Sullivan/Wilson Affirmative Cassie and I affirm the resolution, resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interests of the American people. For clarification we will further explain the resolution. The EFCA of 2009 contains 3 major provisions--the card check, mandatory interest provision and increased penalties. Therefore our case will revolve around how the three prongs of the EFCA positively impact the interests of the American people. 1. THE CARD CHECK. Under EFCA, a union must be certified as a representative of a bargaining unit by the federal National Labor Relations Board and recognized by an employer if a majority of employees sign valid authorization cards. This proposal would eliminate the right employers have under current law to refrain from recognizing a union unless it demonstrates the existence of majority employee support in an election by secret ballot. Steven Greenhouse writes from the New York Times on March 10, 2009, “[the EFCA] would not eliminate secret ballot elections because it would let workers choose whether to form unions through card checks or secret ballot elections. Under current law, management has the power to decide whether to recognize a union through card checks or secret ballot elections.” Sheldon Friedman expands from “The Limits of NRLB Certification and Its Alternatives. “Card check would provide for certification of a union when a majority of the employees at a workplace has signed written authorizations stating that they want to form a union. Workers seeking to exercise their fundamental human right to form a union would no longer be forced into the meatgrinder of the NLRB representation election process. This process exposes them to weeks and months of employer threats, surveillance, coercion, firings, and intimidation, usually orchestrated by professional antiunion consultants—often followed by months and years of debilitating delays. When EFCA becomes law, workers will be able to form and join unions the same way people form and join most other organizations, simply by signing up.” 2. MANDATORY INTEREST ARBITRATION. Under EFCA, after any union is newly certified, the parties must commence bargaining within ten days after the employer receives a written bargaining request from any newly certified union. Thereafter, if the union and employer fail to reach an initial agreement within 90 days after bargaining commences, an additional 30 day period is added for mediation after either party requests mediation by notifying the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. If an agreement is not reached during this 30 day period, EFCA requires arbitration, resulting in a decision made by the arbiter(s) that would be binding for two years. Friedman continues by explaining the benefits of mandatory arbitration “EFCA's first contract arbitration provision would address another widespread human rights violation: even after workers jump through all the hoops under current law and succeed in forming unions, employers refuse to agree to initial collective bargaining contracts nearly half the time. In most cases, the failure to reach an agreement results from employers' delay tactics and unwillingness to bargain in good faith. There is no real remedy under current law for this denial of workers' rights. EFCA would give newly formed unions (and employers) access to mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration in order to achieve initial collective bargaining agreements on a timely basis.” 3. INCREASED PENALTIES. Finally, EFCA would result in the award of triple back pay, plus civil penalties up to $20,000 per violation, for certain employer unfair labor practices committed during a union organizing effort or during negotiations on an initial contract. In addition, the NLRB would be required to seek an injunction against certain alleged unfair labor practices involving union organizing or initial contract disputes. Friedman elaborates, “[the] EFCA would strengthen penalties for illegal employer conduct. Penalties are so light under current law that employers have little incentive to avoid breaking the law to prevent employees from forming unions. As a result, illegal employer conduct has skyrocketed: according to the NLRB, between 2002 and 2004 more than 20,000 workers per year were disciplined or fired for engaging in legally protected union activity” For these three reasons Cassie and I affirm the resolution.
k
ReplyDeletewhat am i supposed to say to THAT??
ReplyDeletesure
ReplyDeletei didnt get to see... =(
ReplyDeletekk
ReplyDeleteSullivan/Wilson
ReplyDeleteAffirmative
Cassie and I affirm the resolution, resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interests of the American people.
For clarification we will further explain the resolution. The EFCA of 2009 contains 3 major provisions--the card check, mandatory interest provision and increased penalties. Therefore our case will revolve around how the three prongs of the EFCA positively impact the interests of the American people.
1. THE CARD CHECK. Under EFCA, a union must be certified as a representative of a bargaining unit by the federal National Labor Relations Board and recognized by an employer if a majority of employees sign valid authorization cards. This proposal would eliminate the right employers have under current law to refrain from recognizing a union unless it demonstrates the existence of majority employee support in an election by secret ballot.
Steven Greenhouse writes from the New York Times on March 10, 2009,
“[the EFCA] would not eliminate secret ballot elections because it would let workers choose whether to form unions through card checks or secret ballot elections. Under current law, management has the power to decide whether to recognize a union through card checks or secret ballot elections.”
Sheldon Friedman expands from “The Limits of NRLB Certification and Its Alternatives. “Card check would provide for certification of a union when a majority of the employees at a workplace has signed written authorizations stating that they want to form a union. Workers seeking to exercise their fundamental human right to form a union would no longer be forced into the meatgrinder of the NLRB representation election process. This process exposes them to weeks and months of employer threats, surveillance, coercion, firings, and intimidation, usually orchestrated by professional antiunion consultants—often followed by months and years of debilitating delays. When EFCA becomes law, workers will be able to form and join unions the same way people form and join most other organizations, simply by signing up.”
2. MANDATORY INTEREST ARBITRATION. Under EFCA, after any union is newly certified, the parties must commence bargaining within ten days after the employer receives a written bargaining request from any newly certified union. Thereafter, if the union and employer fail to reach an initial agreement within 90 days after bargaining commences, an additional 30 day period is added for mediation after either party requests mediation by notifying the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. If an agreement is not reached during this 30 day period, EFCA requires arbitration, resulting in a decision made by the arbiter(s) that would be binding for two years. Friedman continues by explaining the benefits of mandatory arbitration “EFCA's first contract arbitration provision would address another widespread human rights violation: even after workers jump through all the hoops under current law and succeed in forming unions, employers refuse to agree to initial collective bargaining contracts nearly half the time. In most cases, the failure to reach an agreement results from employers' delay tactics and unwillingness to bargain in good faith. There is no real remedy under current law for this denial of workers' rights. EFCA would give newly formed unions (and employers) access to mediation and, if necessary, binding arbitration in order to achieve initial collective bargaining agreements on a timely basis.”
3. INCREASED PENALTIES. Finally, EFCA would result in the award of triple back pay, plus civil penalties up to $20,000 per violation, for certain employer unfair labor practices committed during a union organizing effort or during negotiations on an initial contract. In addition, the NLRB would be required to seek an injunction against certain alleged unfair labor practices involving union organizing or initial contract disputes. Friedman elaborates, “[the] EFCA would strengthen penalties for illegal employer conduct. Penalties are so light under current law that employers have little incentive to avoid breaking the law to prevent employees from forming unions. As a result, illegal employer conduct has skyrocketed: according to the NLRB, between 2002 and 2004 more than 20,000 workers per year were disciplined or fired for engaging in legally protected union activity”
For these three reasons Cassie and I affirm the resolution.