Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Employee Free Choice Act protects unionizing workers from intimidation

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 23:21, 10 November 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Supporting quotations)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 00:44, 11 November 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Supporting quotations)
Next diff →
Line 15: Line 15:
Why the huge disparity? It's because employees say they are afraid that they will be fired if they try to organize a union in their workplace, and rightfully so. There is a one in five chance that an active union supporter will be illegally fired for union activity during an organizing campaign, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Why the huge disparity? It's because employees say they are afraid that they will be fired if they try to organize a union in their workplace, and rightfully so. There is a one in five chance that an active union supporter will be illegally fired for union activity during an organizing campaign, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
 +
 +
 +[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601245.html Lance Compa. "A Shield Against Corporate Bullying". Washington Post. 27 Feb. 2007] - Current labor law puts employers in control of what should be employees' concern. Even when by a big majority workers join a union to bargain collectively, employers can force a vote run by the NLRB. During the weeks it takes to set up the election, management can launch a devastating campaign to thwart workers' choice. Employers say they are just telling employees the downsides of organizing. But they go way beyond that point, hauling workers into mandatory meetings and threatening to shutter the workplace or to permanently replace workers who exercise the right to strike.
 +
 +Imagine a campaign for president where legally just one candidate can spend an unlimited amount of money for TV advertisements and the other candidate can only pass out flyers at highway intersections. Imagine a campaign for Congress in which every employer in the country can force its employees into a mandatory meeting to tell them: "If you vote for the candidate of Party A, I'll have to close the business; vote for Party B if you want to keep your job." Imagine a campaign for governor where every employer in the state singles out and fires employees who support the candidate whom management opposes.
 +
 +These examples parallel the reality of union election campaigns under current law. Employers have unlimited access to harangue workers against organizing, while union representatives are relegated to passing out flyers to workers speeding out of parking lots and asking time-stressed employees to attend evening or weekend meetings. Employers have unlimited power to hold captive-audience meetings where they can legally "predict" workplace closure, as long as they don't illegally "threaten" it (a Supreme Court decision created the distinction, though many understandably have trouble differentiating between the two). And though it's illegal, employers routinely fire worker activists to frighten others into submission, knowing it will take years for reinstatement orders to take effect.

Revision as of 00:44, 11 November 2008

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

"US: Support the Employee Free Choice Act". Human Rights Watch. 27 Feb. 2007 - Human Rights Watch has found that anti-union discrimination is common during NLRB election campaigns. In one case, an employer illegally threatened to cut pay and benefits if workers chose to form a union and fired two key union supporters. A worker told Human Rights Watch that, as a result, “everybody is scared [to organize] now.” The Employee Free Choice Act would go a long way towards closing off this opportunity for employers to undermine workers’ right to organize.

Current US rules governing union election campaigns are unfairly slanted against union supporters and allow employers to use myriad tactics to prevent workers from freely choosing whether to organize. Employers are entitled to argue vigorously against union formation while denying union organizers and advocates a parallel opportunity to present their message. Employers can force workers to attend anti-union captive-audience meetings during work time while prohibiting union organizers from holding similar meetings. And employers can issue a steady anti-union drumbeat during the workday but ban union advocates from the workplace and even from distributing information on sidewalks and in parking areas on employer property.

The failure of US labor law to ensure free and fair union elections can be more fully understood by analogy to political elections. The goal in each case is to create an even playing field and guarantee that people can cast votes free from coercion. The one-sided anti-union campaigning that US labor laws allow during organizing drives would rightly be seen as a travesty of minimum standards of electoral fairness in a political contest where all sides must have “equal opportunity to convey their messages to the electorate” to ensure “[t]he fair and free atmosphere needed for effective political campaigning.” It should be understood as manifestly unfair in workplace elections, as well.

While the Employee Free Choice act would not address existing unbalanced rules on who can speak openly in the workplace about union formation, it would mitigate the rules’ negative impact on workers’ rights and help ensure that workers who wish to form unions can do so. Under current US labor law, employers can refuse to recognize a union and demand an NLRB election even when a majority of workers support union formation as demonstrated by signed worker authorizations—a “card check.”


Deborah Godwin. "Free Choice Act gives power to workers". Special to The Commercial Appeal. 28 Oct. 2008 - Some 60 million U.S. workers who are not represented by a union say they want one in their workplace. Yet only 15.7 million, or 12.1 percent of all workers, belong to a union.

Why the huge disparity? It's because employees say they are afraid that they will be fired if they try to organize a union in their workplace, and rightfully so. There is a one in five chance that an active union supporter will be illegally fired for union activity during an organizing campaign, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.


Lance Compa. "A Shield Against Corporate Bullying". Washington Post. 27 Feb. 2007 - Current labor law puts employers in control of what should be employees' concern. Even when by a big majority workers join a union to bargain collectively, employers can force a vote run by the NLRB. During the weeks it takes to set up the election, management can launch a devastating campaign to thwart workers' choice. Employers say they are just telling employees the downsides of organizing. But they go way beyond that point, hauling workers into mandatory meetings and threatening to shutter the workplace or to permanently replace workers who exercise the right to strike.

Imagine a campaign for president where legally just one candidate can spend an unlimited amount of money for TV advertisements and the other candidate can only pass out flyers at highway intersections. Imagine a campaign for Congress in which every employer in the country can force its employees into a mandatory meeting to tell them: "If you vote for the candidate of Party A, I'll have to close the business; vote for Party B if you want to keep your job." Imagine a campaign for governor where every employer in the state singles out and fires employees who support the candidate whom management opposes.

These examples parallel the reality of union election campaigns under current law. Employers have unlimited access to harangue workers against organizing, while union representatives are relegated to passing out flyers to workers speeding out of parking lots and asking time-stressed employees to attend evening or weekend meetings. Employers have unlimited power to hold captive-audience meetings where they can legally "predict" workplace closure, as long as they don't illegally "threaten" it (a Supreme Court decision created the distinction, though many understandably have trouble differentiating between the two). And though it's illegal, employers routinely fire worker activists to frighten others into submission, knowing it will take years for reinstatement orders to take effect.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.