Supporters and detractors say the Employee Free Choice Act will change the face of U.S. labor law. Although Congress is mulling the bill for a fourth time, AFL-CIO Organizing Director Stewart Acuff said he's seen polls showing more public support for it and an administration more willing to sign it.
"It came out of the realization that Americans have lost the freedom to bargain collectively," Acuff said. Acuff cited a Human Rights Watch report published in 2000 that said many U.S. employers are in violation of international human rights standards for workers. Once a union is organized, employers no longer would be able to not recognize a bargaining unit, Acuff said.
David Swider, partner of Bose McKinney and Evans LLP in Indianapolis, said employees would not be able to hear arguments for and against unions before voting. Cameron Carter, vice president of small business and economic development for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said the bill opens the door for coercion on both sides, and that the privacy of secret balloting would be gone.
"This would be like someone coming into your house and saying 'sign this card, and this would be your vote,' " Swider said. "Employers can't do that; they can't go to someone's house."
Acuff said the bill advocates that if a majority of employees sign cards wanting a union, then the board can certify the union. In the existing labor relations act, 30 percent of employees are needed to petition the National Labor Relations Board to organize a union or name a bargaining representative. The board then takes a secret-ballot election, and a majority of employees need to vote for the union. Acuff argues both options are still on the table for employees.
United Steelworkers District 7 Director Jim Robinson said the bill is helpful because newly organized employees would avoid a tactic called "stalling." Robinson said many companies wait at least a year before agreeing to a contract with a union, and since a vote can only happen one time a year, they could wait union officials out until the next election, when people may be more disenfranchised and thinking about leaving the union. Acuff said 40 percent of people who get a union never get a contract, and the bill would require employers to bargain in good faith.
"There's a huge criticism about the timeline (to form a contract); I think it would get extended by agreement," Robinson said. "In first contracts, companies will usually spend time arguing over positions they'll (eventually) agree to."
Carter said the Indiana Chamber recently sent letters to the state's Congressional delegation about its members' concerns and asked them to vote against the bill. Carter, who lobbies for the chamber at the federal level, argued the bill's requirements could change both sides' negotiating tactics and that they may be more obstinate, hoping to get a better deal in arbitration. But, he said, it's hard to imagine that a Washington bureaucrat or labor attorney acting as arbitrator would understand the effects of an agreement on a small manufacturing firm in Hammond.
"There's economic pressure both ways, but employers don't have to agree to everything," Swider said. "The employee has economic weapons, but it can't force employers to follow the contract. That would be very economically painful for an employer."
Susan Eckerly, senior vice president for public policy for the National Federation of Independent Business, said in a statement on its Web site that "it was a nightmare to see this bill resurrected from the grave." Eckerly said when unions enter a workplace, they succeed in organizing more often than not, and small-business owners shouldn't have a government official dictate the wages and benefits they offer employees.
Union membership has been trending downward for years, and Carter said the legislation is a ploy to increase the number of rank-and-file employees nationwide. He also said the legislation isn't necessary, because most employers know that when they don't treat their employees well, the business suffers.
Donald Steinke, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 1227, said he supports the bill, because penalties for violating organizing activities can be imposed against employers up to $20,000 for each offense. If the union broke federal laws, it would face penalties as well.
