. Democrats now want to apply that to union organizing. Employee elections at the request of either party have stood the test of time. Where a union is really needed because of a bad employer, the union can easily win an election. Where a campaign is the result of a few, very active, disgruntled employees who have been promised union stewardships by the union reps, other employees usually defeat the effort when they learn all the ins and outs of being in a union.

Organizers would not petition for an election with out 55 – 60% of the employees signing cards because they know that a signed card does not mean a vote for the union. I have seen first hand the intimidation factor used to get employees to sign cards and threats of viololance, burned vehicles, directed to those who oppose union supporters. If the employer questioned employees about their potential votes or even their thoughts and feelings about the union, the union would move quickly to have charges filed to invalidate the election process and have the NLRB require the company to bargain with 51% of employees signing cards.

If the playing field is truely to be leveled, the unions have to be held accountable for their promises made during organizing attempts with workers able to sue for breach of promise. The Supreme Court has ruled that uions are accountable for their promises because they have no power to make them come true yet false statements made by unions abound in union organizing drives. If the playing field is to leveled in the Free Choice Act then union decertification would only take a card signing process with 51% of employees saying they no longer want a union representing them instead of the secret ballot election process. How is it that card check is not seen as the best method in both directions if it is truely the fairest method available for workers to excersice theri rights?

The secret ballot is the only way for workers to safely and securely excersice their right to choose whether or not to be represented by a union. Bargaining is the only way to determine the best means to compensate and govern a workforce, not forced arbitration.

The premise that union representation is best for workers and for the country has not been borne out in reality. We only have to look at the major unionized industries to see the real affects of unions today. The american auto, steel,and heavy machinery industries that are becoming extinct in todays world economy, I am not saying that there aren’t serious issues and abuses that exist in businesses today. But, greater unionization and the Free Choice Act is not the answer to solving them.

The references that workers could be “corralled” as though they are animals insults the whole idea that these are human beings with the right to choose, a right they would still retain because as I mentioned, even in a unionized facility in Virginia employees can’t be forced to pay dues or maintenance fees to a union.

Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would keep quality, sustainable jobs (including those in Management positions) to the state which in turn would boost the economy. Higher wages, better benefits, job security–these are all items that union contracts can bring workers. It doesn’t sound like suffering to me.

Let’s stop the anti-worker machine because it’s been going for long enough. Support the Employee Free Choice Act now:
http://richmondjwj.org/freechoice

Second, anyone who knows the first thing about union organizing drives knows that union organizers enjoy a far higher success rate in campaigns to get “exclusive” bargaining privileges in small and medium-sized businesses than they do in large businesses. There’s no reason to believe this will change if the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” is passed, so many Virginia small businesses and their employees will certainly be targets of union organizers if it does.

Finally, as some commenters have already suggested here, even businesses that are never directly targeted by union organizing campaigns can be badly hurt when their in-state and out-of-state suppliers and customers are subjected to “exclusive” union bargaining and become less efficient and profitable as a consequence. Therefore, Virginia employers and employees of all kjnds will suffer if the “Employee Free Choice Act” becomes law.

Stan Greer
Newsletter Editor
National Right to Work Committee
Springfield, VA

Let’s revisit the key point that was addressed in the original article–when workers are treated fairly and provided the things they should be entitled to like benefits, etc. then they usually DON’T WANT A UNION! So my suggestion is that businesses step up and provide those things voluntarily because again—workers’ rights should be human rights and nothing less. The common thread we all have is the need for sustainable jobs. Frankly I’d rather see these arguments become productive conversatations about outsourcing and bringing jobs to the US. Workers keep the country running and the more we oppress them, the more the whole country suffers.

PASS THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT NOW!!!

EFCA will also significantly increase government involvement in business through forced binding arbitration. Under EFCA, if a business and a union don’t come to a labor agreement in 120 days then it will be referred to binding arbitration through a federal arbiter that will force a two year contract on the business. The idea that a federal bureaucrat will decide what a contract will include is really terrifying. It probably the only way the unions can kill a business faster than the union contracts killed the car business in Detroit.