The EFCA ‘Compromise’
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.