 |
The Need for Labor Reform: Employee Free Choice Act |
 |
On Tuesday, June 26, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in a 51-48 vote. Not a single member of the Senate broke with party lines.
The most major measure of the bill allows a union or group of employees that wish to form a union to act as the exclusive bargaining organization that engages the National Labor Relations Board. The previous law, as outlined in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, allows the employer to request a secret ballot when the same desire to form a union is invoked by workers.
The proponents of this act support it because they say it has the ability to reduce the intimidation and fear that employers are able to use on employees to form a union. For example, say union organizers want to start a union or a local in their workplace. The organizers must first meet with their employer to request a secret ballot be held in that workplace. That employer, however, will know who the union organizers are and possibly subject them to either intimidation or, worse, termination of employment.
In testimony to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ivo Camilo, a worker at the Blue Diamond Growers plant in California, stated:
In October 2004, I started working with a group of co-workers who were organizing to join the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. It has been my experience that as workers of Blue Diamond Growers we have no voice in terms of policy change and no job security. We are employees at will and we have no guarantees.
In March 2005, we went public with our demand to gain a voice and respect on the job. In April we gave management a letter with the names of 58 co-workers who agreed to be part of an organizing committee. We told them we knew our rights under the National Labor Relations Actâ€â€and we expected those rights to be respected. We got together and delivered that letter April 15. Less than a week later I was fired.
EFCA’s opponents, however, claim that rejecting the rule of “secret ballot” would subject workers to more intimidation, and that the act of union organizers petitioning workers puts them more in danger of employer retribution. They also express reservations that union organizers will intimidate other workers to join the union instead of holding a ballot to do so.
However, in the case of this worker, even bringing up the notion of a union resulted in firing. Plus, the bill would not bar the use of a secret ballot, but add onto the ways that employees could unionize. The bottom line is that Republicans don’t like big labor. Big labor isn’t without its flaws, but to give the illusion that they still want to empower workers with this secret ballot is ludicrous. In fact, when the original National Labor Relations Act was passed, it was in the tumultuous depression-era year of 1935. That year saw several huge general strikes, and unions, in general, were stronger then, including the year of the birth of the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO, now AFL-CIO). The act did not pass at a time of decline in unionism, but from the very real and powerful struggles of workers in America.
The fact is that workers are still struggling in America, but the word “union” has a negative connotation to it, spurred by years of attack from neoliberal politicians and from the acts of the unions themselves (corruption in the Teamsters by Hoffa, etc). Despite that, right now, the union is one of the most powerful tools for labor organizing that we have in America right now, and the ability for a worker to join a union without intimidation by his/her employer and without fear of retribution is something that the US government must guarantee. Labor reform must be revived in this country, and also supported worldwide.
As you point out it seems big labor has a big task to tackle not only in terms of winning more legal freedoms but also in terms of restoring its image. I think that the teamster, Jimmy Hoffa image predominates now, which makes it easy for conservatives to depict unions as lazy, corrupt, and inimical to progress. Perhaps the challenge lies in keeping the union leadership extremely connected with its base, and even internally, giving the base a lot of ways to supervise their leaders and make sure they’re not corrupt.
I hope that there will be a compromise and this bill be taken up again. It seems there is any easy compromise available for the main GOP argument against this bill, ie. the lack of a secret ballot. Why not allow union organizers to inform their boss anonymously that they want to form a union. That way, people do not need to come forward and the employer can still call for a secret ballot if they want to. People are protected from intimidation from either side, and unions get easier to organize. Or am I oversimplifying here?
Your compromise sounds good to me. If the issue is simply the process and not the principle, then when there’s a will there’s a way. Maybe bring back the good old suggestion box, or its modern equivalent. As long as the employers are somehow obligated to listen or respond to such demands, I think it might work.
Is there any recourse if an employee is fired for union organizing?