New Anti-EFCA Ad: Measure “Kills The Secret Ballot”
One of the strategic dilemmas for labor in the Employee Free Choice Act war is that they need to push back hard against claims by foes that it nixes the “secret ballot” option. But labor officials also don’t want the argument to focus on this, because they see it as a distraction from a discussion about the plight of workers and a tough argument to win in the soundbite wars.
That’s why the anti-EFCA forces plan to keep up the pressure on this front, with ads such as this new one that’s running in Politico tomorrow claiming that “card check kills the secret ballot.” Click to enlarge:
The real war right now is for the hearts and minds of Congress, particularly the handful of Senators who haven’t decided which way they’re going — hence this ad in Politico, which is heavily read on the Hill.
That’s also why the ad claims that 82% say that the secret ballot is the best way to preserve workers’ rights and that 88% believe a worker’s vote should be kept private — the message being that Senators should know that the anti-EFCA camp thinks its winning the spin war on this front. EFCA, of course, doesn’t strictly eliminate the secret ballot — it allows workers to choose between joining a union by signing cards or by a secret ballot — but the anti-EFCA forces insist that this effectively eliminates it.
It’s worth pointing out that the poll cited in the ad was sponsored by the anti-EFCA camp. And it includes what Marc Ambinder recently described as “loaded language” more likely to get folks to oppose the measure.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg
.
I said from the get go that labor needed to use that Wall Street Journal admission like a 2 by 4 and busted big business upside the head with it. Until the argument gets past the secret ballot conversation labor will never get any traction.
True. But my understanding of how this works leads me to agree that is does effectively kill the secret ballot.
.
I don’t have a problem with killing the secret ballot. It would shift the balance of power towards the unions, and I think that’s a Good Thing™ But it sure can be bad PR.
.
I’m more impressed by the binging-arbitration provisions. Those are real blockbusters. I’d be very willing to compromise away some of the card-check provisions to get the rest of the package. Some kind of compromise that eliminates the no-secret-ballot talking point but still reduces employers’ power to scuttle union organization.
.
Uh… binding-arbitration provisions…
I don’t get it – wall street is too big to fail and gets 100’s of billions of $$$. Detroit employs lots of middle class union people – and they get the shaft.
Washington talks the talk – but they don’t walk the walk.
Meanwhile – the ivory tower boys debate whats best for the working man. Like they’ve ever worked a day in their life.
sheesh what ****.
As I understand EFCA legislation it makes union registration secret
from the employer.
.
If enough employees decide to sign card checks authorizing unionization,
the employer isn’t notified until after employees decide to
unionize.
.
Are employees that are gathering card checks for unionization required to
tell their employer what they’re doing off the clock and outside of work’s
boundaries? Sure, any employee has the right to warn their employer but
EFCA doesn’t require it does it?
.
As it is, currently the employer controls a large part of
employees attempts at unionization. Any attempts at unionization
are currently strictly monitored by the employer and frequently employers
engage in illegal acts to interfere with those attempts at legalization.
.
There are large companies whose entire job is to help prevent
unionization. Sometimes those tactics are technically legal: bringing in
employees for one on one meetings (that are often not any different than
harassment), telling employees that a unionized workforce would mean the
company would go out of business or move out of the community (implicit
and explicit threats to the employees livelihoods), and even directly
firing the employees who advocate unionization (and then claiming some
other “cause” for the firing even while sending a clearly threatening
message to the other employees).
As one who has only recently become aware of your blog, and this being my first response, let me start off by saying that I appreciate and enjoy your informative and comprehensive writings, especially your articles on EFCA. Keep up the GREAT work, sir!
The right wing-nut/chamber of commerce/corporate/anti-union/anti-EFCA lobby has gone “ALL-IN” on the secret-ballot CANARD in an effort to “frame” EFCA as “un-democratic”. You wrote: “…labor officials also don’t want the argument to focus on this, because they see it as a DISTRACTION from a discussion about the plight of workers and a TOUGH ARGUMENT TO WIN in the soundbite wars” It is my contention that labor’s response to this strategy should be to heed the advice of Napoleon Bonaparte–”Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a MISTAKE.”
The premise that the aforementioned groups are spending HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS opposing the EFCA in an effort to “protect” workers rights is LUDICROUS. The real issue here is KEEPING the advantages BUILT IN TO the system that they now enjoy.
I would be willing to “give up” the card-check provision in exchange for a FAIRER election process that would:
1)SHORTEN the length of time between petition and election.
2)Give EQUAL ACCESS to employees to both Management and the Union during the period between petition and election
3)STREAMLINE the current appeals process for post-election objections, which is fraught with redundancies and opportunity for ENDLESS DELAYS, which hinders the process, and frustrates would be members, often to the point where they lose faith in the process and just give up. The law DOES NOT protect the process, rather, it serves to suggest maneuvers and DEFINE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES. Which is what they REALLY would like to see unchanged, as I said before.
I would be willing to make concessions on the arbitration and mediation provisions, maybe extend the period from 120 days to 6 months(or perhaps longer) before seeking mediation and arbitration. The 90-120 days is UNREALISTIC, and would deter any real bargaining in that period, IMHO, as neither side would want to give an arbitrator a “starting point” in determining the final contract terms.
But the one thing I would NOT compromise on is the “penalties” provision. THESE ARE A MUST. A common expression of U.S. labor law says that the NLRA is remedial, not punitive. The NLRB CANNOT PENALIZE an employer for breaking the law. It can only order a “make-whole REMEDY”, which typically consists of little more than an “order to cease and desist”, and posting a sign for 60 days stating (sarcastically paraphrasing) “We know we were naughty, but we promise we won’t do it again”.
OOOOHHHHH!!! SUCH SCARY STUFF!!!!!
No, no compromise WHATSOEVER on the penalties provision. The counter to that would likely be a call for increased penalties against Unions who commit similar violations. Fine with me. Although I am supportive of Unions, I am not naive enough to think that Unions don’t commit infractions, also, and by increasing penalties on Unions as well as employers, it provides even MORE protection for workers, which is NEVER a bad thing.
Card check probably requires much more POLITICAL CAPITAL to wedge into the bill than anything else in EFCA, and as the anti-contingent is so HEAVILY invested there, it’s my contention that Labor should seize the opportunity to offer “compromise” on this portion of the bill, but “stand firm” on the election process changes I wrote about earlier, AND the other two provisions, which seem to be a MUCH tougher argument for the anti- EFCA lobby “to win in the soundbite wars”.
I would very much like to hear your thoughts & opinion on what I have written.
Sorry so long winded.
.
Also, I just figured out how to SPACE between paragraphs
.
(lol)
“I would very much like to hear your thoughts & opinion on what I have written.”
*****crickets******
Apparently, not much.