The employee free choice act.

In 2007, 51 senators voted for cloture on EFCA -- all Democrats except Tim Johnson, who was still absent from the Senate at that time, plus a lone Republican, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter. That left the Democrats 9 votes short of passage -- votes which, in theory, they might now have. Johnson is back in the Senate, and they have picked up seats in Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, and are on the verge of doing so in Minnesota. That would give them 60 votes and 60 exactly, if and when replacement senators are appointed in Illinois, Colorado and New York.

Except that, Democrats are in danger of losing at least one vote: Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, who has suggested that she is "undecided" on the measure. Arkansas has very low union participation: between its manufacturing and construction sectors, 6.0 percent of its workforce participates in unions, about half the national average. . . .

[If the Democrats] lose Lincoln, then [keeping] Specter only gets the Democrats to 59. Are there any other Republicans who might flip? Three others -- Ohio's George Voinovich, and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe -- have received at least $100,000 in union contributions since 2003. Another wild card might be Alaska's Lisa Murkowski; Alaska is a highly unionized state, and the unions have sometimes been supportive of her. If Sarah Palin decides to run against her in 2010, Murkowski will need substantial support from union members to have a chance of defending her seat. Still, all four voted against cloture when the bill came up in 2007, and if Obama's coattails would ordinarily be worth something, that momentum is mitigated by the loss of face that the unions suffered on the auto bailout, when the UAW's public relations effort when nightmarishly.

Most likely, then, the Democrats will need to hold both Lincoln and Specter, as well as win the seat in Minnesota. If any of these contingencies fall through, EFCA faces an uphill battle.

This analysis may be overly optimistic. I'm still not convinced that all Democrats will get on board. Depending on how strongly the Obama Administration pushes EFCA and whether it's brought as a stand-alone bill, there could be more Democratic defections. Stay tuned.

Not later than 30 days after the Board shall have directed an election, the employer shall notify the representative designated by the employees under subsection (a) of any activities the employer intends to engage in to campaign in opposition to recognition of the representative, including any meetings with individual employees or groups of employees, any announcements to employees, any signs to be displayed at the place of employment, and any literature to be distributed to employees, and shall provide the representative with equal access to the place of employment to campaign in favor of recognition of the representative, including the opportunity to hold an equal number of meetings with individual employees or groups of employees, and an opportunity to make announcements, display signs, and distribute literature, under the same terms and conditions that the employer engages in such activities.

The problems of a recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employee's choice legislation," .... "Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the [National Labor Relations Act] then I would be willing to reconsider Employees choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy. I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind."

1. I don't like ANYTHING that would remove my right to change my mind. Currently, if I sign a union card and don't like what the union (or mgmt. for that matter) has to say, I can change my mind in the election. Under EFCA, once I sign the card and a high enough percentage signs, that's it. The union is certified, and we have to wait so many years to for a decertification election.

2. The EFCA increases the chances of getting a CRAPPY, MONEY-SUCKING UNION instead of one that is for its constituents. Literally, there could be a back yard barbeque, a handfull of folks sign some cards with crummy representation, and that union becomes the OFFICIAL bargaining unit for employees. If I'm not at that get together, TOO BAD; that union is my bargaining unit.

Small Business Administration data show that small businesses are less likely to go bankrupt in states with higher unionization, and that's a big reason why I support the Employee Free Choice Act. It's a simple formula for me and my business: When more workers have better jobs with higher wages, then more money is going into the local economy. That's more money that will go to my business, and more money that I will then spend with other small businesses in Colorado.

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.

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.

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)