Earlier this month, Ray LaHood voted against the Employee Free Choice Act (which passed the House anyway, 241-185), H.R. 1696 H.R. 800, which would make it easier to form a union. Here’s a good explanation from a blog called The Chicagoist:
In a nutshell, the current process of administrative rules and labor laws require at least 30% of workers to sign union cards indicating that they want to have a union, petition the government for an election, and then go through a campaign before getting to vote to have a union or not. […]
The Employee Free Choice Act changes the rules regarding union representation, granting union recognition by signing up a simple majority of workers on union cards, eliminating the petition process. Furthermore, this bill creates meaningful consequences when employers violate employee rights to organize and provides for mediation and arbitration in first contract negotiations.
LaHood voted against it, telling the Pekin Times he felt it would “take away the opportunity of the worker to participate and have their voice heard through the ballot.†Wikipedia further explains why he may feel that way:
Critics contend union administered elections, with a lack of Federal oversight, will lead to coercion on the part of union organizers. Opponents of the EFCA also assert that the measure would not protect employee privacy [i.e., there is nothing requiring a secret ballot].
Thank goodness we have Ray LaHood in Congress to protect workers from those horrible unions! I mean, the current system is so much better, isn’t it, with all its protective red tape and long delays? I suppose that’s one way to fix the trade deficit — if we can get rid of the unions, then American workers can start competing for the low wages corporations are paying to workers oversees.
Meanwhile, staunch defender of the democratic process LaHood continues to defend the decidedly un-democratic federal earmark process.
CJ, I am surprised you would buy this outrageous scheme to deny workers a secret ballot. If a worker wants a union, they can vote for one, not against that, but the vote should be secret and free of intimidation. That is fundamental fairness. Believe it or not, union bosses (about as close to the average working man as the CEO) intimidate workers in order to get their dues (FOLLOW THE MONEY!). You wouldn’t allow the City to have people bring cards in and hand them to workers at City Hall to tally for an election.
This is a very misleadingly named bill. It is NOT pro-worker.
LaHood should be praised for this vote. Eliminating a secret election for determining whether or not the union has sufficient support to form in a workplace would be a terrible situation. Would you propose electing Public Officials in the same manner? Of course not, because we value secret elections where individuals can make a choice unencumbered from pressure.
This is nothing but an attempt by unions to reverse the historical trend of declining union membership. The only area where union membership is increasing is the public sector.
The current system may be imperfect but I have to agree with LaHood on this one (which is rare). This bill is bad bad bill.
Currently you need 30% of the workforce to sign authorization cards to bring about an election. This vote is by secret ballot that has oversight and a fixed time table. Both sides have time to campaign.
The proposed system would have no ballot and no oversight at all. If a union organizer shows up with 50%+1 cards signed, the employer has a union. The employer might not even know an organizing attempt is underway. These cards can be signed anytime anywhere with no obvious opportunity for the employer to respond. Indeed the union organizer could veritably harass you into signing the card. Once signed you can’t revoke it.
Well, you guys may be right. I just read on this blog that “A Zogby poll found that 78 percent of union members prefer the current law to a system with fewer privacy protections in place for workers.”
I agree that it should be a secret ballot. Nevertheless, I think current rules are skewed in favor of employers to engage in anti-union intimidation. So there needs to be a compromise in there somewhere — maybe in the Senate they can pass a different version of the bill that would include a secret ballot and it could all get hammered out in committee.
The tactics businesses have to combat unions will not be seriously diminished by this bill, the most serious being simply closing the location.
It will be smaller businesses, without the flexibility, that will be hurt most by this.
Realize that under the current system, the threat of unionization can function as a wake up call to management that their people are not happy. The current system gives them time to make corrections and improve the quality of the workplace. Happy workers don’t normally unionize.
OK I cancelled my heart lung transplant so I can go out and look at a trophy from baseball where all the players look like off duty cops. Damn.
oops wrong topic. Must have been the pills
“78% of Union Workers prefer the system.” What about non-union workers? I’m in a union and it’s not by choice. Frankly, I think I could do better negotiating my own contract. Non-union workers should have the opportunity to lobby and let their opinions be heard just as the Union has that opportunity. Too many people don’t understand what the union will really do for them (take wages). They’re tricked into signing the card without a chance to hear the other side.