Jason Kent and his former bosses at Thompson Heating and Air Conditioning in Warren disagree on whether his Dec. 17 dismissal was just another layoff related to Northeast Ohio's recession or an illegal firing related to Kent's drive to form a union at the company. http://brittonsbitsforpublicforumdebate.blogspot.com/2009/04/free-choice-wednesday.html But both sides in the dispute agree on at least one thing: A bill in Washington called the Employee Free Choice Act would make it dramatically easier for workers like Kent to form unions at their companies, and harder for businesses like Thompson to fight back.
That's why the legislation, slated for a vote later this year, is the focus of heated lobbying by unions and businesses in Ohio and across the country. For both sides, it's a top priority.
"My viewpoint is that it should not be passed," said Tim Wood, a veteran Cleveland labor lawyer who represents Thompson in National Labor Relations Board disputes with Kent and his union. "What they're really trying to do is make it easier for unions to organize contrary to the rights of employees who don't feel they need to pay a union for representation."
Small-business owners say the higher cost of union labor could put them out of business, while larger employers say unionization would boost unemployment because companies that pay more for union salaries and benefits would hire fewer workers.
Kent and representatives of his union, Sheet Metal Workers International Local 33, said current laws make it too easy for employers to harass workers who want to form unions and then refuse to negotiate a contract if a union is formed. They say increased unionization would strengthen the middle class and help revive the economy by boosting workers' purchasing power.
"There is nobody really backing up the working class at this point in time," said Kent, 32, who is trying to support his pregnant wife and 17-month-old daughter by doing odd jobs while the labor board investigates his case.
The Employee Free Choice Act would allow unions to be recognized if a majority of workers sign union cards, and it would remove employers' current right to demand that workers instead hold a secret-ballot election to ratify a union.
Richard Hurd, a professor of labor studies at Cornell University, said the current secret-ballot elections allow employers to campaign against the union in the workplace but shut organizers out of that venue.
Hurd likened it to a political election in which "one candidate could present his view anytime he wants, and the people have to sit there and listen to him. The other candidate could only get his view across if he is able to track down people and talk to them on their free time."
Hurd said employees are fired in at least one of every five organizing campaigns and that companies found guilty of firing workers for union activity only have to pay them back wages, minus whatever the employees made at their new jobs. The Employee Free Choice Act would require guilty employers to pay illegally fired workers triple their lost salaries, as well as civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation.
Even when unions win an election to organize, getting the first contract can be difficult. Hurd said only 40 percent of companies in which employees vote for unions get collective-bargaining agreements. The proposed law would give employers and workers 120 days to reach a contract before a federal arbitrator stepped in to set terms.
Well Reyna, you gave an impressive outline of what the Employee Free Choice Act is all about, but you did not successfully answer the question. The question asks for arguments against increasing the fines that employers will be required to pay under the EFCA. The only paragraph that mentions this is the 2nd to last and it does not argue against the increase in penalties. It only explains what the increases will be, and, in fact, sounds like it is in agreement with the increase.
By increasing fines the government is using the EFCA to get more money, which leads to what spencer stated, it masks the true problem. The true problem is the business giants, i.e. AIG
Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in public better reveal a worker's true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority.
Recently, unions have switched the focus of their organizing operations from private balloting to publicly signed cards. These so-called card-check campaigns make it much easier for unions to organize workers, but most companies strongly resist the idea of denying their employees a vote. Unions now want the government to take away workers' right to vote and certify unions after only a card-check campaign. The Employee Free Choice Act would do this and more.
First, it requires the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union after a majority of a firm's workers has signed union cards, putting an end to almost all organizing elections: "if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations...the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization."[1]
Second, the EFCA requires companies and newly certified unions to enter binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations.[2]Neither companies nor employees could appeal the arbitrator's ruling, and the contract would last for two years.
Third, H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for most unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organizing drive--chilling employers' free speech and depriving workers of the ability to make an informed choice on union membership.[3]
Union activists contend that the act would protect workers' freedom to freely choose to join a union. However, workers' best defense against harassment and intimidation by either a union or an employer is a secret-ballot election in which neither knows how any individual worker voted.
To protect American workers, Congress should:
Protect workers' privacy during organizing drives and guarantee every worker the right to vote in a private-ballot election; Ensure that workers hear from both sides during an organizing drive and have time to reflect on their choice so they can make an informed and considered decision; and Protect the right of workers and employers to bargain collectively without having government officials unilaterally impose employment contracts on them. The Employee Free Choice Act would strip workers of their fundamental rights and leave them more vulnerable to pressure than before.
Well Angelica, much like Reyna, you provided a good outline of the EFCA, but did not properly answer the question which asks why increasing the penalties for unfair practices, as the EFCA does, is wrong. Your third point addresses this minimally, but a clear explanation of why it is wrong to increase teh fines is what this discussion calls for.
Also, for many of you the issue may not be staying on topic, but the lack of evidence or specific examples means that you too have not completed this assignment correctly.
Jason Kent and his former bosses at Thompson Heating and Air Conditioning in Warren disagree on whether his Dec. 17 dismissal was just another layoff related to Northeast Ohio's recession or an illegal firing related to Kent's drive to form a union at the company.
ReplyDeletehttp://brittonsbitsforpublicforumdebate.blogspot.com/2009/04/free-choice-wednesday.html
But both sides in the dispute agree on at least one thing: A bill in Washington called the Employee Free Choice Act would make it dramatically easier for workers like Kent to form unions at their companies, and harder for businesses like Thompson to fight back.
That's why the legislation, slated for a vote later this year, is the focus of heated lobbying by unions and businesses in Ohio and across the country. For both sides, it's a top priority.
"My viewpoint is that it should not be passed," said Tim Wood, a veteran Cleveland labor lawyer who represents Thompson in National Labor Relations Board disputes with Kent and his union. "What they're really trying to do is make it easier for unions to organize contrary to the rights of employees who don't feel they need to pay a union for representation."
Small-business owners say the higher cost of union labor could put them out of business, while larger employers say unionization would boost unemployment because companies that pay more for union salaries and benefits would hire fewer workers.
Kent and representatives of his union, Sheet Metal Workers International Local 33, said current laws make it too easy for employers to harass workers who want to form unions and then refuse to negotiate a contract if a union is formed. They say increased unionization would strengthen the middle class and help revive the economy by boosting workers' purchasing power.
"There is nobody really backing up the working class at this point in time," said Kent, 32, who is trying to support his pregnant wife and 17-month-old daughter by doing odd jobs while the labor board investigates his case.
The Employee Free Choice Act would allow unions to be recognized if a majority of workers sign union cards, and it would remove employers' current right to demand that workers instead hold a secret-ballot election to ratify a union.
Richard Hurd, a professor of labor studies at Cornell University, said the current secret-ballot elections allow employers to campaign against the union in the workplace but shut organizers out of that venue.
Hurd likened it to a political election in which "one candidate could present his view anytime he wants, and the people have to sit there and listen to him. The other candidate could only get his view across if he is able to track down people and talk to them on their free time."
Hurd said employees are fired in at least one of every five organizing campaigns and that companies found guilty of firing workers for union activity only have to pay them back wages, minus whatever the employees made at their new jobs. The Employee Free Choice Act would require guilty employers to pay illegally fired workers triple their lost salaries, as well as civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation.
Even when unions win an election to organize, getting the first contract can be difficult. Hurd said only 40 percent of companies in which employees vote for unions get collective-bargaining agreements. The proposed law would give employers and workers 120 days to reach a contract before a federal arbitrator stepped in to set terms.
jeeze reyna thats a really really long comment. i think im going to stick to doing mine tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteWell Reyna, you gave an impressive outline of what the Employee Free Choice Act is all about, but you did not successfully answer the question.
ReplyDeleteThe question asks for arguments against increasing the fines that employers will be required to pay under the EFCA.
The only paragraph that mentions this is the 2nd to last and it does not argue against the increase in penalties. It only explains what the increases will be, and, in fact, sounds like it is in agreement with the increase.
It masks the true problem and does not help the fired employee in any way.
ReplyDeletethe current punishments are bad enough so why do anything
ReplyDeleteBy increasing fines the government is using the EFCA to get more money, which leads to what spencer stated, it masks the true problem. The true problem is the business giants, i.e. AIG
ReplyDeletei agree with ktiede..
ReplyDeletethe EFCA is self interested and increases the fines in order to fill it's own pockets. so not cool.
Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in public better reveal a worker's true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority.
ReplyDeleteRecently, unions have switched the focus of their organizing operations from private balloting to publicly signed cards. These so-called card-check campaigns make it much easier for unions to organize workers, but most companies strongly resist the idea of denying their employees a vote. Unions now want the government to take away workers' right to vote and certify unions after only a card-check campaign. The Employee Free Choice Act would do this and more.
First, it requires the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union after a majority of a firm's workers has signed union cards, putting an end to almost all organizing elections: "if the [National Labor Relations] Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations...the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization."[1]
Second, the EFCA requires companies and newly certified unions to enter binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations.[2]Neither companies nor employees could appeal the arbitrator's ruling, and the contract would last for two years.
Third, H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for most unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organizing drive--chilling employers' free speech and depriving workers of the ability to make an informed choice on union membership.[3]
Union activists contend that the act would protect workers' freedom to freely choose to join a union. However, workers' best defense against harassment and intimidation by either a union or an employer is a secret-ballot election in which neither knows how any individual worker voted.
To protect American workers, Congress should:
Protect workers' privacy during organizing drives and guarantee every worker the right to vote in a private-ballot election;
Ensure that workers hear from both sides during an organizing drive and have time to reflect on their choice so they can make an informed and considered decision; and
Protect the right of workers and employers to bargain collectively without having government officials unilaterally impose employment contracts on them.
The Employee Free Choice Act would strip workers of their fundamental rights and leave them more vulnerable to pressure than before.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg2027.cfm
Well Angelica, much like Reyna, you provided a good outline of the EFCA, but did not properly answer the question which asks why increasing the penalties for unfair practices, as the EFCA does, is wrong.
ReplyDeleteYour third point addresses this minimally, but a clear explanation of why it is wrong to increase teh fines is what this discussion calls for.
Also, for many of you the issue may not be staying on topic, but the lack of evidence or specific examples means that you too have not completed this assignment correctly.
By increasing fines your increasing the amount of money in the wallets of the people who don't deserve it like the hardworking american
ReplyDeleteim not quit forsure how to comment on this one. let me think so more.
ReplyDelete