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"
The first fact:
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...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.
This list, in addition to having the labor unions as clients leads me to believe that the research would be disingenuous at best.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)
Steve Beshear (KY)
Rod Blagojevich (IL)
Phil Bredesen (TN)
Mike Easley (NC)
Brad Henry (OK)
Martin O'Malley (MD)
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)
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Democratic National Committee
Indiana Democratic Party
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.
First, I had never heard of this "Cornell University Scholar before" So google became my friend once more.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
Whoa... first hit is Director for Labor Education. Well, it wouldn't appear that she has an axe to grind would it?
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.)
Ah yes, the old union circular logic of using union propaganda to support union positions. Gotta love it.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.
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.
So that is 20% of their reasoning shot to hell. Shall we go for 30?
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.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
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
Yeppers, you guessed it, they are now 40% Full of Shit
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.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).
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.
Well, this is completely anecdotal, but I am sure that others could back up the story, or that there is research that supports it...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
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.