rssThe EFCA ‘Compromise’
Monday, March 23, 2009 at 8:50 am
- 4 Comments
A softened-up alternative to the Employee Free Choice Act, pushed by Costco, Starbucks and Whole Foods, is turning out to be something incredible: a “compromise” that neither side of the EFCA debate likes. Among other things, the proposal would force 70 percent of workers, not 50 percent, to sign organizing cards before they can start a union.
“Every worker in America has the right to a secret ballot vote in union-organizing elections, free from intimidation or recrimination,” said Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute. “Calling a proposal which exposes 70 percent of employees to intimidation instead of 50 percent a ‘compromise’ is beyond absurd.”
Others said the proposed deal was not a true compromise. Instead, they said the companies were trying to appease powerful labor unions by helping to get the bill passed by Congress.
“These companies should be standing up for the basic rights of their employees instead of kowtowing to the union bosses — or cutting backroom deals trying to protect their narrow interests,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee. “One thing that is for sure: should this scheme lead to passage of a bill that forces more workers into monopoly unions, these companies’ blatant disregard for their own consumers won’t soon be forgotten.”
The most revealing take might be that of Ed Morrissey, a conservative blogger at HotAir.com.
In truth, it gives the unions little that they don’t already have, and it strips them of two of their cherished prizes. It also gives politicians on Capitol Hill a way to throw a bone to union rank and file without offering a complete game-changer.
It’s not clear how it can muddy the debate if no one takes it seriously.
Follow David Weigel on Twitter
4 Comments
Comment posted March 23, 2009 @ 7:13 am
in fact, as far as i can tell, i doesn't even include the 70% provision – all of the things i've read this a.m. seem to indicat that management's right to insist on an NLRB election would remain intact. see Washpo, for instance – there's no provision in the “compromise” to allow majority signup at any threshold.
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Again my comment to labor is, “If you put up with it; you deserve it.”
Labor needs to go back in its history. It would see and show to all the new labor folks that their cause is just; that they only need to stick together to win.
Compromise is where neither side gets what it wants. How many labor folks are on the compromise team?
Labor and unions made the middle class. Without them we would have more of the abuses that excess greed has given us today. Look at the disparity between the CEO wage and the average labor wage. Look at that disparity for the last 30 years.
Labor needs to spend time and money educating the public on its history. If the younger generation of labor knew what unions have done for them they would batter down the doors to join.
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Again my comment to labor is, “If you put up with it; you deserve it.”
Labor needs to go back in its history. It would see and show to all the new labor folks that their cause is just; that they only need to stick together to win.
Compromise is where neither side gets what it wants. How many labor folks are on the compromise team?
Labor and unions made the middle class. Without them we would have more of the abuses that excess greed has given us today. Look at the disparity between the CEO wage and the average labor wage. Look at that disparity for the last 30 years.
Labor needs to spend time and money educating the public on its history. If the younger generation of labor knew what unions have done for them they would batter down the doors to join.
Trackback posted March 25, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Buy Propecia Online…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
