NationStates Jolt Archive

It is the Employee Free Choice Act (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/).

The EFCA has three main parts. First, it requires the certification of a union at the moment a majority of employees in a workplace have signed up to be in said union. Currently, after a majority of employees have requested a union, employers can force an election. This may sound democratic enough, but in fact it allows employers to use their power over workers to leverage against the union, often harassing and firing union supporters in the process.

Second, the EFCA prevents employers from dragging out negotiations on a first union contract, uselessly tieing up the process by creating provisions for mediation and arbitration.

Third, it provides for real penalties on employers who fire union supporters during union drives - such firings are illegal, but the current penalties are too small to serve as effective deterrents.

The EFCA is in the most highly unfortunate way, unlikely to become law. If it's not filibustered by asshat Republicans in the Senate, it will be vetoed by the asshat in chief. But this is the sort of legislation that the working class needs to be fighting tooth and nail for, legislation that supports the right of ordinary working people to have dignity in the workplace, to join unions without harassment and intimidation, to earn good wages and get good benefits. This legislation that would help provide for a real movement for social justice by giving workers safety in their own lives and the power of solidarity in unions.

The fact that the Democratic Congressional leadership appears ready to fight for this is a sign of commitment to workers, unions, and social justice. If they follow through and fight for this, we need to be ready to fight with them. Let's pin this one on the Republicans and force them to articulate just how much they hate working people...

I can't agree more!

The Republicans aren't that stupid. They'll badger on about how this'll hurt businesses and employers. Which it will, but in a good way.

Unions are pointless when we openly give big business the means to circumvent them (i.e., by hiring millions of otherwise unemployable surplus hand laborers from the Third World).

The Republicans aren't that stupid. They'll badger on about how this'll hurt businesses and employers. Which it will, but in a good way.

I'd be a little cautious about instant support for it. Certainly it appears to be good, but there may be drawbacks hidden in the legislation itself. I'd like to review it further before approving or disapproving of it. (Though at the moment I lean towards approval.)

I'd be a little cautious about instant support for it. Certainly it appears to be good, but there may be drawbacks hidden in the legislation itself. I'd like to review it further before approving or disapproving of it. (Though at the moment I lean towards approval.)

I'm truly interested in how you think a bill that is this good for workers on its face could be corrupted. What do you think could happen to this that would allow the resmuglicans, and their dear leader to see a chink in this one that wouldn't piss off nearly everyone who actually works for a living? Don't take this as irate BS, I really want to know your opinion on this.

I would be nominally for it so long as we don't see any idiotic riders attached to it (frankly I was for the defeated line-item veto amendment, but such is the way of things). Anyway, my problem is not with what this legislation would do, but how it would affect right-to-work states (such as my home state, Texas), since those states tend to have rather weak unions because employers can fire with impunity, or at least less justifiable cause than in a more unionized state.

I would be nominally for it so long as we don't see any idiotic riders attached to it (frankly I was for the defeated line-item veto amendment, but such is the way of things). Anyway, my problem is not with what this legislation would do, but how it would affect right-to-work states (such as my home state, Texas), since those states tend to have rather weak unions because employers can fire with impunity, or at least less justifiable cause than in a more unionized state.

I utterly despise the very concept of the "right to work" state. It's a TOTAL misnomer. It should be called what it is, "fire away." It's disgusting.

C'mon! Does no one actually care about this??? This issue literally effects 98% of the american population, and no one seems to care. WTF???

C'mon! Does no one actually care about this??? This issue literally effects 98% of the american population, and no one seems to care. WTF???

I don't think it affects 98%. More like 40%-ish.

Anyway, american unions are generally bogus. They don't really give a shit about their membership usually.

C'mon! Does no one actually care about this??? This issue literally effects 98% of the american population, and no one seems to care. WTF???

It's a good piece of legislation and it should be enacted. 'Nuff said.

I just don't hold out any hope.

Unions are pointless when we openly give big business the means to circumvent them (i.e., by hiring millions of otherwise unemployable surplus hand laborers from the Third World).


Unions are out of date, I am against this because it empowers Unions which are greedy bastards. Ralphs shopping has a required Union that takes money from your weekly pay for union dues... I won't fight for anything that helps unions.

C'mon! Does no one actually care about this??? This issue literally effects 98% of the american population, and no one seems to care. WTF???


No. I resented Ralphs shopping forcing its people to join unions.

Unions are pointless when we openly give big business the means to circumvent them (i.e., by hiring millions of otherwise unemployable surplus hand laborers from the Third World).
Unions are pointless full stop.

They're massive faceless organisations that have their own statistics and budgets to worry about. They care no more about some worker than a corporation cares about some customer.

People need to get understand that some behemoth called "union" isn't gonna be doing their job, which is to get together with their real-life colleagues and work out a deal everyone can agree on face to face, as real people do.

Unions are pointless full stop.

They're massive faceless organisations that have their own statistics and budgets to worry about. They care no more about some worker than a corporation cares about some customer.

People need to get understand that some behemoth called "union" isn't gonna be doing their job, which is to get together with their real-life colleagues and work out a deal everyone can agree on face to face, as real people do.

And that's the problem I have with this bill. Unions were once face-to-face, honest organizations, but like all things lately, they've grown too large to effectively communicate on a person to person basis. As such, they no longer perform the task for which they are intended.

Unions are pointless full stop.

They're massive faceless organisations that have their own statistics and budgets to worry about. They care no more about some worker than a corporation cares about some customer.

People need to get understand that some behemoth called "union" isn't gonna be doing their job, which is to get together with their real-life colleagues and work out a deal everyone can agree on face to face, as real people do.

The anglosphere has corrupted you. :eek:

Anway, unions are like most everything else. They can be a good thing, if properly organized and run. But only in some situations. And usually they are not.

They are not the answer to everything, however.

The anglosphere has corrupted you. :eek:
I rather prefer company-based representation. Work Councils, if you will. Workers from one company, running their own "union". No pay, no nothing, just an intimate knowledge of the processes and the state of the company. It's not particularly anglo, one might even argue that it fits better with the German model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_model) of the good old days. There worker's reps have their place in the board room, and I don't really see a sensible reason why that shouldn't be the case.

But these big behemoths with hundreds of thousands or more members...I don't see how anyone could feel represented by those.

I rather prefer company-based representation. Workers from one company, running their own "union". No pay, no nothing, just an intimate knowledge of the processes and the state of the company. It's not particularly anglo, one might even argue that it fits better with the German model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_model) of the good old days. There worker's reps have their place in the board room, and I don't really see a sensible reason why that shouldn't be the case.

But these big behemoths with hundreds of thousands or more members...I don't see how anyone could feel represented by those.

Well, in theory at least, unions are organized around local branches in the US, and should form a collective bargaining unit specific to the workplace, rather than industry wide contracts.

It doesn't work out that way. Bargaining units tend to grow - like the UAW - or the union loses interest in the workers anyway.

But the original principle doesn't seem that different to the german model, though it is more adversarial.

The problem with a law like this is that it is going to have very little effect on upper or middle class workers and it is going to hurt quite a few poor (and unskilled) individuals. Most skilled jobs are either already unionized (like the trades) or have wages set by a competitive market (IT, the medical field, law, etc) so a law like this is going to have zero effect. What you are going to see here are small groups of employees in unskilled positions trying to start a union under the delusion that it will get them better pay or benefits. There are only two outcomes to a demand like that: everyone gets fired/laid off/looses a job due to company closure or some people get better pay and benefits but the company can only afford to pay a fewer number of total employees.

If a company can only afford (or is only willing) to spend $800 dollars a day on wages than that is what it will pay. Maybe they'll hire 10 people for $10 dollars an hour, or maybe they'll hire 5 for $20, but they aren't going to hire 10 for $20. Unions won't change that.

Worse, most unions in the US provide next to no services while eating up a considerable amount in union dues. Every single experiance I have ever personally had with a union has been a situation where money was taken out of my pocket to pay for administrative jobs at the union and make political contributions to candidates. When the time came that I needed help from a union I ended up having to hire my own lawyer and mount my own offense because the Union couldn't be bothered to get involved.

Dopn't kid yourself, these days unions are just another corporation out to screw the little guy. Welcome to the real world, please buy a helmet.

Unions are the worst abomination ever set down upon this earth. I make 18.45 and hour...my neighbor works in a factory, makes 18.30 an hour plus full health insurance coverage. I have a college degree and he got his GED a year ago. HOW IS IT THAT THIS MAN WHO DIDNT EVEN HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL MAKES ALMOST AS MUCH AS ME...A COLLEGE GRADUATE AND GETS HEALTH BENIFITS????????


its not fair people, lets just tell little american kids that they dont have to aspire to anything, because they'll just complain to their bosses and have their future unions get them more money than they deserve. thats the problem with america today, we tell people that its ok to flunk out of high school becasue your communist unions will bail you out.

Unions are the worst abomination ever set down upon this earth. I make 18.45 and hour...my neighbor works in a factory, makes 18.30 an hour plus full health insurance coverage. I have a college degree and he got his GED a year ago. HOW IS IT THAT THIS MAN WHO DIDNT EVEN HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL MAKES ALMOST AS MUCH AS ME...A COLLEGE GRADUATE AND GETS HEALTH BENIFITS????????


its not fair people, lets just tell little american kids that they dont have to aspire to anything, because they'll just complain to their bosses and have their future unions get them more money than they deserve. thats the problem with america today, we tell people that its ok to flunk out of high school becasue your communist unions will bail you out.

Maybe the work he does is more important to the factory than whatever it is you do is for whoever it is you work for?

Maybe the work he does is more important to the factory than whatever it is you do is for whoever it is you work for?

the man assembles works on a line smashing peices of iron ore for steel...i am a law clerk...

the man assembles works on a line smashing peices of iron ore for steel...i am a law clerk...

Could you do his job? It sounds rather physical? Also dangerous, uncomfortable and life-shortening.

If it bothers you that much, and you think he is getting a better deal, why don't you apply for something similar.

"Treble Back Pay: Increases the amount an employer is required to pay when as employee is discharged or discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first contract drive to three times pay."
Three times pay? That seems a little harsh. It's definitely not conducive to business profits or employee wages.

Unions had their day and in it they were a good thing that helped change and build america into what it is today. But here in the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st the union has outlived it's days. Having been in 2 seperate unions so far in my life I have some knowledge of it, I paid out a good deal every week for dues and do not remember much of anything the unions really ever did for me (except give me less to spend.)
There are some very large bussinesses in America who take care of their employees and do not have unions....so why should those companies need one now?

And someone in an earlier thread asked how the legislation could be bad? Well it is simple as another thread stated there are things that get attatched called riders.....there are things that one congressman or senator demands to be added to the bill if the writer wants his support for it... these are added by both the republicans and the democrats so don't point any fingers or blame the other guy. Now when a bill gets defeated the only thing you hear about is ....such and such bill gets voted down or vetoed by the president or govenor or whomever...... anything to get sympathy from the masses and make the other guy look bad. But what you never hear is the real reason why the bill was voted down....what was added that was not liked? Before you start bitching about the president or govenor, about the dems or the repulicans hating the little guy find yourself the bill that lost including all the riders and read the whole thing. Ask your local congress man he should be able to get you the info....and make sure you ask for any riders that were added. Until you you know both sides of a story quit whining....because your so called protector may not have been giving you the whole story .....just what he wants you to hear!!

My point was that this bill is all show and no substance; it's just a cheap publicity stunt by Democrats so they can act like they care about labor while selling them out to the big business lobby by legalizing the tens of millions of illegal immigrants whose mere presence in this country is suppressing their wages. Then they'll bitch about low wages and use it as an excuse to pass a new minimum wage bill, which will encourage greater dependence on the illegal immigration that they'll continue doing nothing to curtail. Because they're hacks.

It's just business as usual in Washington, people.

C'mon! Does no one actually care about this??? This issue literally effects 98% of the american population, and no one seems to care. WTF???
Ooops! (not American) but I'll bump your thread anyway

the man assembles works on a line smashing peices of iron ore for steel...i am a law clerk...

So you're complaining that a guy with an extremely dangerous job is making almost as much money as you, who do bloody clerical duties?

This sounds like just another attempt by the political class to increase its power and bloat itself at everyone else's expense. Basically, this so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" has one faction of the political class- unions- profitting at other's expense- non-unionized/unskilled workers, businesses, and consumers.

Without this type of regulation, union workers have to be more productive than non-union workers in order to justify higher wages and benefits. But with the coercive power of the state on their side, unions can extort businesses to get more money and benefits, regardless of how the union workers compare with non-unions.

The unions also benefit from this type of regulation because of the encouragement for workers to unionize and gain the power of the state. With the threat of non-union workers unionizing, the costs and risks of hiring non-union workers increases, thus lessening their edge against the state-allied union workers. To justify the higher costs of workers across the board, the workers must offer more benefits; in other words, they must be more productive. So the less productive workers, being a liability, will not be hired in the first place, leaving only the most productive workers employed.

With fewer workers to compete with, the most productive union workers will be in an even more powerful place to bargain thanks to their state support. Their skills are in even more demand with fewer workers, they do not need to compete with workers who are not employed, and thus their wages/benefits will rise even though they are not any more productive.

But even within the ranks of union workers not all is well. Though the lower echelons of the union get some benefits, the higher levels profit from them through the mechanisms of the union association. The leaders and those with seniority are paid more, not to mention that lower level workers are prevented from competing through limiting the number of hours they can work among other measures; again, these leaders are not paid extra for being more productive, but because of their friendship with the state.

This is a clear example of the state once more expanding itself for the benefit of the political class. The EFCA may purport to be a godsend for the "workers", but in actuality it is no such thing. Rather, it is just another victory for the political class with everyone else losing; the unions, especially the leaders and those with seniority, get their money at the expense of business and those who are put out of work due to the state's force. It is in this light, and not upon a facade of faux charity and justice, that this legislation should be looked upon.

I want them to repeal Taft-Hartley already, and get rid of the "right to work" nonsense.

If the Democrats really wish to be pro-labor, as opposed to slightly less pro-capital than the Republicans, that would be a good place to start.

the man assembles works on a line smashing peices of iron ore for steel...i am a law clerk...

Again, what he does could be more important for the factory than what you do for your firm. The factory could be able to better reward it's employees than your firm. Just because you think you should be paid more doesn't mean that there's a union screwing someone.