EFCA: A blessing or a curse?
JOHN HUTHMACHER
johnh@hastingstribune.com
The Employee Free Choice Act continues to strike a chord of dissent between labor union proponents and
business owners, large and small. The latest version of the bill, introduced in both the House and Senate on
March 10, would make private ballot voting optional in the card-signing process used to obtain majority votes needed to unionize a work place. Employers have had the right to call for a private ballot vote since the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Additionally, it would require employers to reach terms with union officials within 120 days or be subject to having negotiations settled by a government-appointed arbitrator. Those in favor of the act argue it will help spark the economy with increased spending and economic stability by affording the struggling middle class more job securities. Their position is that it would help restore bargaining power to the employer, something they believe has shifted to management in recent decades.
Dick Frist of Hastings, a trustee for the AFL-CIO Nebraska Labor Council, supports EFCA legislation. He and a handful of Hastings residents were among those in attendance at a grassroots action launch meeting in Grand Island on April 29. Frist believes the act would protect workers by assuring such benefits as health care and retirement plans. As it stands, many must look to the government to provide these essential benefits, he said.
“There are a lot of things that employers aren’t furnishing people that they can get through their union membership, which takes a big burden off the government as far as health care and different things,” he said. “It’s some- thing for the working class people to have some kind of security for retirement and a decent wage.
“Many of these people are hired through the union for jobs, which creates jobs. Your power plant is built by union labor. It might as well be run by union labor. You have a contract and nobody has a misunderstanding of what’s going on or what the rules are.” Chuck Pavelka a shipping clerk at Sara Lee bakery in Hastings is a member of the Local 443 BCTGM Union that represents workers in tobacco, bakery, confection, and grain mills. Pavelka said he supports the act, but doesn’t think it should be
implemented with a heavy hand. “It’s a good and bad deal,” he said. “I think it’ll help employees get a union into the plant without risking their job. I see that as the biggest benefit of it. “But as far as being pushy — like the auto workers — I don’t think we want to get that way at all. It’s a way for them to ring the union in without risking their job. That’s how I see it.”
A former employee at a meat packing plant, Pavelka said he felt discriminated against there
when that plant changed ownership and became a non-union operation. For that reason, he is especially concerned about employees being protected from bias by business owners.
Under the act, employers found guilty of firing union supporters or breaking other labor laws would be subject to fines. Under current law, no such fines are levied against offenders.
“I’m definitely for it,” said Bruce Sandahl, a Hastings fire- fighter and secretary-treasurer for Local 675. “The main reason would be that it would kind of even the playing field and put more power in the employee’s hands to organize a union if that’s what they want to do.” Sandahl said the act would not, in fact, take away the right to a secret ballot from employees. Rather, it would simply make that optional instead of mandatory.
“It just shifts the right to decide to the employee instead of the employer,” he said. “If he majority of employees wanted a secret ballot, that would still be an option.” Ultimately, he believes the act would empower middle class citizens by improving their lot in life, he said. “We need to do things to get our economy moving again,” he said. “One of the things that’s really slipped in the last couple decades is that the middle class has been under attack. I think the opportunity to improve working conditions, wages and benefits would ultimately lead to a stronger middle class, and I think that’s going to be good for the country.”
Tom Hastings, Hastings Area Chamber president, reiterated the chamber’s long-standing opposition to the act. Hastings said the act — which is opposed by both the U.S. and state chambers — would ultimately increase operation costs for businesses during a time when such increases could be detrimental to their survival.
“Basically, it puts more regulations and stipulations on things that they have to follow,” Hastings said. “I think one of the main things we’re concerned about with this law is the fact that, right now, if a group of employees wants to vote to become unionized, it’s done by secret ballot. With the new legislation, that would not necessarily be the case.
“Under the new law, if you are signing a paper indicating you would like to belong to a union, you are signing in front of numerous people, where you could have pressure put on you one way or the other.
America has been built on secret ballot elections.” Another concern Hastings said the chamber shared was the 120-day time limit placed on negotiations between the business owner and union to reach a certification agreement. In the event an agreement is not reached, a government arbitrator would be brought in to set the terms of the first two year contract.
“If a company votes to become a union and management and the union cannot get a labor negotiation agreement figured out, then the government will step in and monitor and pretty much help make that decision,” Hastings said.
“What a lot of businesses are saying is that that’s way too quick to negotiate contracts.” Ultimately, Hastings and other opponents believe the legislation would hurt businesses by saddling them with additional regulations that could prove detrimental to their bottom line operating costs. “We’re pro-business,” he said. “We’re here to do whatever we can to help the business community. And we just don’t feel this is something that would be a benefit to our business community. “We feel it would really end up costing them a lot more money. And in economic times like this, we just can’t afford to have our businesses spending any more money than they are spending right now.” Jack Schreiner, president of Bruckman Rubber, said the pro posed law would have a disastrous effect on the U.S. manufacturing sector.
“I think it would be the beginning of the end for the rest of manufacturing, what’s left in the USA,” he said. “If we pass that law you are going to see them going overseas in droves. And manufacturing and agriculture that create products are the real wealth builders in this country. It’s going to affect every person in this country.”
Both the idea of eliminating the mandatory secret ballot for employee voting and increasing the cost to do business with additional regulations go against the fundamental principles of economic prosperity and fair play, he said.
“The idea of taking away a secret ballot — something that’s so sacred to America — makes no sense to me,” he said. “If you completely want to cripple this country’s economic engine, vote for it.
“I think there are a lot of people out there that still think you can get something for nothing, that all you have to do is pass this law and all of a sudden you’ll unionize and get more money and benefits.
They forget about those people who have to pay for all of this.”
