There are already plenty of labor laws that protect workers. The Employee Free Choice Act is a good idea in that labor unions can be formed faster and workers have easier ways to take grievances to court regarding unfair labor practices. The law doesn't hinder management, it just makes it easier for labor unions to maneuver through laws that are already in place.
Most of the opposition to most labor-friendly legislation comes from organized business and their advocates in elected office. While unions do have systemic problems, they serve a valuable cause. If unions are stripped of power, there will not be any organized opposition to the efforts of big business. In essence, blocking most worker-friendly legislation is tantamount to trying to silence one side of the labor debate.
Large corporations and organizations that employ many people have the benefit of size. Access to large amounts of money, lawyers and political operatives and lobbyists mean that big companies get what they want. Employees should also be able to use the power of numbers, if not to get to what they want, to at least protect themselves.
In the interest of creating safe and fair workplaces and working environments, the Employee Free Choice Act is an excellent idea. It gives the employee the freedom to create and join organized unions for the benefit and betterment of those employed within that union. While the costs incurred by companies may be substantial, in terms of required increased compensation or benefits, in the long term, the companies benefit. This is because their workers will be happier and healthier which, in turn, leads to greater and better productivity.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a great idea as it helps to deter company owners or officials from discriminating against employees who show an interest in a union. Unions have had a history of being a positive option for employees, and they help give small voices a bigger impact. The fear or hesitation employees might have felt before this act should go away when workers have this legal protection.
I think the Employee Free Choice Act protects the rights of workers from the unethical actions of the companies employing them. It gives the unions that represent the employees more rights, and demands a binding agreement be reached within 120 days of a union being recognized. It also increases the monetary penalties that can be aimed at non-compliant employers.
For decades, businesses in the United States have been etching away at unionized labor, eroding the middle-class created in the post-WW2 era. Corporations now have vast protections against their own employees, whereby those seeking to start a labor union can be threatened and intimidated with impunity. The Employee Free Choice is a necessary first step toward rebuilding organized labor, and thereby resurrecting the American middle-class and, by extension, the American Dream.
There ought to be room in negotiations over the Employee Free Choice Act to modify the notorious card check provision, which provides employees to vote away the opportunity for a secret ballot in union certification elections. But even if this provision is not modified, the bill overall is likely to do more good than harm. Why? Consider the gutting of funding for the National Labor Relations Board, which now lacks the staff to offer a serious check on corporations intent on exploiting their workers to maximize their profit margins. The measly financial penalties now meted out to firms found guilty of wrongdoing are another example of the imbalance of power between worker and employer. The EFCA addresses this imbalance in a variety of ways, and one must hope that it's revived from its languishing in Congress, that the card check is modified to preserve secret ballots, and that the bill is enacted.
I believe that the Free Choice Act is exactly what the title states that it is - a choice. Employees can make better choices when they are better informed. And my understanding of this Act is that all it does is allow workers to express interest and/or learn more about a union without their employer's interference.
Employees need to have better control over their jobs and conditions. After all, this is America, land of the FREE. It's only logical to assume that employees should have freedom of choice whenever they please so long as they continue to fulfill the terms of their contract.
EFCA allow for the forming of unions quickly, but it does not hold unions accountable. The act only allows the freedom to join a union, but does not allow me to stay employed opt out of a union, that I feel is not responsible to its members. The only Union I was forced to join allow previous employees the opportunity not to belong. The act is misleading it is not free choice it is only one choice.
By allowing the federal government to set wages binding arbitration, it would impede a company's competitiveness and ability to innovate. Since the act would only apply to the initial contract after a union is recognized, the arbitrator would not be allowed to review prior contracts for guidance. This would force a conscientious arbitrator to base their decision on the business practices of comparable companies. This would eliminate any advantages for a company with its own distinctive business model. They would, instead, have to adopt the business practices of its competitors, but would still have a workforce hired and structured for its original, unique business model.
The Employee Free Choice Act allows too much potential for corrupt and frivolous lawsuits. It also depletes the possibility of competitive means on the market, reducing quality of service, products, and efficiency of our industries. A prime example is the teachers' union, which this bill not only protects, but promotes, without any logic. For example, our schools have horrible scores, compared to the rest of the world. That is not the case in private schools, particularly private Catholic schools, which are the most prominent type of private school, and not susceptible to unions. These private schools are the only schools in the USA that are competitive with the rest of the modern nations. Such bills as this allow people to bully the employer, and destroy the quality of services and industry.
I oppose this Act because it brings full circle yet another problem. For years we have attempted to give employees more power by letting them have representatives such as unions. The unions used to be strong and pursued justice for the employee for the correct reasons. Recently my spouse has been a member of a union. They represent that they will help you when in fact they do little. The safety conditions at my spouses particular place of employment are deplorable and my husband personally sustained serious injury as a result. This is an ongoing safety situation that has resulted in serious injuries for more than a few yet the union has not accomplished improving the workplace safety on even the smallest of scales. In addition, the incentive pay solution is a terrible one that further adds to the safety problem. An employer should pay a decent living wage that does not have a quota attached to it. The employer should have the option to reward on merit or terminate on performance each and every employee. When companies operate by quotas more people take short cuts with safety and cause injury yet are rewarded with greater pay than the careful conscientious worker. We can no longer trust the unions to work in our best interest any more than the employer.