Legal Updates RSS
Why the E.F.C.A. is Bad For Employees, Or, How the “Teacher of the Year” Was Canned Because of Union Seniority Rules
May 7, 2009
Last month we pointed out why the Employee Free Choice Act was bad for employers. We now want to tell you why it is also bad for employees.
¹¹Last month we pointed out why the Employee Free Choice Act (known as the “card check” bill because it allows a union to form without a secret ballot election) was bad for employers. We now want to tell you why it is also bad for employees.
Jessi Parman, a second-grade teacher at Oakleaf Village Elementary, a new school in Clay County, Florida, is “Teacher of the Year” at her school this year. She’s also one of five finalists for Clay County’s overall “Teacher of the Year.” Pretty good, by anyone’s standards, but not good enough for the local teachers’ union. District-wide teacher cuts, required by a shrinking education budget, must be made according to strict seniority rules under an agreement with the union. This means that Parman, honored as one of the best in her field, will lose her job simply because she hasn’t been on the job as long as some other teachers in her district.
Union organizers and their supporters in Congress want to use the power of federal law to help unions swell their rolls by passing the EFCA. But when excellence like that of Parman’s is sacrificed in the name of mere longevity, many employees must surely wonder if they can bear the cost of the “benefits” of union membership.
Minority business leaders recognize the threat to employees posed by the Act. In fact, many were in Washington this week to meet with lawmakers and voice their concern that the EFCA hurts workers by allowing union recognition based on authorization cards signed under pressure (i.e., without secret ballot elections) and by binding employers to contracts that inhibit their ability to create much-needed new jobs. Among the coalition that has formed to defeat the card check bill are the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), the National Association of Black Hotel Owners, Operators & Developers (NABHOOD), the National Black Chamber of Commerce, The Latino Coalition (TLC), and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC). The Chairman of the AAHOA had this to say about the Act: "Our members create and support more than 800,000 jobs in the United States. This bill would not only harm hotel owners, but also our hard-working employees whose privacy and secret ballot rights would be violated."
Congress may be getting the message. One of the EFCA’s original sponsors, South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, appears to be wavering in his support of the Act. Asked recently about the current version of the bill, Johnson said, “I’m undecided about that.”
Johnson is not alone in his uncertainty. On April 20, 2009, Andy Stern, head of the powerful Service Employees International Union, suggested that it might be time to consider an alternative to the card check bill that would preserve secret ballot elections. And on April 22, 2009, a pro-labor Wall Street Journal editorial writer reluctantly acknowledged the likely demise of the Act as it now exists, in a piece titled, “Card Check is Dead.”
Businesses know why the EFCA is bad for them. Under the Act, labor organizers could pressure enough workers into signing union cards that the workforce would be effectively unionized before employers had a chance to react. With coalitions like the minority-owned business group getting the word out about the Act’s danger to workers, and stories like those of Jessi Parman hitting the news, employees may finally be seeing red flags as well.
If you have any questions about this information, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Labor & Employment Law Group.
¹ http://bit.ly/JyYZI
³ Id.
‡ http://bit.ly/19SOEU