Been hearing a lot about this the last few months. It is even the topic of a McConnell / Lundsford Ad.

 

EFCA basically says that if 50%+1 employees sign a union card then they are unionized and the union now represents them. No vote is held, no discussion of the issues, nothing. It is a done deal. It has already cleared the house and is currently hung up in the Senate. What do BGP'ers think of the EFCA?

 

Atlanta Journal Constitution Story

Been hearing a lot about this the last few months. It is even the topic of a McConnell / Lundsford Ad.

 

EFCA basically says that if 50%+1 employees sign a union card then they are unionized and the union now represents them. No vote is held, no discussion of the issues, nothing. It is a done deal. It has already cleared the house and is currently hung up in the Senate. What do BGP'ers think of the EFCA?

 

Atlanta Journal Constitution Story

 

Not only No, but heck No.

No but only because it takes away the option of a secret ballot election . That is an American tradition that we must not lose .

ABSOLUTELY no.

Not only No, but heck No.

Pretty much my thoughts on it as well.

I thought the name of this was odd...Employee Free Choice Act. If I don't want the union where is my free choice?

From my understanding of labor law, I have to agree with the rest: no.

Absolutely no.

I knew there would eventually be something we could agree on...

As much as I support the unions, one does have the right to not be in one.

No. Another fine example of a poorly titled piece of legislature.

How in the world could anyone support something like that?

Our elected officials at work. Oh my. This is exactly why I despise politics. I vote in every election because I believe it is my duty. But these bufoons in DC don't have a clue.

As much as I support the unions, one does have the right to not be in one.

 

Actually, one does not necessarily have the right not to be in one. The current law is that if there is a secret vote with a majority voting in favor of the union, all employees in the unit MUST join the union and pay union dues. You can't opt out even if you voted against the union.

 

What this proposed law does is replace the secret vote with the simple signing of a card. Lots of pressure gets placed on workers to sign the cards (which are now used simply to indicate enough interest to mandate the election). Its not all that unusual to have a lower percent of the workers vote for the union than signed the cards indicating they wanted there to be a vote.

 

Part of that is because after there has been a decision that a vote will be held, the company has the right to "run a campaign" as to why the voters shouldn't vote for the union (the labor laws put a lot of limitations on what they can say and what they can't). Some workers, now braced with that information, no longer are in favor of a union. But from my experience, a bigger reason why workers will sign the card indicating that they are in favor of a vote and then vote against the union is the amount of pressure placed on them by the union organizers to sign the card. If they don't sign the card, every one knows about it. Workers worry about retribution. If they don't sign the card and the vote goes forward and the union is approved, life can be pretty miserable for those that refused to sign the cards. This bill would eliminate the secret ballot.

 

As KyTmcNcc stated, the secret ballot election must remain in place.:thumb:

I would love to hear the two people that have voted yes explain their rationale.