|
I know this resolution is meaningless as it applies to the law, and is just repeating RW BULLSHIT talking points, but I thought I'd address it & provide some De-bunking material. http://michiganmessenger.com/13702/state-senate-passes-resolution-against-employee-free-choice-act By Eartha Jane Melzer 2/23/09 3:43 PM
Thanks to Media Mouse for reporting that on Thursday the Republican-led Michigan Senate passed a resolution urging Michigan’s congressional delegation to vote against the federal Employee Free Choice Act which would make it easier to form labor unions.
“I introduced this resolution to help protect the sacred American tradition of a private ballot,” the bills sponsor, Sen. Mark C. Jansen (R-Gaines township) said in a statement “Senate Republicans believe the right to vote is a personal and private matter.”
Current law requires that a National Labor Relations Board supervised election be held before a group can have their union representation certified (emph added). Workers rights advocates say this requirement puts workers at a disadvantage because their bosses can saturate the workplace with anti-union materials before the election and can intimidate or fire union organizers. Under the Employee Free Choice Act workers will be able to form a union by simply having a majority sign cards stating their union affiliation.
As my colleague David Weigel of The Washington Independent reported today, opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act are pursuing a mixture of strategies. Some, like Republican State Rep. Eric Bedingfield of South Carolina, are focusing on developing state laws to block implementation of the expected new federal labor law. Others are working to build opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as ’the card check bill’) in the U.S. Senate. The House, with a strong Democratic majority, is expected to pass the bill. "Current law requires that a National Labor Relations Board supervised election be held before a group can have their union representation certified."
Oh, does it REALLY "require" an NLRB supervised election? Or is it an entirely BULLSHIT claim?
I CALL BULLSHIT:
The two methods for recognizing a union in the United States begin with an employee petition for representation by a union. If at least 30% of employees sign petition cards requesting a union, then the cards are submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a secret ballot election. If more than 50% of employees certify their desire for representation, then a union can choose to form using card check procedures. Under current U.S. law, the employer need not recognize the card check petition and can require a secret-ballot vote overseen by the NLRB.
In 1949, the NLRB's Joy Silk Doctrine established that "an employer could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union claiming representative status through possession of authorization cards only if he had a 'good faith doubt' as to the union's majority status." This policy was changed in 1966 with the ruling in Aaron Brothers, where "the Board made it clear that it had shifted the burden to the General Counsel to show bad faith and that an employer 'will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation... simply because he refuses to rely upon cards.'" If passed, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act would return the NLRB policy to the Joy Silk Doctrine and allow employer challenges to card check elections only when illegal coercion or fraud is charged.
In 1969, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the use of card check. Warren stated, "Almost from the inception of the Act, then, it was recognized that a union did not have to be certified as the winner of a Board election to invoke a bargaining obligation; it could establish majority status by other means... by showing convincing support, for instance, by a union-called strike or strike vote, or, as here, by possession of cards signed by a majority of the employees authorizing the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes." The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of card check, and Warren cited prior affirmations in NLRB v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., (1940); Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, (1944); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co., (1956).
The passage of EFCA would simply re-establish the NLRB's Joy Silk Doctrine.
Senator Jansen's resolution states:
...Whereas, The Employee Free Choice Act, if it becomes law, would eliminate the current federal rights of Michigan employees and employees across the nation to recognize a union by a private ballot and would put in place a card-check process through which employees are forced to make their decision in front of union organizers, leaving them vulnerable to threats, harassment, and abuse; and
Whereas, The recognition of a labor organization by this type of agreement threatens the freedom of Michigan employees and severely limits the ability of the National Labor Relations Board to ensure the protection of Michigan workers; and
Whereas, The private ballot process established and refined through decades of experience carefully balances the interest of employees, unions, and employers to ensure that workers can hear all points of view in the discussion and make a decision in private without intimidation or coercion; and...
Whereas, The card-check bill would increase potential penalties against employers but not labor organizations for certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act, and employers would be subject to paying triple back pay and civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation; and
Whereas, The vast majority of Americans oppose a card-check process. They agree with holding to the current protections for workers; now, therefore, be it
"The Employee Free Choice Act, if it becomes law, would eliminate the current federal rights of Michigan employees and employees across the nation to recognize a union by a private ballot..."
"The recognition of a labor organization by this type of agreement threatens the freedom of Michigan employees and severely limits the ability of the National Labor Relations Board to ensure the protection of Michigan workers"
I call BULLSHIT AGAIN:
Bill summary
The bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the following:
Certification on the basis of majority sign-up: Would provide for certification of a union as the bargaining representative of a unit of employees if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finds that a majority of those employees have signed authorization cards designating the union as its bargaining representative. In addition, it would require the board to develop authorization language and procedures for establishing the validity of signed authorizations.
...A company had the legal ability to allow its workers to have union representation (without going through the NLRB) if a majority of potential members supported unionization. The Employee Free Choice Act would make this recognition mandatory, taking away a company's ability to force a majority of potential members to go through the NLRB election process.
"The card-check bill would increase potential penalties against employers but not labor organizations for certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act, and employers would be subject to paying triple back pay and civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation;"
BULLSHIT:Stronger penalties for violations while employees are attempting to form a union or attain a first contract: Violations of the National Labor Relations Act would now face the following punishments.:
Civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees’ rights during an organizing campaign or first-contract drive.
An increase in the amount an employer is required to pay when an employee is discharged or discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first-contract drive to “three times back pay."
And these are bad things.......how, Senator?
"The vast majority of Americans oppose a card-check process. They agree with holding to the current protections for workers; now, therefore, be it"
And how did the Senator determine what the "vast majority of Americans" opinion was on this matter? Could it be through "Hired-gun" poliing? GIVE ME A F@#$ING BREAK.
The Senator's assertion that "The private ballot process established and refined through decades of experience carefully balances the interest of employees, unions, and employers to ensure that workers can hear all points of view in the discussion and make a decision in private without intimidation or coercion;" deserves a thread all it's own. I'm working on it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
