The Big Lie being spread about EFCA

Bill, you are misleading at best. EFCA would empower unions not workers. Workers do not need to have their vote in the open. They would feel pressure from both the union and the company. No one, not the union or the company, needs to know how I voted. This is bad for the worker, bad for Minnesota and bad for the United States.

This will cost Obama the Presidency. Minnesotans aren't stupid. By making Employee-free Choice Act a litmus test for its support, Organized Labor shoots itself in the foot...again. This is the gang that can't shoot straight. No election-free authorizations of union to collect mandatory dues and political contributions from workers is going are going to fly in this country. No candidate willing to give up this workers' right is going to be elected President.

I have read the bill s1041 and it appears to me that this case can happen: over 50 percent of the employees sign up for a union (or individual) to represent them in collective bargaining. Then the representative can ask the NLRB to recognize the union and bingo the union is representing the group. No election. A person who did not sign the petition or card check had possibly no opportunity to vote on the union and might well have had no notice of the union card check campaign. There is nothing in the bill that requires all employees in the potential bargaining unit to know about the card check campaign and even if they do know there would be nothing they could do against it unless they were to start another petition for a different union. I am pro-union and I don't approve of this. Secondly what is with the funky language in EFCA that allows bargaining units to be represented by "an individual" instead of an organization? So they vote in the 'union of Bob' then what happens? Does the union dissolve when something happens to Bob? How can anyone run for president in the 'union of Bob'? I don't see at all the value in voting in an individual to represent a local. That does not jive with the concept of unions being run by democratic process. The Farm workers have a far far better type of legislation in this california bill AB2386: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2386&sess=CUR&house=A&search_type=bill_update

The plant I work at has a union and the president was handing out a slip to endorse the employee free choice act today. If you sign it, your put into a drawing for a Harley Davidson. I have to laugh because the only description of the act is that "it gives employees the freedom to choose a union and bargain, without management intimidation." The Wagner Act already does this. This bill seems like it is only going to make the unions end up on the winning side. Respecting privacy is a higher value than any of this finger pointing. I grew up watching the steel industry leave Pittsburgh and head to Brazil, China, and a few other places. I watched the union higher ups leave as well with their nice pensions and shrug off the guys who paid the dues which supported them. Wake up. You have a right to collectively bargain and organize if you want. Seeing this deceit makes me feel bad for the guys I work with who cant look up what this thing really is.

America the weak!...or, America the Sheep will buy anything, including the freee lunch of the unions. Q: Why is the labor movement trying so hard to emulate the model in europe that has oppressed 100's of millions of work-a-days all over Europe for decades? Because there is money in it. The so called Employee Freedom of Choice Act does in fact make ballotting an open process whereby union thugs and their peers can pressure the free thinkers. Forcing a PRIVATE company to allow the workers to mandate the rules of employment is absolutley absurd. Only in America can the dis-insented take the wheel via political force. Q2: why don't we all work for the government - Impossible to get fired, high parate of start pay, guarenteed paid raises, lots of holidays, a pension, no hassles from boss on productivity or performance? Sounds great...Oh, they'll just print the money to pai for it and our children will grow up in our impoverished ashes. Let capitalism takes its course, go out and work for a living, and tell the union bosses to get an honest job. Entreprenuers who bleed out of every pore to start companies and employ people are the back bone of this country - why is everybody trying so desperately to ruin that. Unions are for the lowest common denominator - collective bargaining, geez! Just look at the Detroit example: Over pay us or we will shut this company down. Ok, we'll shut down ... and build cars and parts and jobs elsewhere. The end, in a city near you.

EFCA would give bad unions the ability to walk over any employer or employees they wanted to. Some unions are authentic and represent workers fairly and have respect for the employers. Unfortunately, many unions operate in their own sphere and are mainly interested in what they can get from the employees and the employers. It is obvious that union tough guys can intimidate workers in public to get cards signed and not even bother informing all the workers that an organizing drive is taking place. So some workers may find out that they will have to join a union and they don't even know that a union is seeking representation. Many workers don't want to pay dues, deal with a shop steward or be told what to do by a union, shouldn't their voices be heard? An employer also can fall prey to unscupulous unions. Most business owners/mangers are not anti worker so why should they be "sideswiped" by a third entity without the ability to have their voice heard? If the system is being abused by employers through unfair tactics as the unions claim, then that can be addressed and corrected. However, tipping the scales with EFCA is outrageous, undemocatic and frankly un American.

For me it is more of a general question. Especially in times like these it is important to sit back and examine how viable is letting capitalism take its course. If not then what balance needs to be struck with regulation. And in terms of labor and unions it is also important for having some sort of equilibrium. The problem is that even with unions or no unions manufacturers are still closing down. Nick

The Wagner Act already does this. This bill seems like it is only going to make the unions end up on the winning side. Respecting privacy is a higher value than any of this finger pointing. I grew up watching the steel industry leave Pittsburgh and head to Brazil, China, and a few other places. But everyone has there own opinion. Regards, Janet Stevens

There needs to be a class action suit taken to the supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of removing the secret ballot elections in the work place. Those of use who went to school and have a degree do not want to give our money to a union nor have our wage ranges set by a union. We want the company to do well. From the employer's view, remember a person at some time risked everything to open the busines. This act will allow unskilled workers to have control over the company's financial future. Company's will flee the country. The unintended consequences of legislation like this always cause disasterous results.

Let's bully people into voting. Isn't it illegal to enter them into a drawing if they sign a check card? Doesn't the raffle have to be for everyone?? Back to EFCA. This is Prounion, not proworker. Do the workers know how much they will have to pay into the unions? If they choose to do so, they should be allowed to make that choice in private. The day John McCain and Sarah Palin go knocking door to door asking people to vote for them, or change their vote to vote for them is the day EFCA should pass. From what I can see, a worker basically can't give a no vote. They get a yes vote or a 'not yet' vote (since the union can keep coming back asking them to vote yes and sign the card). Democracy?? Voting is private for a reason. They are private so people can vote their true choice without pressure or strongarming!

I've been in a union for 10years me and my best friend were hired at the same time I am in the CWA he is not NO BIG DEAL,I don't threaten him and we never ever even talk about it,this isn't the industrial age new age workers don't care about that it's more serious stuff in life.Republicans spread lies about the act and think we don't research YOU can still have a secret ballot EFCA doesn't stop it.A friend of mines works for a big cable company here 60% wanted the union the others didn't through the loopholes the company denied them of representation with the EFCA they will not be able to do this thats it!I understand where you say someone bled to get the company started TRUE but without workers there is no company just a boss and we all know bosses have been bosses to long to be workers think about it!I was never bullied or made to join a union it was a choice EFCA just makes the employer go with the employees choice and we all know employers have been ignoring that and working the loopholes.People knew Obama supported it and he won so the country supports EFCA not just me!

The deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) strips workers of their right to a government supervised, private ballot vote and replaces it with a forced- unionization system, where workers must publicly declare their support for a union and publicly sign a binding contract without seeing the "fine print."After 51% sign up, the remaining 49% of workers never get a choice. They become unionized giving up to 2% or more of their wages to "protect the workers." This will ultimately strip workers of their right to privacy and exposes them to intimidation, deception, and coercion. This is an undemocratic power grab by special-interest union lobbyists it's an outrage! No wonder unions are pressuring Congressional candidates to pledge support for a forced unionization bill, union membership has declined from 20% to 7.5% in the last twenty five years. So if they can put this kind of pressure on congress and these candidates, what happens when the vote is no longer private this will expose these workers to pressure, harassment, and possible threats from the unions.This is a corruption of government when lobbyists can bring this to the table since 87% of the American public support a federally-supervised, private election to decide unionization. We need to stand as Americans and fight against the (EFCA.) This will hurt the economy terribly and jobs will be lost because companies will not want to open factories in America. Anne

I agree that unions are needed in some areas, but I totally disagree with the forceful way that the EFCA will allow unions to come into your place of business. I have been unionized before and found that mostly you end up paying alot and getting little. I am working now with a company that allows us voting power towards our benefit choices and already promotes wages beyond fair. Already there are laws and organizations to protect workers as far as discrimination, safety, and fair practices. Maybe these organizations could be beefed up a little, but as far as I can tell this EFCA is almost forcing the unions down your throat. I think that they have found that over the last 10-20 years people have grown away from the unions and they are simply trying to push their way back into the work force. I can't believe that Obama expects people to just fall back and let this happen. Creating medical insurance for everyone should not be dependent on whether a company is unionized. This is just a trick by the unions to build up their own organizations and put more money in their pockets. Like other corporations they are a business trying to make a profit. If they had been working so hard and doing so much for the people they already represented they wouldn't need this Employee Fair Choice Act.

The problem with EFCA is not that it strengthens unions- the problem is that it makes unions even more undemocratic than they already are. The card check process is just inviting thuggery- and there's enough thuggery in the union system as it is. As a former union member, i know that there are good unions and bad unions. For the public at large- it doesn't make much sense to just point to the benefits of union membership for union members. If unions aren't doing their job, everyday non-union workers just end up getting frustrated by lazy workers who are protected by unions and who don't do their job. The perfect example is the nursing union. For patients, unionized nursing ends up putting their lives at risk. Everyone says the same thing: go to a union hospital and you probably won't make it out because the nurses can't get fired and they get out of doing almost anything in their contract negotiations. Or look at the awful performance of some of the educational unions. I don't care if they get better benefits if my kids get a lousy education and I get awful care at the hospital. But if the union was doing its job (like a lot of electrician unions) and was guaranteeing both high quality of service and workers rights- people would be rallying for teachers unions and for nurses unions at every school and every hospital. The fact that the public isn't rallying for them isn't because of bad PR- it's because of bad union performance

The Wagner Act already does this. This bill seems like it is only going to make the unions end up on the winning side. Respecting privacy is a higher value than any of this finger pointing. I grew up watching the steel industry leave Pittsburgh and head to Brazil, China, and a few other places. But everyone has there own opinion. Regards, Janet Stevens ---- In case this wasn't clear the first time, Janet here is reiterating her point. I mean the point being made by the business lobby that is spreading this talking point and posting it repeatedly in threads, hilariously they've posted it twice in this very conversation. Many of the opinions posted in the comments fields on articles such as this are nothing more than corporate-financed public relations propaganda. This is a fact. Business organizations such as Chambers of Commerce and Restaurant Associations and others like that exist primarily for this reason, to band together resources to fight anything they deem not in their interest. Their interest, of course, is typically contradicting that of the employees. If you pull-back from the party line being spread by big business, that EFCA is "undemocratic and removes the right to secret ballot" you can easily see just how ridiculous this assertion is. 1. Bullying. Yes, you must fear bullying by the union, nevermind YOUR EMPLOYER when you don't have a union. Seriously folks, this one is easy! 2. Undemocratic. If 50% of the people are willing to voluntarily and publicly assert their desire to form a union then a secret ballot will surely receive more than 50%, thereby passing the initiative. This is a good process. 3. Who is going to pressure you to sign a Union card? The Union that does not exist or have power? What leverage do they have other than peer pressure? Compare that to the leverage of your employer, who controls your livelihood. It is absurd to accept the threat of dominance from an employer over the dominance of a co-worker. Nevermind that in a public Union Check you get to find out who else is against the union, too. One that Union is formed there will be a known block of skeptics who will become power brokers as the Union forms, elects officers and decides on its actions. 4. Why does EFCA actually propose this change? This is simple. The current system has a built-in coercion period where your employer is entitled to harass, propagandize and terminate people leading up to an NLRB union vote. This is what the business lobby seeks to protect, their opportunity to fire you as soon as they sniff a Union is afoot. 5. Unions are not monolithic. If you sign cards and create a Union YOU get to decide how it works. You can even be in charge. You can decide to create a Union the day after EFCA goes into effect and tell nobody except your co-workers. The instant you get 50% publicly you have leverage over your employer. Right now what do you have? Oh that's right, NOTHING. 6. EFCA and Unions in general encourage good employer behavior. If they do not want to deal with a Union they must create an environment where less than 50% of employees think a Union is a good idea. Give the people some credit to make up their own mind. If your employer is paying living wages, treating people fair and being a good citizen to your community there won't be a Union drive, you can bet on it. Unions are only desired when something is lacking.

"In attacking the EFCA, opponents distort the facts and charge that the legislation would end secret ballot elections in union organizing drives. Not true." Bill, I've really got to question your reading comprehension when you make this sort of statement. Maybe you're just being a parrot. I decided to take a look at the actual text of the proposed legislation, and Section 2 (a) 6 is pretty specific. There are a few ten cent words in that paragraph, but it plainly says that if a majority of employees in an appropriate unit sign a petition to unionize then it's a done deal. It is possible that I'm too ignorant to understand, but to me a petition is completely different from secret ballot elections. No actually I'm not too ignorant. I can understand the writing perfectly, and one of the things that I understand is that you are lying through your teeth when you claim that this legislation would not end secret ballot elections.

i could completely shred this article for the lies, inflammatory comments and complete inaccuracies.. i'm a labor relations specialist... wow do your research. first off... you claim that "These abuses are well-documented, including mandatory attendance at anti-union meetings, one-on-one meetings, threats to close the business if the union wins the vote, and even firing workers for pro-union activity". Where is there documentation of this? If this is true, why are the unions not going crazy petitioning the NLRB?? hm,m.. maybe because they'r enot....you are just using lies and propaganda from the union sites.. i've seen them as i do research on this. Name one company that has been charged with firing an employee in the last 20 years for union activity. By the way, the union officials do not have to get 50% of the total work force. They have to get 50% of the specific bargaining unit.. which would in turn represent the whole company. Horrible. The dems will be done, as will obama very very shortlyl. say 2 years....

The big lie is that EFCA is a positive piece of legislation that would help the American worker. The unions couldn't care less about the common worker. All they want is more union dues. This would be a disaster for America's economy and would eventually lead to more unemployment. Don't believe the union lies. They are masters of spin.