Misplaced Pages

#871128

81-560: The bill's purpose, as taken from the 2009 version, was to: amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations [unions], to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. The act would have, first, allowed a union to be certified as the official union to bargain with an employer if union officials collect signatures of

162-513: A filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a group of key Democratic senators planned to change the proposed legislation to remove the "card check" provision of the EFCA, which would have allowed unions to be certified solely by majority sign-up. On April 20, 2016, the bill was introduced in the 114th Congress by Rep. Alan Grayson (Democrat of Florida ). Proponents of the legislation assert that

243-482: A 2001 letter to Mexican government officials, signed by 11 Democrats who subsequently voted in favor of HR 800, encouraging the "use of secret ballots in all union recognition elections" that take place in Mexico. The letter further states, "we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose," seeming to contradict

324-530: A compromise position several years later under pressure from Congress that allowed craft unions to seek separate representation of smaller groups of workers at the same time that another union was seeking a wall-to-wall unit. Employers and their allies in Congress also criticized the NLRA for its expansive definition of "employee" and for allowing supervisors and plant guards to form unions, sometimes affiliated with

405-467: A group, and so is not based on a formal or legal relationship between an employer and employee. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was established in NLRA 1935 sections 3 to 6 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 153–156 ), is the primary enforcer of the Act. Employees and unions may act themselves in support of their rights, however because of collective action problems and the costs of litigation,

486-434: A labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158 (a)(3) of this title." National Labor Relations Act of 1935 § 7 Under section 8 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 158 ) the law defines a set of prohibited actions by employers, employees, and unions, known as an unfair labor practice. The first five unfair labor practices aimed at employers are in section 8(a). These are, In addition, added by

567-544: A majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization

648-549: A majority of workers. The bill would have removed the present right of the employer to demand an additional, separate ballot when more than half of employees have already given their signature supporting the union. Second, the bill would have required employers and unions to enter binding arbitration to produce a collective agreement at least 120 days after a union is recognized. Third, the bill would have increased penalties on employers who discriminate against workers for union involvement. The Employee Free Choice Act would have amended

729-411: A management-controlled election process because corporations have all the power. They control the information workers can receive and routinely poison the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who try to organize unions. No employee has free choice after being browbeaten by a supervisor to oppose the union or being told they may lose their job and livelihood if workers vote for

810-460: A non-discrimination provision to the bill to protect against union and employee race discrimination. Despite pushes from the NAACP and National Urban League to correct discriminatory practices, the law was written without the inclusion of an anti-discrimination clause. The act also excludes independent contractors , domestic workers, and farm workers. In recent years, advocacy organizations like

891-419: A one-in-five chance of being fired for legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it does little to deter law breakers. Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks

SECTION 10

#1732773329872

972-516: A pro-EFCA paper, citing data by Ferguson and Kochan, that this is because "newly formed unions lose their presumption of majority status after one year without reaching a contract. The AFL–CIO asserts that this gives employers the incentive to delay the bargaining process for a year and force the demoralized workers to vote again, often resulting in the union's decertification." They claim that "the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates

1053-544: A provision that is similar to one of the proposed amendments in the Employee Free Choice Act . Under the NLRA, unions can become the representative based on signed union authorization cards only if the employer voluntarily recognizes the union. If the employer refuses to recognize the union, the union can be certified through a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB. In the 2010s, Democrats began seeking

1134-401: A separate secret ballot will be held to confirm that the majority of employees want union representation. This only happens when there is "a question of employee representation", or in other words, the result is contested (for instance, because the employer objects). Undisputed petitions, when all employees and the employer agree, require no further election. However, in practice, the results of

1215-466: A series of banned unfair labor practices , including interference with the formation or organization of labor unions by employers. The act does not apply to certain workers, including supervisors, agricultural employees, domestic workers, government employees, and independent contractors. The NLRA was strongly opposed by conservatives and members of the Republican Party , but it was upheld in

1296-494: A step forward in labor relations, the company union was effectively a public relations ploy that had the opposite impact of thwarting the organization of trade unions in the great organizing drives of the period. President Franklin Roosevelt signed the legislation into law on July 5, 1935. It also has its roots in a variety of different labor acts previously enacted: Under section 1 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 151 ) of

1377-751: A trade union are entitled to not associate or financially support it. The NLRA 1935 also does not include additional measures to protect the rights of racial minorities in the workplace. At the time, unions like the American Federation of Labor did not grant membership to black laborers while other unions like the CIO engaged in internal discrimination, providing more preferable jobs and seniority to its white members. Employers also engaged in discrimination against black union members by restricting their ability to organize and collectively bargain with white laborers. The NAACP urged Senator Robert Wagner to add

1458-565: A union being certified, the union could require the employer to begin negotiations for a collective agreement within ten days. If the employer and union are unable to reach agreement within 90 days, either side may take the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service , which has provided mediation free of charge since 1947. If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after providing mediation services for 30 days

1539-403: A written notice in the workplace promising not to repeat unlawful conduct. Many employers have come to view remedies like back pay for workers fired because of union activity as routine costs of doing business, well worth it to get rid of organizing leaders and derail workers' organizing efforts. In his remarks accompanying the bill's introduction, Representative George Miller (D-CA), chairman of

1620-623: Is "allowing employees to make their own decision about whether they want to bargain together—to advocate for fairer wages, benefits and working conditions—without the threat or fear of harassment and retribution and fear of losing their livelihood." The committee's Democrats quoted the conclusion of the nonpartisan international human rights organization Human Rights Watch : [At present] a culture of near-impunity has taken shape in much of U.S. labor law and practice. Any employer intent on resisting workers' self-organization can drag out legal proceedings for years, fearing little more than an order to post

1701-554: Is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a). Section 2(a) went on to allow the National Labor Relations Board to draw up more detailed regulations for oversight of the majority recognition procedure. The process of union decertification would not change under

SECTION 20

#1732773329872

1782-429: Is now no privileged segment of earners in the nation except the upper 10 percent or so." He added that "some 50 million non-unionized American workers, according to surveys, now say that they definitely or probably would join one if given the option. One of the reasons this does not happen, according to Madrick, is the failure of the federal government to protect workers trying to organize into unions. "The fines levied by

1863-501: Is proven that an employer threatened to or did discharge or discriminate against an employee who sought representation by a union. An injunction would also have been available if the employer "engaged in any other unfair labor practice" that would have restrained the rights under NLRA section 7. Currently, such federal court injunctions are required only for violations by unions. No such remedy exists for unlawful acts committed by employers in violation of workers' rights. Section 4(b) of

1944-557: Is the New York City version of the Wagner Act. The New York State Employment Relations Act was enacted in 1937. Along with other factors, the act contributed to tremendous growth of membership in the labor unions, especially in the mass-production sector. The total number of labor union members grew from three million in 1933 to eight million at the end of the 1930s, with the vast majority of union members living outside of

2025-653: Is the promotion of collective bargaining between independent trade unions, on behalf of the workforce, and the employer. encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection. Various definitions are explained in section 2, ( 29 U.S.C.   § 152 ) including 2(5) defining "labor organization" and 2(9) defining "labor dispute". The Act aims to protect employees as

2106-493: The House Committee on Education and Labor , stated: The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to form a union. Although it is illegal, one quarter of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are active union supporters have

2187-495: The National Domestic Workers' Alliance have worked on the state level to pass a Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights , to extend to domestic workers the protections granted under the NLRA. Similar advocacy efforts are taking place on behalf of farm workers. "Nothing in this subchapter, except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way

2268-483: The National Labor Relations Act in three significant ways. That is: Section 2(a) of the bill would have allowed the recognition of a union for the purpose of exclusive collective bargaining with an employer if a majority of employees sign cards stating their wish that the union represents them. Currently, the NLRA section 9(c) anticipates that after at least 30% of employees state their wish for union representation,

2349-567: The Supreme Court case of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. , decided April 12, 1937. The 1947 Taft–Hartley Act amended the NLRA, establishing a series of labor practices for unions and granting states the power to pass right-to-work laws . The act's origins may be traced to the bloody Colorado Fuel and Iron Strike of 1914. Colorado Fuel was a subsidiary of Standard Oil, and John D. Rockefeller Jr. sought expert advice from

2430-467: The Taft–Hartley Act , there are seven unfair labor practices aimed at unions and employees. Under section 9 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 159 ) the people elected by a majority of the workforce have the right to become the exclusive representatives of workers in collective bargaining with the employer. The NLRA 1935 does not cover two main groups of employees: those working for the government and in

2511-557: The Wagner Act , is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions , engage in collective bargaining , and take collective action such as strikes . Central to the act was a ban on company unions . The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner , passed by the 74th United States Congress , and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt . The National Labor Relations Act seeks to correct

Employee Free Choice Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

2592-408: The right to strike , or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right." Wagner Act 1935 § 13 The act was bitterly opposed by the Republican Party and business groups. The American Liberty League viewed the act as a threat to freedom and engaged in a campaign of opposition in order to repeal these "socialist" efforts. This included encouraging employers to refuse to comply with

2673-418: The " inequality of bargaining power " between employers and employees by promoting collective bargaining between trade unions and employers. The law established the National Labor Relations Board to prosecute violations of labor law and to oversee the process by which employees decide whether to be represented by a labor organization. It also established various rules concerning collective bargaining and defined

2754-411: The Act, the key principles and policy findings on which the Act was based are explained. The Act aims to correct the " inequality of bargaining power between employees who, according to the Act's proponents, do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". To achieve this, the central idea

2835-624: The Bill would have increased penalties for employers violating the law. The amount an employer is required to pay when an employee is illegally discharged or discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first contract drive would have become two times back pay as liquidated damages, in addition to the back pay owed, for a total of three times back pay . Currently, damages are limited to back pay, less any wages earned by an employee if they are hired by another employer. There would have been no provision for compensatory or punitive damages. Finally,

2916-416: The Employee Free Choice Act, so an employer can voluntarily reject a union when a majority of employees sign decertification cards or otherwise demonstrate that they no longer want to be represented by a union, or when 30 percent of employees sign a petition to hold a secret ballot election and a majority of participants in the election vote to decertify the union. Section 3 of the Bill provided that following

2997-557: The Missouri Chamber of Commerce that it is unlikely that EFCA would pass in its current incarnation. On July 7, 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D- MN ) chose the bill as the first piece of legislation that he would co-sponsor, joining 40 other Democratic senators. On July 16, 2009, reports were made that Senate advocates proposed dropping the provisions removing the employer's right to demand an extra ballot. On July 17, 2009, The New York Times reported that in an effort to secure

3078-493: The NLRA. Others developed in reaction to NLRB decisions. Over all, they wanted the NLRB to be neutral as to bargaining power, but the NLRA's policy section takes a decidedly pro-employee position: It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging

3159-565: The NLRB and supporting the nationwide filing of injunctions to keep the NLRB from functioning. This campaign continued until the NLRA was found constitutional by the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937). Labor groups, while overwhelmingly supportive, expressed a set of reservations. The American Federation of Labor and some employers accused

3240-669: The NLRB have long been meager," he notes. "Meantime, management actions against unions are supported by the nation's courts." Madrick concludes that "much can...be done" by "seriously enforcing the labor laws and imposing harsher penalties for violating them. The Employee Free Choice Act introduced by [then-] Senator Obama, among others, will be a good test." To find out how effective the current NLRB system actually is—in other words, how well it reflects workers' wishes to organize into unions and bargain contracts with management— MIT Sloan School of Management professor Thomas A. Kochan and MIT Ph.D. student John Paul Ferguson used federal data to track

3321-568: The NLRB of favoring the Congress of Industrial Organizations , particularly when determining whether to hold union elections in plant-wide, or wall-to-wall, units, which the CIO usually sought, or to hold separate elections in separate craft units, which the craft unions in the AFL favored. While the NLRB initially favored plant-wide units, which tacitly favored the CIO's industrial unionism , it retreated to

Employee Free Choice Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

3402-419: The NLRB remains at the level set in 1959, $ 500,000 gross revenues for a retail business. The NLRB also requires a union to consist of a minimum of two employees who have no supervisory authority, exempting many small businesses from the increased penalties of the Employee Free Choice Act. On February 14, 2007, in a full Committee markup session, the House Committee on Education and Labor voted 26-19 to report

3483-427: The NLRB with signed authorizations designating the union as their bargaining agent." The EFCA would allow workers to have their union certified as their bargaining agent by the NLRB if a majority of them have signed valid authorizations." EFCA proponents state that under current law the union ballots are "secret in name only" by citing experts such as University of Oregon professor Gordon Lafer , who in testimony before

3564-415: The NLRB, while the vote does take place in a booth where nobody sees what you're doing, management is allowed to engage in a series of behaviors in the lead up to the vote that force the vast majority of workers to reveal how they're going to vote long before they ever step into the booth. A U.S. House Committee on Education & Labor report asserted that the overall purpose of the Employee Free Choice Act

3645-642: The National Labor Relations Board is designed to assist and bear some of the costs. Under section 3, ( 29 U.S.C.   § 153 ) the NLRB has two basic functions: overseeing the process by which employees decide whether to be represented by a labor organization and prosecuting violations. Those processes are initiated in the regional offices of the NLRB. The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board give legal advice. Sections 4 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 154 ) and 5 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 155 ) set out provisions on

3726-407: The Senate version of the EFCA, S.560, had 40 cosponsors in addition to its sponsor ( Edward M. Kennedy , D, MA). On March 10, 2009, the bill was introduced in the 111th Congress by Sen. Kennedy (Democrat of Massachusetts ) and Rep. George Miller (Democrat of California ). Kennedy described the bill as "a critical step toward putting our economy back on track," while Miller also put the bill in

3807-472: The Senate version of the Employee Free Choice Act. On June 26, 2007, the Senate voted 51 to 48 on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the bill , 9 votes short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture and prevent an anticipated Republican filibuster. As a result, the bill failed to pass during the 110th United States Congress . In the 111th United States Congress , as of July 9, 2009,

3888-492: The U.S. Congress stated: In the American democratic tradition the principle of the secret ballot is not simply the fact that you go into a voting booth and pull a curtain and nobody sees what you do. It is your right to keep your political opinion private to yourself before, during and after the act of voting; that you can't be lured or coerced into a conversation that is designed to make you reveal your political preferences. In

3969-506: The bill in March 2009. In addition, Blanche Lincoln (Democratic senator for Arkansas ) and Tom Carper (Democratic senator for Delaware ) both stated in April that they would not vote for EFCA in its current form. Dianne Feinstein (Democratic senator for California) has also announced that she would prefer to seek alternative legislation. Sen. Claire McCaskill indicated in a meeting with

4050-640: The bill to the full House. Republican members of the committee voted unanimously against reporting the bill, citing numerous amendments proposed by Republican committee members that were rejected by the Democratic majority on the committee. On March 1, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the bill, 241 to 185. On March 30, 2007, Senator Ted Kennedy (D- MA ), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions , introduced

4131-420: The bill would have provided for civil fines of up to $ 20,000 per violation against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights during an organizing campaign or first contract drive. Currently there are no civil fines for such violations. The Employee Free Choice Act would not have altered the existing jurisdictional standards of the National Labor Relations Board. The jurisdiction of

SECTION 50

#1732773329872

4212-497: The card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards. Moreover, even if every employee has signed cards indicating their preference to be represented by the union, an employer may demand a secret ballot, and refuse to bargain until one is held. The effect of section 2 would have been that if a majority of employees at a workplace have already put their names on cards, there would have been no further requirement to confirm

4293-404: The change is necessary to protect workers' rights to join unions. Under current law, employers are not required to take as determinative their workers' signed authorization forms designating a union as their representative "and may insist that the workers use a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to establish their union "even if 100% of the employees provide

4374-423: The context of the 2008 economic crisis , declaring, "If we want a fair and sustainable recovery from this economic crisis, we must give workers the ability to stand up for themselves and once again share in the prosperity they help to create." Although only 41 senators were Republicans, Senators Ben Nelson (Democrat of Nebraska ) and Arlen Specter (Democrat of Pennsylvania ) announced that they did not support

4455-414: The courts. Under section 11 it can lead investigations, collect evidence, issue subpoenas , and require witnesses to give evidence. Under section 12 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 162 ) it is an offense for people to unduly interfere with the Board's conduct. In practice, the act was often ignored when it suited political powers, most notably by Walt Disney in 1940 who formed a company union in violation of

4536-468: The current system by asking, "How can anyone who thinks elections are a bulwark of democracy support a system in which a third of those interested in an election never get to hold one? Why would anyone put faith in a process that offers them a 1-in-5 chance of success?" Kochan and Ferguson thus called for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act along with other reforms. Critics contend that additional use of card check elections will lead to overt coercion on

4617-466: The deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they control the information workers can receive, can force workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can force workers to meet with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted. The Employee Free Choice Act would add some fairness to

4698-465: The dispute will be referred to arbitration. The results of the arbitration shall be binding on the parties for two years. The union and employer may agree to extend any deadlines or time limits. A study by John-Paul Ferguson and Thomas Kochan at the MIT Sloan School of Management found that only 56% of unions that win an election ever negotiate their first contract. The AFL–CIO says in

4779-613: The efficacy of the NLRA by inhibiting the law from applying to shifting circumstances. Opponents of the Wagner Act introduced several hundred bills to amend or repeal the law in the decade after its passage. All of them failed or were vetoed until the passage of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, or the Taft–Hartley Act , in 1947. More recent unsuccessful efforts included attempts in 1978 to permit triple backpay awards and union collective bargaining certification based on signed union authorization cards,

4860-433: The incentive for employers to bargain in bad faith" and it "will dramatically reduce the delay, frustration and animosity associated with the current company-dominated system." Section 4(a) of the Bill would have made the National Labor Relations Board seek injunctions against employers who discriminate against employees who attempt to organize a union. Specifically, the bill allows for an injunction whenever an allegation

4941-644: The law in order to prevent the Cartoon Unionists Guild, a Trade Union, from gaining a foothold in Disney Studios. Section 7 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 157 ) sets out the general principle that employees have the right to join a trade union and engage in collective bargaining. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for

SECTION 60

#1732773329872

5022-439: The law of the land when I'm President of the United States," he told a labor federation meeting in April 2008. The AFL–CIO states that, in practice, the company-controlled election process actually makes the process less democratic: People call the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election system a secret ballot election — but in fact it's not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. It's really

5103-624: The limitation on working in the employer's usual business. Objections are based on the inconveniences and costs of meeting the criterion. For instance, it prevents small venues from hiring performers, even for one-night stands, unless they are hired as employees. As a result, in the California phase of the campaign, numerous occupations of independent contractors were exempted from the test in California Assembly Bill 5 (2019) . The Little Wagner Act, written by Ida Klaus ,

5184-400: The narrowing of the Act's provisions allowing workers to be hired as independent contractors, thus bringing them under the jurisdiction of the Act. Legislators have introduced a standard for independent contracting termed the "ABC test", after its three criteria A, B and C. To be hired as an independent contractor, the worker must: Independent contractors and employers have objected to B,

5265-500: The new field of public relations to prolong the settlement of the strike. He also recruited the former Canadian Labour Secretary (and future Prime Minister) MacKenzie King to the Rockefeller Foundation to broker a solution to the prolonged strike. The settlement resulted in the establishment of a Management-Labor conciliation board, which evolved into a company union and template for settling labor disputes. Although

5346-404: The officers of the Board and their expenses. Section 6 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 156 ) empowers the Board to issue rules interpreting the labor legislation. This will generally be binding, unless a court deems it to have acted outside its authority. Under section 10 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 160 ) the NLRB is empowered to prevent unfair labor practices, which may ultimately be reviewed by

5427-406: The only way to ensure that a worker is 'free to choose' is to ensure that there's a private ballot, so that no one knows how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker's democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it 'Employee Free Choice.' The bill's opponents also oppose the mandatory arbitration of disputes involving

5508-443: The part of union organizers. Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act also claim that the measure would not protect employee privacy. Representative John Kline , R-Minn., has stated: It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone—your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers—knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee 'free choice' ... It seems pretty clear to me that

5589-438: The practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection . Some of these changes were later achieved in the 1947 amendments. Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually undone

5670-415: The progress of more than 22,000 union organizing drives between 1999 and 2005. They found that "only one in five cases that filed an [NLRB] election petition ultimately reached a first contract [between workers and management]," which they reported in a The Boston Globe article. "This is despite all the cases already having shown substantial and likely majority support for representation." They criticized

5751-416: The purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3). Specific rules in support of collective bargaining are as follows. "Employees shall have

5832-483: The railway or airline industries. Section 2(2) (29 USC §152(2)) states that the Act does not apply to employees of the "United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank , or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act ". Under section 19 ( 29 U.S.C.   § 169 ), people who have religious convictions against joining

5913-437: The right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in

5994-611: The spirit of the legislation passed by the House. Congressman George Miller was the lead signatory of the 2001 letter and the sponsor of H.R.800. However, Miller and the other signatories to the 2001 letter now contend that their demand for a secret ballot election was limited to situations where "workers seek to replace one union with another union," although the letter makes no mention of this case and instead states "all union recognition elections." National Labor Relations Act The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 , also known as

6075-423: The system… President Barack Obama supported the bill. An original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, Obama urged his Senate colleagues to pass the bill during a 2007 motion to proceed: I support this bill because in order to restore a sense of shared prosperity and security, we need to help working Americans exercise their right to organize under a fair and free process and bargain for their fair share of

6156-449: The terms of a first contract, asserting that such a procedure could constitute an improper intrusion of government into private business affairs and harmful for competitiveness and innovation. Opponents have also suggested that the arbitration mandate could lead to management resorting to offensive lockouts as a means to pressure unions and employees into accepting company proposals before the deadline for arbitration. Opponents also point to

6237-478: The union can represent them through an additional ballot. It would have meant that an employer could not demand a further secret ballot after a majority of employees had already put their names on cards supporting union representation. The text reads as follows: (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that

6318-526: The union." In another speech to the AFL–CIO in 2010, Obama vowed to keep fighting for the bill. Jeff Madrick , the editor of Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs and a former columnist for Business Week and The New York Times , wrote that "good blue-collar jobs are disappearing rapidly as manufacturing industries decline; but many new white-collar jobs pay poorly, provide minimal health care and pension benefits, and offer little job security. There

6399-419: The unions that represented the employees whom they were supposed to supervise or police. Many accused the NLRB of a general pro-union and anti-employer bias, pointing to the Board's controversial decisions in such areas as employer free speech and "mixed motive" cases, in which the NLRB held that an employer violated the Act by using misconduct that ordinarily would not result in termination to fire an employee who

6480-466: The wealth our country creates. The current process for organizing a workplace denies too many workers the ability to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act offers to make binding an alternative process under which a majority of employees can sign up to join a union. Currently, employers can choose to accept--but are not bound by law to accept--the signed decision of a majority of workers. That choice should be left up to workers and workers alone. "I will make it

6561-465: Was engaged in pro-union activity. In addition, employers campaigned over the years to outlaw a number of union practices such as closed shops , secondary boycotts , jurisdictional strikes , mass picketing, strikes in violation of contractual no-strike clauses, pension and health and welfare plans sponsored by unions and multi-employer bargaining . Many of these criticisms included provisions that employers and their allies were unable to have included in

#871128