News
Panelists call for increased worker rights
Activists say labor law reform necessary, advocate protection of right to unionize
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Matt Marx:
- Council to vote on Edgewater (December 15, 2009)
- Brothers wants student support (December 11, 2009)
- Weather delays Edgewater vote (December 9, 2009)
- UPDATE: Quadruple homicide suspect dead (December 8, 2009)
- Council to make decision on hotel (December 8, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
A panel of labor rights activists at the University of Wisconsin Wednesday called for the United States Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act to ensure employees’ right to unionize.
The EFCA is a piece of legislation currently pending in Congress that aims to make it easier for workers to unionize and increase the penalties to companies violating labor laws.
The panel of activists said under the current system of laws, the right of workers to organize into unions has been impeded by companies, which routinely intimidate and fire people looking to unionize.
Panelist and UW history professor Will Jones said a federal agency called the National Labor Relations Board is supposed to regulate the formation of unions.
Under current labor laws, employees looking to unionize have to collect signatures of people in support of the formation on cards.
If this process is challenged by the company or a competing union, the NLRB is supposed to coordinate a secret ballot election. In essence, the employee’s privacy is protected and the employers do not know who is in support of unionization.
“It’s nearly impossible to form a union with a secret ballot election,” Jones said.
According to Jones, the NLRB has become weak and underfunded. Therefore, union supporters are fired, companies campaign against unions and employers refuse to negotiate with unions. Jones said these actions are “technically illegal.”
The new piece of legislation would bypass the employers and allow the employees to choose whether to use the card system of union formation, or secret ballots.
Panelist and UW sociology professor Chad Goldberg said a dominant objection to the act, that EFCA will compromise employees’ right to a private vote, does not actually apply and the act will provide options on how to conduct a vote.
UW human resources and management professor Larry Hunter, while “not sympathetic to management,” said the objection could be valid. Certain employees may want to have a secret ballot, and the new act leaves the option open for employees to just have a card-signing process of union formation.
Hunter said there is some merit to the objection that the act will take away the right of employees to have a secret ballot; some employees may want to have extra time to consider the pros and cons of union formation.
Hunter added he does not believe the act will pass in its current form, but nevertheless some labor law reformation should occur.
Jim Giedd, a coordinator for The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, said he thinks the EFCA should pass just how it is.
“[The EFCA] gives the opportunity for other people to join a union without having the employer coming down on the employees,” Giedd said.
According to Giedd, the law gives a newly formed union one year to negotiate a contract with an employer.
Giedd said under the current system, employers can simply not negotiate with a newly formed union. The employees then have to start over.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 8f711626
What a one-sided piece of drivel, Marx. Go find someone who has been intimidated by union thugs to make the piece a little bit less biased.
IP hash: ab8e0840
I am a current union member opposed to this proposal. The proposed legislation is more accurately named “The Employee Forced Choice Act”. The Employee Forced Choice Act destroys the cornerstone of democracy - the right of every individual to a secret ballot vote. Employees do not “have a right to unionize”. They have a right to choose whether to unionize or not through a secret ballot. Destroying the right to a secret ballot vote leaves all employees open to direct and indirect coersion by union organizer thugs and peer group pressure. There is no viable “option” to a secret ballot vote. A vote is either secret and secure or it is not. Revoking this fundamental right is unAmerican, antiDemocracy, and wrong at every level of examination. It’s not surprising that the union bulls would be pushing this antiAmerican socialist abuse during the Obama administration. His blatant marxists philosophy and heavy reliance on huge amounts of unaudited campaign funds make them potentially natural bedfellows in corruption and antidemocracy actions.
You have the right to go find another job, if you are unhappy with your current one. Make your self and all your coworkers happier. Stop your mewling and puking about a job you are not happy with and go find one that suits your skills and temperment. We’ll all thank you! And you won’t need to destroy our democracy, in your personal pursuit of happiness!
IP hash: 70642d0d
“Certain employees may want to have a secret ballot,”
Would that be the ones who want to intimidate their co-workers? The secret ballot should be an absolute right in any REAL election.
‘Sign here and there won’t be any trouble’ says the union thug!
Maybe we should get rid of the secret ballot for all elections? Just have the lefty media do a biased poll and go with that.
IP hash: 70642d0d
How does denying the workers a secret ballot lead to “increased worker rights”?
If “It’s nearly impossible to form a union with a secret ballot election” then I can only conclude that the workers don’t want a union. The Boss isn’t in the voting booth for the secrect ballot, but you can be sure that the union “organizer” will be right at your elbow to see that you sign that card the “right” way - OR ELSE!
The act of getting signed cards may not accurately reflect the wishes of the workers, and any intimidation that occurrs will be during the card-check process — where people are public about their positions — rather than in the secret ballot that follows.
Unions are more interested in power than in the worker’s needs. Union leaders are more interested in a fat paycheck for themselves than in the worker’s needs. And the card check feature of the woefully misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will lead them to that end.
IP hash: 3412785f
“Giedd said under the current system, employers can simply not negotiate with a newly formed union.”
So? How is it that organizing into a group suddenly endows the group with the right to coerce others into recognizing them?
The right to organize does not include the right to force employers to negotiate.
IP hash: 7aaefcdf
There’s a couple very bad things in the current EFCA and that’s why a lot of pro-union people want to change it. First of all there is no way for “the workers” to decide if they want to do card check or vote. Typically a few workers would correspond with an international union like SEIU about organizing a workplace. They would be the ones to decide whether card check or an election would be required. There is no mechanism to hold a union meeting before there actually is a union. So what most people think will happen under EFCA is that the international organizers will set a goal and a time frame to reach that goal of card signing, e.g. 65% in 6 months say. If at the end of 6 months, that card check goal is not reached, they will leave and try somewhere else. There will be no union formed nor attempted and no opportunity for an election. There is no truth to the idea that EFCA allows the potential unit members “to decide” because there was no mechanism for a decision to be made in the bill. Because of this problem many like the idea of changing EFCA to specify that the card check to be a “want that union or want a secret election choice”. This would truly give the workers a choice.
The second big problem is that card signing is not confidential. The cards will be shared with the employer who can then retaliate against the people who signed the cards, whether the campaign was successful or not. The employer has to see the names of the signers to make sure that they are real employees in the potential bargaining unit. This is an intolerable situation and the major reason that so many people are against card check. Also it would be an opportunity for organizers to pressure workers. Imagine an influential person at work was pro-union. And remember that these campaigns are not just deciding to organize, they are also determining what international if any the unit belongs to. There can be competition. There could be organizing by more than one international. Signing a card for the “wrong one” could be very problematic. Because of this, there is no alternative but to put privacy back in union elections. EFCA should fix the problems with the secret ballot election not throw privacy out the window.