Sign up now to subscribe!
Employee Free Choice Act Raises Questions and Worries
Despite passing the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin March 1, the fate of the Employee Free Choice Act remains very much in doubt, leaving some New Yorkers up in arms—but some very much relieved.
If signed into law, the act would stiffen penalties for employers who violate labor law during organizing drives, allow workers to unionize by signing authorization cards rather than asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a secret ballot election, and allow unions to take their first contract negotiations to the NLRB for binding arbitration if both parties cannot reach an agreement within the first 120 days of a given union’s recognition by the NLRB.
The last two provisions are the most controversial.
The bill, which was drafted in the last session of Congress, is sponsored in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and in the House of Representatives by Peter King (R-Nassau) and George Miller (D-California). This year was the first time it came to the floor for a vote.
No date has been set for the Senate vote, though it is expected soon.
In February, Vice President Richard Cheney (R) told reporters that President George W. Bush (R) would veto it if it reached his desk.
“I don’t believe Bush would sign this. I mean, I would hope he would, but in my heart of hearts, I don’t believe he will,” said Ed Ott, Executive Director of the New York City Central Labor Council.
Jason Straczewski, director of human resources policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, called the legislation “anti-democratic” and “anti-competitive” and said it would not benefit employees.
He objects to the card provision, arguing that this would allow workers to unionize without holding an election. If 51 employees of a company of 100 signed authorization cards, Straczewski said, they could get union recognition from the NLRB.
Holding union drives this way could be intimidating for people unwilling to sign, because the cards are turned over to the employer, the NLRB and the union.
“We’re concerned about other 49 employees,” he said.
Straczewski believes holding union drives this way could be intimidating for people unwilling to sign, because the cards are turned over to the employer, the NLRB and the union.
“Your fellow employees will see which way you chose,” he noted.
He said that the binding arbitration is a “very bad, dangerous part” of the bill because it puts things like wages and benefits in the hands of an outside governing body (the NLRB) that has no understanding of its particular circumstances. The NLRB’s terms would be binding for two years.
Workers at Verizon Business (formerly MCI) are trying to join the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Management at the company, located in the Financial District, is aware of the effort.
David Mecir, an installation technician and maintenance worker for the company, said that he and his coworkers feel mistreated by management.
“They’re taking away two vacation days,” he said. “They took away three sick days. They took away all our banked sick time.”
According to Mecir, each week, management calls in the workers for mandatory meetings at which directors from various offices around the country make appearances and explain to them why they should think twice about unionizing. The managers who speak at these meetings—Mecir said every week brings a different manager—neither acknowledge the workers’ desire to form a union, nor deny it.
If they were to unionize, management warns them, they might not get the bonuses.
Mecir said that originally everyone he worked with wanted to unionize, but talk of decreased pay and benefits at mandatory meetings is getting to them, and now “people are getting thoughts about it.”
A recent study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that “about 1 in 5 union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their union organizing.”
Frederick Braid, a partner at Holland & Knight who represents management in labor and employment law, recognizes that increasing penalties for employers who break the law could be the “one fruitful area” of the bill.
But like other opponents of the bill, he said in a telephone interview that “Free Choice” is a misnomer because, in his view, taking away the secret ballot process takes away workers’ right to decide independently whether to unionize.
Braid thinks that mandatory meetings like the ones David Mecir described are a right of management, comparing them to a national election in which voters get to hear from both candidates and vote in private.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn/Queens), who voted for the House version of the Employee Free Choice Act, thinks that while not a “magic bullet,” the act is “a necessary first step” to reduce the trend of organized labor’s documented decline in membership.
He rejects the idea that having members sign authorization cards out in the open compromises their ability to make an independent choice about whether to unionize.
“Union organizers don’t have the ability to fire someone. Union organizers don’t have the ability to harass someone in the workplace or cut their wages. The power in the workplace is in the hands of management,” Weiner said. “This is to give workers a fighting chance.”