PDA

View Full Version : Employee Free Choice Act-an as I go blow by blow account of the AFL-CIO support



KCornett
11-27-2008, 09:49 AM
I was perusing DU again today, ( I am deployed... not much else to do, even on Thanksgiving) and I found the thread about CNN firing 110 "Union Employees." The OP went on in his/her rant that this is just one more reason to pass the EFCA. I am mostly unfamiliar with the tennants of this act, so I googled it.

I found this page http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/ Now obviously, that site is going to be biased; and it points out that pretty much anyone who opposes this act is nothing more than Anti-Union scum.

So, accepting that this is an obviously biased ( I mean it is AFL-CIO after all) site I click the "10 Key facts link"
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/10keyfacts.cfm

The first fact:

Some 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could, based on research conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in December 2006. But when workers try to gain a voice on the job by forming a union, employers routinely respond with intimidation, harassment and retaliation.

It is interesting to me that they do not link or publish the research/study that supposedly supports the position. So I am off to google again. I can't find the study so I look the company webpage and find the client list...


Robert Byrd (WV)
Bob Casey, Jr. (PA)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Richard Durbin (IL)
Russ Feingold (WI)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Bernie Sanders (VT)
Chuck Schumer (NY)

Governors
Steve Beshear (KY)
Rod Blagojevich (IL)
Phil Bredesen (TN)
Mike Easley (NC)
Brad Henry (OK)
Martin O'Malley (MD)

U.S. Representatives
Lois Capps (CA-23)
Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Bud Cramer (AL-5)
John Dingell (MI-16)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)
Baron Hill (IN-9)
Mazie Hirono (HI-2)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Doris Matsui (CA-5)
David Obey (WI-7)
Bill Pascrell, Jr. (NJ-8)
Earl Pomeroy (ND)
David Price (NC-4)
John Spratt (SC-5)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-8)

Political Organizations
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Democratic National Committee
EMILY's List
Indiana Democratic Party


This list, in addition to having the labor unions as clients leads me to believe that the research would be disingenuous at best.
All this information is available from the Peter D. Hart Research Associates website page that list their clients. http://www.hartresearch.com/clients/index.html

So far 10% of their facts are questionable, at best.

Moving on to "Fact # 2"
Employers routinely block efforts to form unions...
Well, no shit sherlock! I didn't know that they weren't allowed to try to convince the employees that they are in fact better off without the unions?

Ok, Ok, aside from that; lets look at the information that is provided there ( I am typing this as I read the pages, so these are my 'real time' reactions to this stuff.


Cornell University scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner studied hundreds of organizing campaigns and found that:

*Ninety-two percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; 80 percent require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions; and 78 percent require that supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee.
*Seventy-five percent hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, often based on mass psychology and distorting the law.
*Half of employers threaten to shut down partially or totally if employees join together in a union.
*In 25 percent of organizing campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because they want to form a union.
*Even after workers successfully form a union, in one-third of the instances, employers do not negotiate a contract

First, I had never heard of this "Cornell University Scholar before" So google became my friend once more.

Whoa... first hit is Director for Labor Education. Well, it wouldn't appear that she has an axe to grind would it? (http://www.google.com/search?q=Kate+Bronfenbrenner&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1)

Ok... I clicked on a couple of links in the google search, and I will let you do the same to determine veracity of her research. I know, I know the message not the messenger right... but when the messenger has an agenda, can one really trust that the message was not corrupted?

Moving on (no pun intended.)


Get the facts in a one-page flier: Employer Interference—by the Numbers.
Report: Impact of Republican-Appointed Judges: The Courts of Appeals’ Mistreatment of Union and Worker Success Before the NLRB.
Read the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights report on the Employee Free Choice Act (PDF).
Why majority sign-up? What's wrong with "secret ballot elections"?
Out Front with John Sweeney: Management-Controlled Balloting.
AFL-CIO Now blog: Here’s What NLRB 'Elections' Really Mean.
Firedoglake weblog: These Elections Aren’t Democratic.
Elections—NLRB Style.
Learn about recent National Labor Relations Board decisions and how they could affect your freedom to join a union.
Read Human Rights and Workers' Rights in the United States (2005) by Lance Compa, author of the 2000 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report.
Learn more about Voice@Work, the campaign to restore all workers’ freedom to form unions.
See what you can do if you’re punished for supporting a union.
Download the AFL-CIO issue brief, The Silent War: The Assault on Workers’ Freedom to Choose a Union and Bargain Collectively in the United States.
Read a summary or download the full HRW report, Unfair Advantage: Workers’ Freedom of Association in the United States Under International Human Rights Standards.
Ah yes, the old union circular logic of using union propaganda to support union positions. Gotta love it.

So that is 20% of their reasoning shot to hell. Shall we go for 30?
Fact #3

The Employee Free Choice Act would give workers a fair chance to form unions to improve their lives by:

*Allowing them to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.
Providing mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes (PDF).
Establishing stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations

Man o man... The bolded reason is a big one! I thought democracy was about secret ballot. The strong arm unionization tactics are bad enough when it is secret ballot, imagine the retaliation that the union thugs would dish out if they KNOW you didn't sign the card. Me thinks that this is just plain ol' bad mojo.
No, I think that this is reason enough to destroy this bill. As soon as I finish this, I am going to fire off letters to all my elected officials telling them just exactly how bad an idea this is. I also intend to send a link to this post to anyone and everyone that I can think of so that they too can begin the campaign to kill this.

Well, in my opinion there is 30% of their reasoning down the drain.

ahemFact # 4
LMAO this is what they call widespread bipartisan support!LMAO, I guess that they mean that the democrats all over the country and about 4 republicans liked this bill. Sorry, I now have to clean coffee off of my keyboard from laughing when I read the list (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/cosponsors_110.cfm)


Yeppers, you guessed it, they are now 40% Full of Shit

fact #5

More than three-quarters of Americans—77 percent—support strong laws that give employees the freedom to make their own choice about whether to have a union in their workplace without interference from management (PDF).

Well, I could buy that argument, to an extent. But I have to wonder what they consider interference. And of course, it would truly have to be freedom of choice, and card check is no way to guarantee that.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt without having read the PDF they have at the link, as I am sure it is from an honest and trustworthy, unbiased source.


Fact #6

Allowing working people to choose for themselves whether to have a union is the key step toward rebuilding America’s middle class. Union membership brings better wages and benefits and a real voice on the job (PDF). It’s no accident that the 25-year decline in workers’ wages in our country has paralleled a 25-year slide in the size of the America’s unions

Well, this is completely anecdotal, but I am sure that others could back up the story, or that there is research that supports it...
Other nurses at the hospital where my wife at one time worked, decided that they wanted the CNA (California Nurses Association) to represent them in collective bargaining. After a much heated battle and many dirty tricks by the CNA (including intimidation of my wife) The union won 300-200 vote that they described as a landslide. The CNA negoiated a contract that had my wife making less, paying more for crappier benefits and on top of that had to pay 88 bucks a month in Union dues. Not to mention the fight that ensued when she tried to get them to return the "political monies" that she wanted back. So I call BS on this one too.
The count thus far 50% bogus and 10% questionable. Not looking good for the unions.

KCornett
11-27-2008, 09:53 AM
Part II

Fact #7

The Employee Free Choice Act would put democracy back into the workplace. Majority sign-up would ensure the decision whether to form a union was made by majority choice, not by the employer unilaterally.

More Coffee on the screen and keyboard. I think that they mean to say"We would have free reign to terrorize those that did not sign their cards, until they in fact and break down and sign it."
And it is a repeat of one of the earlier "facts."

Er no... 60% Utter BS so far.

Fact #8

Workers can still vote under the Employee Free Choice Act. At any time, if 30 percent of the workers want an election, they can have one. And once they have a union, workers also vote to elect their union representatives Um, how about if ONE person wants a secret ballot election; they have one.
How would you like to be one of the individuals that has to stand up against the thugs in the union. ( I think that I would relish it, but that is easy for me to say from the safety of the middle east and behind a keyboard)

70% Bull Malarchy. So far...

Fact # 9

The Employee Free Choice Act has the support of hundreds of respected organizations and individuals—major religious denominations, academics and civil and human rights groups and others.
I clicked the link... Guess what. Labor organizations and Labor supporters support this bogus bill. Wow. Go figure. Also, the referenced the PDF from the one I gave them the benefit of the doubt on.. So I am checking that out now...
Ok, [url=I http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/EFCA_Polling_Summary.pdfread this PDF[/url] ... there is no references, there is no sourcing or footnotes, and the 69% support figure includes "somewhat supports" and "strongly supports." I am willing to bet that if you left out the card check measure that there would be a far greater number that strongly support this bill. But if you did that, there would be little or no point in actually advancing this lesigslation.
I have to call BS on both "fact" 9 and the one that I previously gave them the benefit of the doubt on. That brings the tally to 90% BS.

Fact # 10

The AFL-CIO union movement is working in many ways to restore good jobs, health care and retirement security—but passing the Employee Free Choice Act is our top priority because we cannot create balance for working people or rebuild the middle class unless workers genuinely have the freedom to form unions for a better life.

That is BS and should be changed to read " People understand more and more that we do not need powerful political unions anymore and unless we get this bill passed, we are going to fade away and we will have to find honest work."

So in my analysis their factsheet is 100% Bullshit and is worth nothing more than using to wipe one's ass with.

Thanks for reading.

Cornett

Constitutionally Speaking
11-27-2008, 12:04 PM
Unions are DESTROYING the middle class. They are one of the PRIMARY reasons companies are moving their production offshore.

Take a look at EVERY industry where foreign competition is a factor and where unions are/were strong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those industries are shells of their former selves - IF they exist here in the US at all any more.

KCornett
11-27-2008, 02:27 PM
Unions are DESTROYING the middle class. They are one of the PRIMARY reasons companies are moving their production offshore.

Take a look at EVERY industry where foreign competition is a factor and where unions are/were strong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those industries are shells of their former selves - IF they exist here in the US at all any more.


I agree. That is why we have to get folks started writing to their congress critters post haste and do our
level best to prevent this from being passed.

Gingersnap
11-27-2008, 02:44 PM
They are trying to force us to join unions where I work.

I look forward to upcoming class action lawsuit I will be joining instead. :cool:

RobJohnson
11-28-2008, 01:48 AM
I was perusing DU again today, ( I am deployed... not much else to do, even on Thanksgiving) .

Thank you for your service.

Great topic also.

KCornett
12-14-2008, 08:16 AM
Ok,

The DUmmies have a memo that they think is going to cause the masses to swell with support for unions; and they do intend to try and ram this through when Obama takes office (EFCA). Please, I beg of you all, spread the word, show the country that unions are going to end up being the nail in the coffin of our country.

AmPat
12-15-2008, 02:34 AM
Part II

>>>>Snipped for brevity<<<<<<<<<<<<

So in my analysis their factsheet is 100% Bullshit and is worth nothing more than using to wipe one's ass with.
Thanks for reading.

Cornett
Good post and research. I don't have that kind of time right now but wish I did.
The statement in bold is debatable; What paper was it printed on?:D

KCornett
10-16-2009, 02:02 PM
I have not heard much about this lately with the healthcare "reform" uhh "debate" going in to full steaming pile mode....

Has anyone heard anything on this recently?

patriot45
10-16-2009, 02:13 PM
I have not heard much about this lately with the healthcare "reform" uhh "debate" going in to full steaming pile mode....

Has anyone heard anything on this recently?

This is still a biggy with them. Malkin has a bit about it in her column today, here (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/10/16/an_acorn-friendly,_big_labor-backing,_tax-and-spend_radical_in_gop_clothing?page=full&comments=true), its on the second page.

They owe this to thier union benifactors! They won't give up!

fettpett
10-16-2009, 06:13 PM
first hand experiance that Unions are nothing more than money sucking, power hungry do nothings. all they did was keep people that don't deserve to keep their jobs there and people that worked hard didn't give a damn about, expeically if the stuarts didn't like you. take the money out of your pocket (mine was $60 a month) cause animosity between Labor and the Employees. and it costs the company more money in the long run, giving up your ablity to negoiate your own salary is giving up your freedom.

RobJohnson
10-18-2009, 02:57 AM
first hand experiance that Unions are nothing more than money sucking, power hungry do nothings. all they did was keep people that don't deserve to keep their jobs there and people that worked hard didn't give a damn about, expeically if the stuarts didn't like you. take the money out of your pocket (mine was $60 a month) cause animosity between Labor and the Employees. and it costs the company more money in the long run, giving up your ablity to negoiate your own salary is giving up your freedom.

There are a few companies that ended up with unions because they deserved them, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Where I work, they have kept the wages higher, to keep the unions out, so I guess I actually benefit from unions. :D

PoliCon
10-18-2009, 08:04 AM
In my experience unions protect the inept - pursue political agenda's I do NOT agree with - and represent the interests of the union bosses and not the members. Unions serve a purpose - if they are SMALL. But the bigger the union the lest they serve the purpose and the more they serve their own interests.

AmPat
11-03-2009, 07:04 PM
In my experience unions protect the inept - pursue political agenda's I do NOT agree with - and represent the interests of the union bosses and not the members. Unions serve a purpose - if they are SMALL. But the bigger the union the lest they serve the purpose and the more they serve their own interests.
Unions had their use and purpose before laws protecting workers were enacted. Unions have evolved from useful organizations to being the very problem with American business. They need to go, ask Govenment Motors.:cool:

PoliCon
11-03-2009, 10:46 PM
Unions had their use and purpose before laws protecting workers were enacted. Unions have evolved from useful organizations to being the very problem with American business. They need to go, ask Govenment Motors.:cool:

I think unions can be effective STILL - provided they are SMALL and the bosses are unpaid.

patriot45
11-03-2009, 10:54 PM
I think unions can be effective STILL - provided they are SMALL and the bosses are unpaid.

What does that mean? If they are small? Like a union cares about small fries! Unions think big and are big! There is no use for unions anymore, they can only be effective to ruin a business!

PoliCon
11-03-2009, 10:55 PM
What does that mean? If they are small? Like a union cares about small fries! Unions think big and are big! There is no use for unions anymore, they can only be effective to ruin a business!

they can work as I said - if they are small. In house - singe shop - kinda deals.

patriot45
11-03-2009, 10:58 PM
they can work as I said - if they are small. In house - singe shop - kinda deals.

Again, I don't follow. Single shop? I have a single shop, I wouldn't want it unionized. Where and how would it be benificial? Expound.

PoliCon
11-03-2009, 11:06 PM
Again, I don't follow. Single shop? I have a single shop, I wouldn't want it unionized. Where and how would it be benificial? Expound.

Ideally? It would save you trouble by having them self police - set agreed upon standards for pay raises and advancement - etc.

patriot45
11-03-2009, 11:12 PM
Ideally? It would save you trouble by having them self police - set agreed upon standards for pay raises and advancement - etc.

So. I and my employees would give them free reign to dictate to us how the shop should be run and how I should base my pay scale? Shouldn't all that be left to the business owner and not an outside party? Under a union plan, which basically is not looking out for me, would more than likely handcuff me to make dire choices!

PoliCon
11-03-2009, 11:14 PM
So. I and my employees would give them free reign to dictate to us how the shop should be run and how I should base my pay scale? Shouldn't all that be left to the business owner and not an outside party? Under a union plan, which basically is not looking out for me, would more than likely handcuff me to make dire choices!

No - it would be something agreed upon between you and them.

patriot45
11-03-2009, 11:17 PM
No - it would be something agreed upon between you and them.

So basically, there really is no use for them! I can agree on pay and working conditions myself, and have been. Why would I , or my employees want a third party in there with there own agenda? There is no use for them except to hurt a business.

PoliCon
11-03-2009, 11:21 PM
So basically, there really is no use for them! I can agree on pay and working conditions myself, and have been. Why would I , or my employees want a third party in there with there own agenda? There is no use for them except to hurt a business.

Damn it man - that's the point - it wouldn't be a third party if it's contained completely IN HOUSE! lol

patriot45
11-03-2009, 11:28 PM
Damn it man - that's the point - it wouldn't be a third party if it's contained completely IN HOUSE! lol

So, in effect, I would be the union, or my guys can form a union!?! Either way it would be status quo, what I say goes, and that is usually in thier favor. So we will just call it a single shop without a union!

I think I kinda understand what you are getting at. But I am of the mind that an owner of a busines, if he wants to stay in business, he has to be effective not only in competitive pricing for his products, but for treating and paying his employees competitively. If I don't do both, I will lose sales and would lose employees to a less regulated shop.

RobJohnson
11-04-2009, 02:25 AM
Damn it man - that's the point - it wouldn't be a third party if it's contained completely IN HOUSE! lol

Sounds more like a worker participation plan, rather then a union.

AmPat
11-04-2009, 12:52 PM
I think unions can be effective STILL - provided they are SMALL and the bosses are unpaid.

Sure they can be "effective." They effectively shut down production and move companies out of state or overseas. They effectively raise wages above sustainable levels and refuse to negotiate realistic solutions. They effectively control the management who took ALL the risk and created the business in the first place.

I suppose my anti-union feelings are showing?

PoliCon
11-04-2009, 04:23 PM
Sounds more like a worker participation plan, rather then a union.

Which is what a union is supposed to be - ideally.