EFCA Odds & Ends
In Labor Refutes Some 'Choice' Lies, former bull-roping journalist Tula Connell continues to insist that under the Employee Free Choice Act, "workers" could choose secret ballot elections, but she fails to explain exactly how they would go about doing that:
The Employee Free Choice Act does not take away the ballot-election process (which often is controlled by the employer). The act would ensure workers could choose the ballot-election process or the majority sign-up process, in which workers seeking to form a union could sign cards indicating their desire to do so. Majority sign-up is much faster than the government-run balloting process and leaves less time for employers to harass and intimidate workers so they will back off from joining a union.
See also:
In Checking a Card, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, addresses, among other things, the oft-repeated claim that the Employee Free Choice Act would benefit the middle class:
Further, allowing unions to organize workplaces through intimidation could hurt the middle class, rather than help it, as negotiated compensation packages force firms to close or relocate offshore. The heavily unionized rustbelt has been shedding jobs. And the greatest job growth in the country has been in the non-unionized areas of the South, where plants such as South Carolina's BMW and Tennessee's Nissan are adding employment.
In an earlier article, published on the eve of the House vote, Ms. Furchtogott-Roth noted that incomes have risen as union membership has declined over the last 20years and had more to say about the dangers of forcing employers to pay above-market wages.
In 2005, 35% of families made over $75,000. But in 1983, only 22% did, after adjusting for inflation. Real median family income was $56,194 in 2005, 22% higher than in 1983 after inflation.* * *
Fewer workers belong to unions because many unions price their workers out of jobs, sending jobs overseas or to more efficient nonunionized firms. The profitable Pillowtex textile mill in Kannapolis, N.C., was unionized in 2000, after a 25-year fight described as a victory for workers. But it closed in 2003, laying off 4,800 employees, and Kannapolis is still recovering from the plant's loss.Similarly, unionized Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler are firing workers, whereas their nonunion counterparts, Toyota and Honda, with plants in Kentucky and Georgia, can't keep up with demand.
Although nonunion firms also move overseas, they have more flexibility to adapt to changing conditions than do unionized firms. States with laws protecting workers from being compelled to join unions as a condition of employment saw increases in nonagricultural employment of 70% between 1980 and 2005, double the 35% increase in states with no such worker protection.
See also:
In Redressing Taft-Hartley, super-cool anti-corporate activist Peter Rothberg promotes "progressive" action in returning to pre-1947 labor policy:
The amendments enacted in Taft-Hartley added a list of prohibited actions, or "unfair labor practices", on the part of unions to the National Labor Relations Act, which had previously existed to monitor abuses on the part of employers. The Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts and "common situs" picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass "right-to-work" laws that outlawed union shops. Furthermore, the executive branch of the Federal government was empowered to break strikes if an action "imperiled the national health or safety," a test that has been interpreted broadly by the courts.
Earlier this year, the new Democratic-led House passed the Employee Free Choice Act, designed to undo some of the worst aspects of Taft-Hartley.See also:
EFCA Updates