Issue Position: The "Employee Free Choice Act" & "Card Check"

Issue Position

HR 1409 and S 560, commonly referred to as the "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA), are bills currently in congress that, if implemented, would eliminate free choice of workers by effectively eliminating their voting rights through use of a secret ballot, and encourage a system which history has proven ripe with corruption and abuse. I do not support this legislation, as it will harm economic growth and damage the rights of workers.

I strongly support the right of every worker to decide for him or her self where to work and under what conditions to seek employment. The founding documents of our great nation explicitly provide citizens with freedom and liberty, be it in their personal or professional lives. The EFCA is designed to strengthen the hand of union bosses at the expense or rank and file workers. The intent of the EFCA is to remove the freedom of workers to affiliate or not affiliate with an organized labor entity.

Specific Concerns

Secret Ballot

EFCA consists of three primary provisions, all of which are objectionable. First, while EFCA does not fully eliminate the current secret voting ballot process, it effectively renders the process irrelevant. This is because EFCA provides for an alternative means of certifying union through a "card check" process. By this process, union certification is automatic upon the obtainment of signature cards from fifty percent (50%) of the eligible workers. Though union rhetoric will state otherwise, the secret ballot will no longer be a part of election campaigns as no union would seek an election when it could be certified through an equivalent number of registration cards. Such a system would be ripe for abuse and intimidation. It places in the hands of a "party-in-interest" the ability to influence, by legitimate means or otherwise, the outcome with minimal oversight by a neutral authority.

Imposition of Mandatory Arbitration

In addition, EFCA considers the imposition of mandatory arbitration of a first contract in the event an employer and an elected union representation cannot come to terms in "good faith." The provision completely ignores the original Congressional intent of the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA was designed to facilitate employee's ability to "negotiat[e] the terms and conditions of their employment." Section 8(5) required employers to bargain in good faith and to enter into negotiation with a "sincere purpose to find the basis of agreement." There was never intent by Congress to require employers to agree to compromised terms and conditions, or to otherwise mandate an agreement on terms between the parties. The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that the NLRA does not compel the parties to reach an agreement or mandated that terms be determined. Section 8(d) of the NLRA clarifies that "an obligation [to bargain] does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or required the making of a concession."

Imposing a requirement in which a third party representative of a governmental agency, with no direct knowledge of the business, the industry, or the entity involved, renders a determination as to the means and manner in which the business will operate invites consequences potentially disastrous to all parties.

Employer fines

Finally, EFCA considers the imposition of monetary fines against employers for commission of unfair labor practices, in violation of the NLRA. While action in violation of federal law is not encouraged under any circumstances, the institution of such fines is objectionable for several reasons. First, there is no suggestion of comparable fines for union violations. Second, current union organizing practices show the use of unsubstantiated allegations of unfair labor practices as a weapon in their organizational arsenal. They use such allegations as one of many means of instituting the "death of a thousand cuts." Unions suggest to employers that if the employer will only submit to their demands through the signing of a "neutrality agreement" (containing much of the same terms as EFCA, including institution of a "card check" procedure), they will stop the attacks. Imagine, then, the weapon unions would have at their disposal, if such allegations were attached to a fine of up to ten thousand dollars for each allegation. The legislation also fails to consider a detriment or consequence to parties who unjustly file such actions.

Alternatives and Specific Issues

* Any labor law change must respect a founding principle of our nation, the secret ballot.

The EFCA makes the secret ballot irrelevant. As currently written, the EFCA would mandate a majority sign-up system, commonly referred to as "card check." The use of a public petition process subjects workers to intimidation in all forms. The use of intimidation and coercion should never be endorsed, explicitly or implicitly by statute. The EFCA represents exactly that kind of endorsement. In contrast to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protected the rights of voters, the EFCA removes one of the most fundamental rights in our nation, the secret ballot.

* Any labor law must permit workers the right to join or not join a union.
The EFCA would mandate that workers join a union once approved by the card check system. The freedom of workers must be protected and the EFCA removes basic freedoms currently enjoyed by many workers. Unfortunately, labor law varies by state and some states have elected to remove the rights of workers to choose membership in a union. I believe in the rights of states to establish their own laws, but encourage states to restore freedom to workers. At the federal level, I will work hard to prevent the removal of basic freedoms, be in the area of labor law or elsewhere.

* Workers must not be required to pay union dues when not a member of a union.

In jurisdictions where union membership is optional, some workers are required to pay union dues or agency fees that may be equal to or nearly equal to the dues paid by union members. Such fees should be banned, other than where there can be a strong and clearly quantifiable benefit received by a non-union member as a result of a collective bargaining process. Current law skews in favor of the union to impose unreasonable agency fees. The burden should be shifted to the union to prove the cost they incur on behalf of a specific non-union employee. Unless a clear and quantifiable link can be found, non-union members should not be required to pay agency fees.

* Labor law must protect the free speech of employees and employers.
The EFCA would impose serious penalties on employers who exercise their right to free speech and openly oppose the creation of unions. Some people also interpret the EFCA to impose similar restriction on workers who agree with the company and work actively to oppose the imposition of a union. In all instances, freedom of speech must be protected. The debate over unionization must not be a one sided argument, but rather invite all opinions to be expressed equally.

Source