Will the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) bring more money into the economy, probably, but at what cost? As union membership grows so will the cost of everyday products. Employees will earn more, but they will also have to spend more, so who is the big winner here, not the citizens of this country but the unions.
"I think we'll get health care done and I think we'll get labor law reform done before the year's up," Trumka said during an appearance on CNN.
"The Employee Free Choice Act, John, is not just good for unions; it's good for the economy because it will bring more money into people's pockets across the board, so that everybody can spend a little more and create an economy that really does work for everybody," Trumka said. "And that's where we're going to go to."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...ss-in-2010
If passed the National Labor Relations Board would be required to certify the union after a majority of workers signed union cards, a election would not necessarily be required. Then the company and the union would be required to reach an agreement within 90 days. If no agreement is reached within 90 days a arbitator would be assigned to the case and both parties would have to abide by the arbitator's ruling for the next two years. Also if passed in it's current format H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for most unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organizing drive--chilling employers' free speech and depriving workers of the ability to make an informed choice on union membership.
Union activists contend that the act would protect workers' freedom to freely choose to join a union. However, workers' best defense against harassment and intimidation by either a union or an employer is a secret-ballot election in which neither knows how any individual worker voted.
Under current law, union organizers can request an organizing election once 30 percent of a company's workers sign union authorization cards in a "card check."This constitutes a "showing of interest," and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) then orders that a secret-ballot election be held. These elections usually take place 39 days after the NLRB receives the cards. Unions win about 60 percent of these certification elections. Once the NLRB certifies the union as the employees' exclusive representative, the employer and the union begin negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. Through a process of mutual give and take, the two sides reach an agreement over wages and working conditions.
Trumka is delusional. There is no way that Congress is going to pass a job killer like card check given the number of jobs that the economy has already shed under Obama.
EFCA would be tantamount to legalized union thuggery, which would be just fine with Obama, but most people realize that allowing union bosses to "recruit" new members through intimidation would cripple the economy.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Trumka is delusional. There is no way that Congress is going to pass a job killer like card check given the number of jobs that the economy has already shed under Obama.
EFCA would be tantamount to legalized union thuggery, which would be just fine with Obama, but most people realize that allowing union bosses to "recruit" new members through intimidation would cripple the economy.
I hope you are right, but with the democrats ties to the unions, I have to wonder if they don't find someway to pull it off.
Craig Becker is President Obamaâs nominee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Becker will be the third person on the five person Board and the second Democrat thus giving them majority on the Board.
The NLRB has two primary functions: one, to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices, whether committed by labor organizations or employers, and; two, to establish whether or not certain groups of employees desire labor organization representation for collective-bargaining purposes, and if so, which union.
Mr. Becker wrote that employers should be barred from NLRB proceedings:
[INDENT]
âOn these latter issues employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case, even though Board rulings might indirectly affect their duty to bargain.â
In Beckerâs opinion, business owners, many of whom are small business owners that collectively employee 50 million Americans, have âno legally cognizable interestâ in one of the most significant decisions impacting the potential future success of their company. But Becker takes his views one step further and would even deny employers the ability to alert authorities to illegal union activity during an election campaign saying:
[INDENT]
âSimilarly, employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct. Because employers have no right to vote, they cast no ballots the significance of which can be diluted by the inclusion of ineligible employees. ⦠Because employers lack the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or voters, they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct. On the questions of unit determination, voter eligibility, and campaign conduct, only the employee constituency and their potential union representatives should be heard.â
[/INDENT][/INDENT]
http://biggovernment.com/brjohnson/2010/...more-69390