WASHINGTON, D.C. | November 25, 2009
The arguments for the so-called Employee Free Choice Act have always been dubious. The act’s supporters claim workers face unfair pressure in workplace organizing elections. Their solution? A public sign-up process notorious for subjecting workers to intimidation, coercion, and the threat of retribution. Talk about unfair pressure.
EFCA’s backers also claim current workplace organizing rules are somehow rigged against unions, preventing them from winning elections. The claim seems a little suspicious, and we’re not the only ones who think so. The Washington Examiner culls new data to put this assertion to the test here:
“From the BNA Daily Labor Report:
“‘Unions participated in fewer resolved representation elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board during the first half of 2009 than the same period in 2008, but the percentage of elections won by unions increased substantially, according to NLRB data analyzed by BNA PLUS, BNA’s research division.
‘Unions won 73.1 percent of 588 private sector elections held during the first half of 2009, up from 66.5 percent of 813 elections held during the same period in 2008. The BNA PLUS survey only tracks elections conducted by NLRB, not organizing outside of NLRB processes.’
“That's one heck of a winning percentage. The Truth about the Employees Free Choice Act blog puts this into perspective:
“‘In fact, no [baseball] team has ever won 118 games (the toll needed to hit the 73 percent threshold for a 162-game season) in the nation’s pastime.
‘And union officials still want to rig the rules to avoid letting employees vote in elections that Big Labor won 73 percent of the time?’”
Hemingway, “Unions need card check because winning 73 percent of the time isn't enough,” Washington Examiner, 11.24.09
EFCA is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist with a solution that would harm the very workers it claims to protect. What gives?
# # #