Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Suspected EFCA Compromise Could be More Fascist & Bigger Job Killer Than Original Version of Job-Destroying Bill

Last week, a story about the defectively-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act ran in the New York Times and created much hullabaloo around the internet. The Times story stated that Democrats had reportedly dropped the undemocratic majority sign-up provisions of EFCA in exchange for compromise.

Although later, SEIU boss Andy Stern downplayed the story by stating:

"The Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process, and we expect a vote on a majority sign-up provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress."

However, James Redeker, an attorney at Duane Morris provides further insight about what the alleged compromise may look like [Note: we use the term alleged here because nothing has been confirmed or denied in Washington]:

The proposed deal would replace card-check provisions with an election within five to 10 days from the date of filing a petition. The National Labor Relations Board's internal rules currently require an election within 45 days of the date of the petition. Consequently, under the modified EFCA, an employer may have little time to form an effective counter-campaign if it waits until receiving notice of the petition before
taking action. Since the deal proposes to eliminate the 12-day period (under current procedures) during which an employer can contest the appropriateness of a voting unit and the status of supervisors, unprepared employers may have to accept almost any bargaining-unit construct proposed by the union.

Other possible, but unconfirmed, aspects of the deal include a denial to employers of the right to require employees to attend meetings on work time to discuss unionization issues, a requirement that union agents be given full access to the workplace following the filing of a petition, and the right of the union to employees' names and addresses immediately upon the filing of the petition.

The deal would leave in place mandatory arbitration to set the terms of a first contract and enhanced penalties on employers (up to $20,000 per occurrence and treble back-pay damages) that unlawfully interfere with or discriminate against employees engaged in union organizing activity.

You can read Mr. Redekker's full post here.

If, indeed, the above rumors become confirmed fact and this is what constitutes a compromise, it will be worse than the original draft...more draconian, and more fascist.

More importantly, if this is the road America's "leaders" choose to take our nation down, it is suspected many entrepreneurs and small business owners will abandon ship, so to speak.

There will be no incentive for any entrepreneur to invest hard-earned capital into forming a company and creating jobs when the heavy hand of government can force businesses to be handed over to a union and government bureaucracy. This, in turn, will cause larger companies to shed jobs, as higher unemployment causes less economic activity for the larger firms.

Does anyone think 17% (give or take) unemployment is unreasonable under EFCA?

No comments:

Post a Comment

How Much Do You Know About the Employee (Not So) Free Choice Act?

If you are seeking information about the Employee Free Choice Act, go here.

If you would like more information about unions and their tactics, go here.

If you would like to receive regular updates on the status of the Employee Free Choice Act, as well as news and views about today's unions go here.

More on the Hallucinogenically-Named Employee Free Choice Act

Enter a long URL to make tiny:


Bookmark and Share