« A Penny for Your Thoughts | Main | The Right-Wing Media Conspiracy Continues »


Against my better judgment, I feel compelled to post. If this post is too long I'll break it up into two separate ones. I don't care about the lies, spin, and personal attacks against me, but I do think that it's a dangerous myth you're perpetrating about EFCA somehowing giving employees a "choice" as to whether or not to have an election. That assertion is absolutely false. I know you're hardly alone in making it, but in my experience those who make that claim either (a) are unaware of what EFCA actually says, or at least unaware of what its language would mean in light of how union organizing actually works, or (b) have a pro-EFCA agenda and know full-well that they're "spinning" things quite a bit. The reality is that if EFCA passes there technically COULD be an election, but only if a union files a representation petition with the NLRB supported by more than 30% of the cards and less than 50% of the cards. This situation will never happen as a practical matter (I'll explain below) and in any event even in that scenario it would be the union and not the employees who would have the so-called "choice" to file a peittion with less than 50% support just to have an election. Let's take it point-by-point, and I'll be curious to see where you disagree. (1) Under EFCA's current language (H.800) the NLRB would have no discretion to hold an election if a union files a petition with more than 50% of the cards signed. With more than 50% of the cards signed, there's no "choice" for anyone. EFCA would expressly PROHIBIT any election and says that the NLRB must certify the union on the basis of the cards alone in that scenario. The law was written this way for an obvious reason, but let's stick to the point-by-point approach. I'll assume you have no disagreement with what I'm saying in this point (if you do, go read the bill); (2) current NLRB law which is unaffected by EFCA requires a union to have at least 30% of the cards signed in order to file a petition for election. So under EFCA, the only way an election can occur is if a petition is filed that is only supported by cards within the 30% to 50% window. I'll assume you have no disagreement here. (3) current NLRB law unaffected by EFCA grants a one year "shelf life" on authorization cards. In other words, a union has up to a year to try and get enough cards signed. I'll assume you have no disagreement here. (4) unions don't like to lose elections for several reasons. Not only is it a black mark on their record that future employers can use against them in a campaign, but when a union loses an election the target employer, by law, is free from any other election being held for a period of one year. In fact, if a union knows it is going to lose an election it will not proceed but will either file a blocking charge with the NLRB or will simply withdraw their petition. Note: in part due to these reasons the "winning percentage" for unions in elections is somewhat inflated. The most recent NLRB statistics show unions winning 60% of elections (a number that's been on the rise for years). And an aggressive talented union like the SEIU does a lot better than that. But my point is simply that unions understandably don't like to lose elections, and that currently even when unions allow an election to go forward they still lose 40% of the time. You may disagree with some of my text in this point, but I'll assume not the previous sentence (if you do disagree, I can point you to the NLRB data). (5) In addition to not liking to lose elections, unions prefer card-check organizing. This is, obviously, the whole point of EFCA after all. Ironically, even today the majority of new union members come via card-check, not elections. This happens due to state laws that allow for card-check in the public sector, or card-check agreements reached with individual employers, or simply the union winning its "corporate campaign" to force an employer to forego an election. My point is that unions would much prefer to avoid the time, expense and risk of an election if they have the option of card-check recognition instead. This just makes good business sense. My favorite quote from a union official on this point came from Michael Fishman, president of SEIU local 32BJ, in the Wall Street Journal: "We don't do elections." If you disagree with this point and think that unions prefer elections or are indifferent to card-check vs. eletion . . . well, let's just say you're kidding yourself. Do a little research. (6) Under the current election-based system, unions will not file a petition unless they have well over 50% of the card signed. This point is key to understanding why there will be no elections under EFCA. Unions typically don't file a petition until they have 60% to 75% of the cards signed, because they know their support will erode somewhat prior to the election and, in any event, you can't win the election if you have less than 50% support. In short, if you've been trying to get cards signed for a year and couldn't get at least 50%, then you are not going to win that election and so why waste your time and put yourself at legal disadvantage by going forward with a loser election? It just doesn't happen. If you disagree with me on this point see footnotes 11-13 in the following link (i.e., quoting organizing policies from the SEIU, Teamsters and Nurses Union which say that they won't file petitions unless they have 60-75% card support). http://www.heritage.org/Research/labor/bg2175.cfm#_ftn19. Yes, I know it's a link to the Heritage Foundation, but don't let that distract you from the valid point and footnote citations. The point is that for obvious reasons unions do not file a peition unless they have more than 50% of the cards. Don't beleive me? Ask around. It's not a secret. (7) typical authorization card language does not give the signing employee any right or choice to have an election. To the contrary, I've seen SEIU cards that expressly tell it like it is, by informing the signing employee that the union may use the card to achieve recognition without any election at all. Not all unions are as up-front about this reality. But the point is that when an employee signs a card he puts any "choice" about an election in the hands of the union. CONCLUSION: EFCA would give unions the absolute ability to avoid elections, and all evidence, experience and common sense (and current union policy) says they'll take advantage of the card-check option every time. To say otherwise is, I guess, to say that once EFCA is passed unions will inexplicably start, for the first time, filing petitions with less then 50% support. Let's be honest. That won't happen. The whole point of EFCA is to AVOID elections. So, to finish where I started, it's pure misleading spin to charaterize EFCA as merely shifting the right of having an election from employers to unions. I, frankly, don't know how anyone can make that claim with a straight face (short of naivety). Although there is technically a sceanrio where an election might occur, as a PRACTCAL matter elections will absolutely be history.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bang for the Buck: Boosting the American Economy

Compassionate Conservatism in Action


  • "We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war."

  • Photobucket


  • "[O]ur time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice."


  • "True religion will not let us fall asleep in the comfort of our freedom. Love thy neighbor is not a piece of advice, it's a command. ...

    God, my friends, is with the poor and God is with us, if we are with them. This is not a burden, this is an adventure."

The Reverend Al Sharpton

  • Ray wasn't singing about what he knew, 'cause Ray had been blind since he was a child. He hadn't seen many purple mountains. He hadn't seen many fruited plains. He was singing about what he believed to be.

    Mr. President, we love America, not because of all of us have seen the beauty all the time.

    But we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody.


  • ''With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent will produce eagerness, 50 percent positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime which it will not scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.''

Join Us!

  • Member, Project Hamad

Happy 71st Anniversary Social Security!

  • Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Become a Proud Member of the Guppy Army



Count Me, Damnit!

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004

Oh, I've Won Awards

alternative hippopotamus

Paperwight's Fair Shot

Your Liberal Media