Editor’s Note: Organized labor’s top legislative goal this year is passage of the federal Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow formation of a local labor union branch if a majority of employees sign union cards. Opponents, who favor continued secret ballots, say the act would invite undue peer pressure to sign a union card. President Barack Obama supports EFCA, but Democrats are short of the 60 Senate votes needed to assure its passage. Here are views, pro and con.
The EFCA would contribute to economic recovery by making it easier for workers to bargain for improved wages, hours and working conditions. It would not take away the right of employees to vote on whether to form a union.
Since 1935, the law has provided two ways for employees to express the choice to be represented by a union: majority sign-up or a National Labor Relations Board election. Employee sign-up was legal even before the National Labor Relations Act was passed. When a majority of employees had signed cards or petitions designating a union as their representative, the employer could legally negotiate with the representative. The act was interpreted as giving the company the right to decide whether the employees would choose a union through majority sign-up or through an election conducted on the company’s premises.
The EFCA would give employees, rather than the company, the right to decide which method to use.
Business has no reason to fear the EFCA. AT&T, Harley-Davidson and Kaiser-Permanente, among many employers, have adopted policies of recognizing majority signup, without harming profitability. The time has come to revisit the common wisdom that it is bad for business for employees to have a contract. Businesses accept that executives will enjoy the protection of a contract.
Why not wage earners as well?
Thomas W. Meiklejohn is a labor law attorney with the Hartford firm of Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly.