Prof. Stone Provides Four Questions and Answers about EFCA.

JoeC (McGruff) · JoeC (McGruff) on Sat May 02, 2009 7:29 pm

Is EFCA good social policy? I would say definitely yes. Unions have historically been a major force for progressive social policies. Unions have been key elements in the political coalitions that have promoted civil rights, health care reform, food stamp programs, pension protection, minimum wages, affordable housing, and other valuable social programs. As the largest voluntary organization in the country, unions are the voice of the working and disadvantaged population in the national political arena. Without unions, those important parts of the population would be silenced.

Read more here: Link expired.
JoeC (McGruff)

JoeC (McGruff) · JoeC (McGruff) on Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:05 am

McGruff here taking a bite out of bogus paper, during the recent EFCA debate there has been a lot of sham arguments bashing our neighbors to the North. Well the snow backs are not rolling over for those shenanigans and are fighting back the sham. Check it out:

David Doorey (York) writes: A number of Canadian labour law and industrial relations scholars have noted references in the Employee Free Choice Act debates to Canadian law and the effects of those laws. The most obvious example is the paper by Anne Layne-Farrar, in which she contends that the higher unionization rates in Canada provide evidence that unionization leads to unemployment, but there have been other erroneous descriptions of Canadian labour laws and outcomes as well. Canadian scholars have challenged Layne-Farrar's methodology and findings, and have queried how it is that Canadian 'labour friendly' labour laws lead to unemployment when Canada has higher employment, lower unemployment, less poverty, and lower income inequality than the United States. Sure makes for interesting discussions though. Since Canadian law and policy is being used in the American debates, often inaccurately, an initiative has been launched by the York University-based Centre for Research on Work and Society. It will include a special edition on the use of Canadian law and data in the Employee Free Choice Act debates to be published next month in the on-line (free!) journal called Just Labour.

For more details see David's post Canadian Academics Weigh In on American Employee Free Choice Act Debate at Doorey's Workplace Law Blog: http://www.yorku.ca/ddoorey/lawblog/?p=1173
JoeC (McGruff)

JoeC (McGruff) · JoeC (McGruff) on Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:17 pm

Steven Greenhouse (New York Times) is reporting that a new EFCA bill looks to be coming together. It doesn't appear to be finalized yet (although please let me know if you've found draft language), but the basic outline seems to involve many of the features we've been posting about for a while: quick elections, union access rights, ban on captive audience speeches, arbitration, increased damages, and no card check.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=3&hp

JoeC (McGruff)

Mr. Pink · Mr. Pink on Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:02 pm

JoeC (McGruff) wrote:Steven Greenhouse (New York Times) is reporting that a new EFCA bill looks to be coming together. It doesn't appear to be finalized yet (although please let me know if you've found draft language), but the basic outline seems to involve many of the features we've been posting about for a while: quick elections, union access rights, ban on captive audience speeches, arbitration, increased damages, and no card check.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=3&hp

JoeC (McGruff)

One article that I saw referenced a proposal that the election be held within 5 - 10 days of the date that the petition is filed with the Board. Realistically, I don't see how that would be possible. The mechanics of setting up the election (time, place, date,) as well as compiling the Excelsior list and getting the Board a copy (and then on to the union) simply makes this type of accelerated schedule a little rediculous. I would think at least 14 days is a better option.

Mr. Pink

Eric · Eric on Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:42 am

Working here at the labor board office in Newark i have had the opportunity to sit down and discuss the quick election proposal with some of the more senior members that work here.

They all seem to recognize that the quick election provision is not worth the paper it is written on. They seem to be of the opinion that the issues that hold up elections now will not go away with new legislation. There are always going to be issues of bargaining unit composition, scope of the election, who is a supervisor and who is not and so on and so forth.

The RD here seems to think that the provision that will have the greatest effect on organized labor is mandatory arbitration in the event the parties cannot reach a first contract. He says that the Canadian experience tells him that the arbitration provision will be seldom used but just because it is there will lead to many first contracts being reached after the initial representation vote is won by the union

Eric

JoeC (McGruff) · JoeC (McGruff) on Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:27 pm

Bill Herbert (NY PERB, writing independently) has just posted on SSRN his article, "The Development and Administration of Non-Electoral Labor Certifications in New York. This download is a must-read for anyone who wants to engage in a debate about card-check representation and expose myth around lies perpetrated by opposing groups. The EFCA debate has largely ignored the fact that we've got a half-century of experience with card check in the U.S. and Bill's article is an important addition to that debate. Download here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1479191
JoeC (McGruff)

The employee free choice act.

Prof. Stone Provides Four Questions and Answers about EFCA.

Canadian Labour Law bashing exposesd as a sham!

Steven Greenhouse (New York Times) EFCA

Re: The employee free choice act.

mussings from the Board

Herbert on NY's Card Check Law.