Skip to main content

TomPaine.com - Labor Refutes Some 'Choice' Lies

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/15/labor_refutes_some_choice_lies.php


Labor Refutes Some 'Choice' Lies

Tula Connell
June 15, 2007



The Senate begins debate on the Employee Free Choice Act on Monday, with a cloture vote expected Wednesday. Unlike in the House, where the bill passed with a wide margin in March, the Senate fight will be tough, and the union movement is urging all members and allies to send an e-mail to their senators and urge them to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act, S. 1041. The act would give workers more options in forming unions and level the playing field that's now tilted largely toward the boss. In the Senate, Sen. Edward Kennedy has led the fight for the bill, which now has 46 other co-sponsors. (The full list is here .)

But lawmakers like Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., are fighting working families' efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. In May, union members met up with Coleman as he headed for a speaking engagement at the University of Minnesota campus. When workers asked him to support the Employee Free Choice Act, the senator said he could not back the proposed law. In his exchange with union members, Coleman repeated the incorrect canard that this act takes away the right to a secret ballot.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

"The proposed Employee Free Choice Act would force the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees based on signed authorizations obtained by union organizers."

The signed authorizations would be known to the union leaders. Non-signutors become candidate for harrassment - same difference.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
"The proposed Employee Free Choice Act would force the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees based on signed authorizations obtained by union organizers."

The signed authorizations would be known to the union leaders. Non-signutors become candidate for harrassment - same difference.



So are you saying this bill will not help the employee at all?
EXcerpt:

Why Majority Sign-Up? What's Wrong With 'Secret Ballot Elections'?

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/majoritysignup.cfm

Among Private-Sector Efforts to Form Unions

Employers that illegally fire at least one worker for union activity during organizing campaigns: 25%

Chance that an active union supporter will be illegally fired for union activity during an organizing campaign: 1 in 5

Employers that force employees to attend one-on-one meetings against the union with their own supervisors: 78%

Employers that force employees to attend mandatory closed-door meetings against the union: 92%

Companies that threaten to close the plant if the union wins the election: 51%


Cases in which the employer never agrees to a contract after workers succeed in forming a union: 1 in 3

Just filing a petition for an NLRB election generally triggers a bitter, divisive and
often lengthy campaign against pro-union employees designed to chill or destroy union support.

Management is allowed to bombard employees with anti-union messages anywhere, anytime in the workplace. Workers can only talk about the union while they’re on
breaks in the break room or before or after work. Union organizers have no right to set foot in the workplace.

Human Rights Watch, a respected international organization that investigates human rights abuses in 70 countries, has concluded that “freedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to exercise it.”

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×