Talk:Employee Free Choice Act/Archive 01

Free Choice Act Cartoon

I've been trying to add a link to a timely and relevant cartoon page. I'm new to Wiki as an editor and just becoming familiar with the protocol To whom it may concern, please advise.

Dbschell (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Context of the labor struggle of the United States to the NLRA

Something that is not well considered in the amendment to Section 9(c) discussed in this bill is two fold. First, it ought only take a small minority of workers to request a vote on union authorization. It is a legal tradition in the U.S. that the rights of a minority are recognized and respected. It is also known that a militant minority often spearhead the revolutionary change that is needed for the whole. 30% bare minimum amount of workers within a shop, trade or for that matter an industry that should authorize a vote for a collective bargaining unit. The question that is not resolved by the law is who should decide the type of vote to be taken. The NLRB or the union organizer. The second issue that it does not resolve is who should decide on decertification the union or the NLRB. It appears to me that the law fails to designate the NLRB by the law with powers to ensure first that the union vote is held away from the employers control or knowledge. This requires an independent and secure union discussion on whether an open card check or secret ballot is appropriate when the initial 30% signatures are acheived. It also means that the union organization should decide whether to hold a card check vote or a secret ballot for both union certification and decertification. The law should empower the NLRB to ensure that this occurs, without infiltration from the employer or payments/bribes to workers. This could be easily achieved through amemndments to EFCA and Federal Regulations concerning the National Labor Relations Board and National Labor Relations Act.

For further consideration of these essential caveats and issues to the law see: [www.labourstart.org] also see: [1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.111.231 (talk • contribs)

Comparisons with Other Western Countries Laws

For appropriate context, there should be a section summarizing what laws other countries have on the books concerning forming unions; particularly other Western countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe mainland, UK, as well as other industrialized countries like Japan. What rights under which legal framework do worker have for the process of forming a union? This critical contextual backfround is missing in the present draft. I can work on some of this when I have more time..which is not right now. Perhaps others? --131.118.49.86 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

adding relevant letter to Mexican labor officials

Congressman George Miller, sponsor of H.R. 800, was the lead signatory of a 2001 letter to Mexican government officials in which he states that "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," exactly contradicting his position on the rights of workers in the United States. I am adding a .pdf copy of the letter provided by Congressman Miller's office (public record).

Nhertel 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two pages to the letter. You may wish to add page two, which has additional signatures. --EmployeeFreeChoiceAct (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be prudent to include the defense/explanation of the letter in question. Consider the following statement from Committee on Labor and Education:

"Members of Congress wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a case where workers were trying to replace a sham incumbent union with an independent union. The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with this: it would require an NLRB election in cases where workers seek to replace one union with another union. Indeed, the original framers of the National Labor Relations Act intended elections for precisely those cases where multiple unions were competing – particularly where one was a sham company union and another was a real independent union."

[2] --Revlon (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy?

"If it becomes law, the Act would require the U.S. National Labor Relations Board to certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees without an election where 'a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations.' "

This part seems very inaccurate: It seems odd that the act would require the Labor Relations Board to acknowledge unions when the union election results in no union forming.SteveSims 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but that's exactly what it does. If they called it the Tom and Dick Force Their Union on Harry Act, no one would vote for it. The problem with the article is that it's not stated previously that under current law you do need a secret ballot election before a union can be formed. -- Savant45 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Revised to read more clearly. A majority always is required to elect union representation, EFCA only changes who gets to select the method used to elect a union. Employees instead of employers get the final say on if card check is preferred over secret ballot. Libertycookies (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While proponents of the Act claim that employees will get the final say on whether card check is preferred over secret ballot, the reality is that although the verbiage of the bill doesn't spefically stop secret ballots, that will be the effect. If union organizers have a majority of cards signed, why would they choose an election if they can simply submit the cards and be certified?! They would NEVER opt for an election. --Jandayatl (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the opposition section they complain that it takes away the right to a secret ballot. Everything else I've read points to this not being true. Any comments? 24.9.85.227 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This complaint of the opposition is pure disinformation. I am going to start a new section on this. —Jemmy_tc 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the bill. The Board shall not hold an election where a majority of workers sign cards. Workers are not given a choice at all. A worker can sign a card thinking he or she will have the right to a secret-ballot vote and never get to exercise that opportunity under the proposed legislation. The bill is about unions and not workers. That is the problem with the bill-- and unions today. Unions are irrelevant. They do not seek to protect workers; they seek to keep their existence alive at all costs, even if it costs workers their right to a secret-ballot union vote. EFCA effectively eliminates the secret-ballot. That is a FACT. Unions rarely continue an organizing campaign where they cannot convince a strong majority of workers to sign cards (by means which include intimidation). Accordingly, workers never will have the opportunity to vote by secret-ballot under EFCA because unions will end an organizing campaign where they obtain signed cards from 50% or less of workers in an appropriate bargaining unit. --EmployeeFreeChoiceAct (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"EmployeeFreeChoiceAct" has shown his bias by his comments here, and you can see all his edits are biased based on this NPOV stance. I don't quite know how to make the changes to revert his edits, so I'll let someone more facile with Wikipedia editing do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.187.238 (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Secret ballot is still an option where the Card Check represents 30-50% of the employees petitioning for collective bargaining representation. --Revlon (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit."Thomas the official summary of the bill seems fairly straightforward - it would allow for card check instead of a secret ballot election - am I missing something? --Aggressive nutmegger (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the intent of the bill. It's disingenuous for anyone to pretend otherwise. 24.11.127.26 (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

CopyEdit problem in congressional action section

Can someone fix that. I don't really understand what the "release" and "publisher" tags are supposed to look like Bigbadbyte (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) There are no jobs or jobs only for a few elite persons. How can a few elite workers be discussing union and nonunions? The real discussion should be how to create jobs, how to apply, get hired and hold a decent paying job. All these government taxes for carbon global warming utility health banks insurance and security taxes will require a very good salary just to afford the new taxes. Can workers without jobs afford union dues, highway dues, employment dues, ACORN dues?

Disinformation

Propaganda opposing this bill has attempted to give the impression that the changes to the "card check" procedures take a right away from the workers, when in fact they take a right away from the employer only. It should be clear to anyone who is familiar with the bill (or even this article) that this is disinformation, a deliberate attempt to deceive (at least in its origins: there is no telling who is lying, and who is believing the lie).

It is vital that this article correct the disinformation. Presently, it does a mediocre job: the truth is quite well established; at the same time, the fact of the lie is not addressed. Hence the comments of the anonymous 24.9.85.227: "In the opposition section they complain that it takes away the right to a secret ballot. Everything else I've read points to this not being true."

The article should address clearly and straightforwardly the existence of a great deal of propaganda which gives a false impression about the bill. This would greatly add to its coherence, explaining the discrepancy between what readers might have heard through propaganda sources, and the accurate truth as it is documented in the article.

I suggest a "disinformation" section which addresses the existence of this disinformation.

If there are no objections or alternative suggestions I will add it shortly. —Jemmy_tc 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple, though, is it? An individual worker can not insist on being able to vote privately under EFCA. A choice has to be made, and made publicly: sign the card or not? In other words, currently I could sign the card but secretly prefer no union, with EFCA there is no guarantee that my *secret* wish will prevail. Circumstances outside my control may cause my *public* "vote" to prevail. Your claim that this is disinformation is technically literally true, but is itself not entirely ingenuous. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Under current law there is still a 'card check' or signing process so it's not really secret now. In your attempt to complicate things you actually conflate two different processes. Under current law, once enough employees sign registration cards, the process of actually voting on unionizing takes place. But it's up to the employer to decide how that process moves forward. EFCA would correct that.Briholt (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a real good idea, so I tossed up a first pass. Edit as needed. Libertycookies (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Effectively, the bill eliminates a worker's right to a secret-ballot union vote. Employers rarely voluntarily recognize a union under the current law. Consequently, workers get to vote secretly and privately on union representation presently. Under EFCA, employees effectively will never vote for unionization by secret-ballot again. Unions rarely continue an organizing campaign where they cannot convince a strong majority of workers to sign cards (by means which include intimidation). Therefore, workers never will have the opportunity to vote by secret-ballot under EFCA because unions will end an organizing campaign where they obtain signed cards from 50% or less of workers in an appropriate bargaining unit. --EmployeeFreeChoiceAct (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

After trying to decipher this bill, I can find no verbiage that supports the opinion that a secret ballot will no longer be allowed...a specific line from the bill is necessary to support this claim, I believe.(Aaron55540 (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

The real problem regarding the "false impression", is that while the secret-ballot vote is not eliminated as an alternative, the new law forces the employer to accept the 50% +1 check cards as a basis for creating a union. This method will be much easier for organizers to accomplish, which will effectively eliminate the secret-ballot vote. Many people believe that one-on-one discussions between organizers and employees have the potential for too much coercion and intimidation.SeattleRetro (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While there is no specific verbiage that abolishes the secret ballot election, that is the reality of what this Act allows. Under EFCA, once a majority of cards are signed, the union can be certified without a secret ballot election. What would stop union organizers from submitting the cards as soon as they have the majority? Why would they hold the cards and call for an election? The truth is, they won't. It just doesn't make sense to do so. Under the current system, once the cards are signed, the employer may call for an election. That gives both sides a chance to educate the workers on what a union would mean in their company. Unions win elections over 50% of the time. But that mean they also LOSE almost 50% of the time, despite having a majority of cards. So what would motivate organizers to opt for an election? Nothing. It's just a chance to lose. Secret ballot elections for unions would stop. Workers throughout the US would have NO FREEDOM of choice.--Jandayatl (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a little over the top. Employees are free to decide whether or not to sign the cards, and employees still have the option to hold a secret ballot election. See: Beam, Christopher (2009-03-10). "Uncivil Union: Does card check kill the secret ballot or not?". Slate. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you and that article are absolutely incorrect. Wouldn't it be nice if the people editing these pages actually read the bill? That would sure be nice, you know, consulting the actual source..."If the 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." It is apparent from the actual, verifiable text of the March 10, 2009 version of the Bill that, in fact, no such provisions for a secret ballot are contained in the Bill itself. Any such provisions are myth or propaganda, and seriously damage the integrity of the article. Full text of the bill is available at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1409. From now on, I feel it would be most accurate to only accept information straight from the source itself. As such, I will continue to edit the misinformation in this article as reflected and supported by the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009. -- Brian Olen C. (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice that the bill would "amend the National Labor Relations Act". This is an example of why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. —EqualRights (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are mistaken on the definition of "amend" - to change or modify. "If the 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." By adding this sentence, any provisions in the NLRA are amended to reflect this statement. It specifically and directly denies the rights of workers to direct an election if the 50%+1 card check majority is reached. This is not complex wording, nor is it a subjective statement. It is an objective fact that the bill amends any decision of workers to vote in a secret ballot by adding the words "shall not direct an election." To suggest anything else would be objectively and verifiably false, as this article does. -Brian Olen C. (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree; in this case it is apparent that the primary source directly contradicts the argument made by the secondary source, as Brian Olen C. quoted above. -Matthew Bischoff (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The details in the opening paragraph were also not fully fleshed out and did not provide a necessarily correct outline for the 30% secret ballot issue. This is, however, discussed in the Certification section, so I have edited that statement out of the page as it is too complicated to be summarized in the opening general outline. I have also cleaned up some weasel words and eliminated some redundancies. Please post here before reposting the secret ballot issue summary in the beginning, as the last one was not accurate because of the virtual elimination of the choice of workers to choose a secret ballot election. It is nullified because union organizers control when these requests are sent to the NLRB, and since the bill requires that an election not be held if a majority is reached and provides unlimited time for union organizers to hold onto these cads without submitting them, the right is essentially gone. The Certification section touches on this reality, but the general overview did not and would have to be too long to have it explained accurately. - Brian Olen C. (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I've reverted it. Please do not remove reliably sourced material such as this. The issue is fairly well documented among objective sources that the EFCA removes the employer's right to choose to hold a secret ballot and gives that right to the employees rather than, as is presently the case, to the employer. It's a sufficiently central aspect of the legislation that it merits stating this issue straightforwardly in the lead section of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read my comment? The issue is fairly well documented in not only the original text, but also the Heritage article in the Certification section. Those sources are not "objective," they're trying to promote the bill and do not quote nor directly address it. While it technically allows the workers to choose a secret ballot election, in practice this will never happen. Did you even consider all the other changes made in that edit? Did you even read my comment how that should not be included in the general summary because the issue is far more complex than it is simplified to be in that paragraph, and it is even incorrect. Please address the actual comments made in the Talk section instead of going on about reliably sourced material. Reliably sourced material may show that technically secret ballot elections are possible, but in practice they will never happen and this is addressed in the Certification section. The Certification section has a more detailed and correct explanation. Re-reverted. Please do not compromise the overall quality of this article by simplifying an issue in the summary as to the point of being completely wrong in practicality. - Brian Olen C. (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add reliably-sourced countering material - in the Wikipedia way - but you are not permitted to remove reliably-sourced material. Please stop edit warring per WP:3RR —EqualRights (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding reliably sourced material contradicting reliably sourced material would not bode well for a simple summary in the beginning, which is why I proposed it be eliminated from the beginning summary. This issue and both sides of it are in the rest of the article, and the summary looks at only the one impractical perspective. The summary is unneeded and does not accurately reflect the rest of the article's discussion because it provides only one of the viewpoints presented. If I were to add a sentence following that said the opposite of the following sentence, then it would detract from the quality of the article. If you want, I can move around the reliably sourced material to somewhere else, but the part I modified was too controversial to be so flatly stated. In practice, secret ballot elections will never happen with EFCA: von Spakovsky, Hans (2009-03-23). "Destroying the secret ballot in union elections". Spero., Trottman, Melanie (2009-02-04). "Battle Heats Up Over Union-Backed Bill". The Wall Street Journal., http://www.heritage.org/Research/labor/bg2175.cfm - Brian Olen C. (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's clear that opponents of the bill are painting union organizers as somewhere between overzealous and outright bullies. I must admit that some opponents of the bill put forward a tidy theory, that secret ballots will never happen where more than 30% of employees want to unionize, but where less than a majority have had the courage to sign certification cards. Are we to actually believe that under no circumstance somewhere between 30% and 50% of employees are in favor of unionizing? Please, I wasn't born yesterday, and have worked for tough employers before. Are we to actually to believe that the typical non-union employee is more fearful of an organizer asking them to sign a card than they are of the employer on which their livelihood currently depends? That's a bit tough to swallow. Nonetheless, this particular assertion of opponents, IMO, deserves treatment in the article, as a theory about what the effects of the bill would be in the opinions of those commentators, e.g., Wall Street Journal, Heritage Foundation, etc.. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And proponents paint "Big business" as an evil, overarching, bullying enemy when there is no evidence that this occurrence is widespread or even at all common. And I like your wording, "courage," "tough employers," "fearful employee." You also paint business as some evil all-powerful entity. But guess what? Who can influence you in the ballot box? No one. At all. Not even in the least. But this is irrelevant to my original point anyway....These articles are all cited with resources for their claims, including showing some of the union rules and intimidation. Not only is intimidation a factor, but even it weren't, the worker doesn't necessarily have all the information or may be told false information when signing a card. When having a secret ballot election, both sides present their case fully, exposing he voter to the full scope of information available. And did you read some of the main points of the article? Union organizers are not required to turn in unfavorable results and have an unlimited time period in which to gather more votes. Why would they ever turn in unfavorable results? Like I said, this gives the power to union organizers, who hold all the chips here, not all employees. - Brian Olen C. (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since a simple double-check of my comment will confirm that you have misquoted and misrepresented my comments about life in the "real world", I will bring my part of this irrelevant exchange to a close. Your POV is duly noted. I think It would be more useful to get back to representing the topic in reasonable accordance with the core content policies of WP. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source disagrees with the basic statements presently made in the article lead, which is that the proposed EFCA takes the option of demanding a secret ballot away from the employer and gives the right to choose a secret ballot to the employees in the event that they lack a 50%+ card-check certification to unionize, which would require the approval of 30% of employees to conduct. The statement about which party (employees or employer) loses the right to demand a secret ballot and which party gains this right is properly included in the article lead as a straightforward statement of what the bill does with respect to secret ballots.
..... Frankly, another thing that probably belongs in an article lead as specific and detailed as this one is a straightforward statement about the widespread, extremely well funded campaign by, might we say "business interests", to try to mislead the public into thinking that the proposed legislation would take away the right for employees to have a secret ballot. Because according to the reliable sources, the only right that is taken away is the employer's right to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election. In other words, the widely disseminated assertion that the bill takes an employees' right away from them is, in a word, false, or at least blatantly misleading, depending on which opponent's characterization one looks at, and as such they're quite arguably not reliable sources. The Heritage Foundation's and other major opponents' theories, e.g. about what they assert the bill will end up doing in practice, is already given quite thorough summary treatment in the first major section of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So tell me, on even a personal, common-sense note: do you honestly think that union organizers will go the NLRB with less than 51% of cards checked? With unlimited amount of time to collect cards and no stipulation as to when the case has to be presented to the NLRB, along with the specific provision that literally bars secret ballot elections form occurring after 50%+1, do you really, really think that unions will just voluntarily turn in requests for secret ballot election before having a majority? Why, when the goal of union organizers is to create a union, would any organizer choose to have a whole election process when they could simply get 50%+1 to sign public cards when subject to any amount of misinformation or intimidation? On a simple common sense level, they wouldn't. In terms of sources, if you read some of the articles I presented, or care to research union practices, most unions even have rules against presenting cards to the NLBR unless they have 50, 60, or sometimes even 70%. To this effect, the bill does not "Take the right of secret ballot from employers and put it in the hands of employees," it takes away the right of the secret ballot from employers - who always use it - to union organizers - who would virtually never use it. Why would anyone prefer card check over secret ballot anyway? Why is card check the default here? Hasn't the private, secret ballot election vote proven to be successful and the most anonymous, coercion-free election system that is a basic tent of democracy? But that is secondary, I guess, to the contending fact here that the true controllers of the secret ballot election still would not be the employees, as is asserted. - Brian Olen C. (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, how could you consider my other edits to this article "Blanket POV?" I objectivized language reminiscent of union talking points to simply be flat statements of fact, fixed a lengthy irregular title,and deleted a paragraph that restates the information in the paragraph above it except in more suggestive language. - Brian Olen C. (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I commented above, to the effect that theories of major opponents about the likely effects of the proposed EFCA are properly mentioned in the body text of the article, perhaps in the section on certification. I also gave my personal opinion about those theories, which I will of course avoid inserting into the article. The legal effect of the proposed legislation, IMO, unquestionably belongs in the article lead given the widespread confusion and disinformation about which party gains a right and which party loses a right under the proposed legislation. The theories of opponents about the practical effect might deserve an extremely brief mention in the lead, no more than one sentence IMO-- short, simple and straightforward, from a NPOV: e.g. "Opponents have asserted that the practical effect of the EFCA would be to eliminate secret-ballot elections altogether" or "Critics of the EFCA have asserted that in practice this would actually eliminate secret-ballot elections" or some such approach, citing to the major critics such as the WSJ and Heritage Foundation. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement "The EFCA would allow employees, rather than employers, to make a decision whether to use the card-check process or hold a secret-ballot election" is simply too strong and suggestive. The employees do not simply make a decision, they have to basically be approved by union organizers, who choose when to submit the cards to the NLBR. From a NPOV, something like "The EFCA would allow employees to make a decision to hold a secret-ballot election when 30% of employees petition for one and less than a majority has chosen to unionize through card-check." Which still isn't technically correct, because union organizers decide when to submit these cards to the NLBR with no time constraints, but I'll even let that slide (for now)...With this change, the statement is more accurate and less misleading, and the section "however, employees may still request a secret ballot election if 30% of employees petition for one." is not needed. What are your thoughts on such a compromise? - Brian Olen C. (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Independently of any judgments in favor or opposing the legislation, and in light of the currently widespread public confusion about the issue of who loses rights and who gains rights under the EFCA, I certainly agree the current third paragraph of the article lead can be yet more accurately written than it currently is, consistently with WP's content policies and retaining an economy of language that is reasonably appropriate for an article-lead summary of this topic per WP:LEAD. That said, I completely disagree that the present version of the lead is too suggestive-- indeed the notion that the present lead is too strong and suggestive is likely a direct result of the widespread and intentional misinformation campaigns about the legal effects of the proposed legislation. Still, I'm sure there's a better, more accurate way to express the concept while also conveying which party (employer or employees en masse and/or individually) loses a legal right and which party gains a legal right if it's passed, as well as to give the reader a basic idea under what circumstances the employees have the right to collectively demand a secret-ballot election. IMO, what you propose here might come closer than the current language to accurately expressing what the EFCA would do. What I'd advocate at this stage is to add it as a clarification, using existing citations and any others you may have. Offhand, I would support the addition of a sentence such as "More specifically, when less than a majority has chosen to unionize through card-check, the EFCA would allow employees to make a decision to hold a secret-ballot election when 30% of employees petition for an election.", or reasonable facsimile thereof, at the end of the current article lead. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the top? I think not. It appears over the top because the effect is so extreme and undemocratic. The employee do not have the option to hold the secret ballot election. If the organizer(s) decide to submit the cards, there is no election. The organizers make the choice, not the employees, and they will opt to submit the cards and skip the election every time. Sure, the employees don't have to sign cards. But they have that same freedom today, and unions still lose over 40% of elections even when they have a supermajority of cards signed. Getting a card signed is one thing. Affecting workers' true feelings about unions and getting their secret vote is quite another.--Jandayatl (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The law would actually give employees the choice to hold a secret ballot, which they currently do not have -- the choice is currently up to the employer. Again, read the article I cite above. The reason union elections fail after card check is that the employer is given 60 days to convince employees to vote against it, fire pro-Union employees as an example to others, etc. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the verbiage of the Act - which carries more weight to me than a biased article about the Act. Unfortunately, the idea that the Act gives employee the choice to hold a secret ballot is just not true. The way it is written is very clever, thus enabling pro-EFCA pro-Union folks to claim it provides a choice. That's just flat out false.

As far as tactics on the part of employers facing a union vote, I believe it is true we could both find examples of poor behavior on the part of organizers and employers. But I that supports the argument for a secret ballot. When an employee votes, it's just them and their conscience. No matter what tactics have been engaged by the employer or the union, the employee can vote their true feelings in a SECRET ballot election. Under EFCA, employees would be more subsceptible to pressure and harassment from the union organizers.--208.62.95.2 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Bipartisan?"

Are there any Republican cosponsors of H.R. 800? Without at least a handful, I don't think it's accurate to describe the bill as "bipartisan." The article already states, "Republican members of the committee voted unanimously against reporting the bill." I suggest that "bipartisan" be removed from the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwalter (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the House there was enough Republican support for the bill to pass, despite the opposition of Republicans in the committee. While most of the GOP opposes the act, it is still bi-Partisan and not completely split on party lines. Libertycookies (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wall St Journal

The Wall St. Journal editorial page is a legitimate source for opinion against this law. I stated in the article that this is an editorial, and that's exactly what this section is for. Here's what I put in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"An August 27, 2008 editorial in the Wall St. Journal stated, "Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation... The only sector of the U.S. auto industry that is prospering is the part not organized by the United Auto Workers... The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has shown that right to work states over the past 30 years have lower unemployment, higher rates of job creation, and faster growth in GDP and per-capita personal income than states with compulsory union membership." "

There's way too many left wing newspapers with editorials that would need to be included if we start including the opinions from non-politicians. "Contrary to the WSJ's opinion, The U.S. auto industry that is foreign owned and with no unions is doing fine because they compete against U.S. owned factories with legacy unions formed generations ago. The UAW has targeted the foreign owned factories but can't make any headway due to the EFCA not passing. Thats great for Japan where the profits go, but not for the U.S. Its great for Wall Street as long as they short U.S. owned auto makers and invest in the newcomers. But for strong American owned industry and a strong American middle class labor law must be fairly enforced for all companies."

Better yet, let's leave the opinions to the elected Pols. Also, the posted WSJ article is more of an argument against Taft-Hartley and unions in general than the proposed changes in the EFCA and doesn't raise any new opposing views. Libertycookies (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have submitted this page for an NPOV check on the basis of the fact that the vast majority of the content, including the "disputed claims" (rather than "controversy"), seem to sustain an endemic bias embedded within the prospective bill's supporters' views. As a specific example (but by no means a complete consolidated list of the issues herein), this article completely glosses over the issues with confirming the presence of illegal intimidation, which is frequently present when attempts to unionize are dirven and supported by "outside interests" claiming a profits residual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonASacks (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There's room for disputed claims made by Proponents, but most are included in the 'Opponents views.' The 'Proponent's views' only addresses the benefits of the Act and not the claims of opponents. Libertycookies (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Endemic bias. Sheesh. I'll tell you what I know - I've never been intimidated by union officers, in fact I've never met one. I've never had the opportunity to join a union, because of employer intimidation - that fear was instilled into me and my co-workers, that we could lose our jobs if we tried to stand up for our rights as hard-working people. If there is any endemic bias here, it is that people THINK they know what democracy means. How is it any more democratic for management to decide how you work, than it is for the people you work with to decide how you work? If a majority of your co-workers feel that they aren't being treated fairly, either you need to step up, or step out. If there isn't a majority, you have nothing to worry about - because obviously you are treated with respect where you work. THAT's what I call democracy. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To show that 'Disputed claims' is neutral language, I've added a ref where Rep Miller says, "opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act are spreading vicious lies about the bill. These myths must be corrected. Their biggest whopper? That the bill would "eliminate the secret ballot." 'Disputed claims' gives the benefit of the doubt to the opponents that these are not 'vicious lies'. Libertycookies (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

EFCA effectively eliminates the secret-ballot. That is a FACT. Unions rarely continue an organizing campaign where they cannot convince a strong majority of workers to sign cards (by means which include intimidation). Accordingly, workers never will have the opportunity to vote by secret-ballot under EFCA because unions will end an organizing campaign where they obtain signed cards from 50% or less of workers in an appropriate bargaining unit. --EmployeeFreeChoiceAct (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Right to Work in Lead

"Right to Work states establish that membership in an organized labor union can not be compulsory for employment. As such, the vast majority of new manufacturing centers (and jobs) have been established in Right to Work states such as Georgia, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, and the balance of the 22 Right to Work states in the US."

The second sentence above, from the lead, is not only lacking citation but, more importantly, completely out of place. It might fit under Opponent's Views alongside the quotes from the Wall Street Journal editorial and the mention of statistics from the conservative think-tank Mackinac, but certainly not here. First, its statistics, even if cited, are likely to be highly controversial given the overreaching scope of the claim (vast majority of new jobs). Second, even if the merely statistical claim were accurate, the implication with "As such, ... " is that this is demonstrably a direct consequence of the Right to Work laws in these states, a position that is highly disputable for many reasons reaching beyond this article and more appropriately addressed in the Right to Work article. I am removing the sentence until someone can come with something more acceptable. This is not the place to give an extremely loaded summary of Right to Work. 76.27.146.150 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Free Choice of Money

Wikileaks has just released an 55 minute conference phone call MP3 which shows top honcho bankers wanting to use federal bank-aid money to bribe conservative US senators to block this EFCA from becoming law. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Anti-union_call_between_Bank_of_America%2C_Bernie_Marcus%2C_et_al._and_Rick_Berman%2C_17_Oct_2008

http://wikileaks.org/leak/audio-recording--secret-call-to-defeat-employee-free-choice-act-by-bank-of-america.mp3

Cloture

I don't think it will be possible to invoke cloture in the 111th United States Congress. The GOP still holds more than the 40 needed to stop cloture. Why then does the article say that this could happen?JakeH07 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV of entire Wiki entry as well as individual sections

I have added two NPOV flags to the article, one for the overall article and one for the particular section which says "Thus, the Employee Free Choice Act is intended to guarantee workers their right to choose a bargaining representative through either majority sign-up or an election process. Instead of companies determining the method of organization, workers would have the ability to make that decision for themselves." This section clearly uses the talking points of the measure's supporters as it leaves out the absolutely critical fact of the effective elimination of the private ballot in the unionization process. Rossputin (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - good call. It's clearly POV ("intended to"), and the intention of the bill's sponsors is already well-covered in the Proponents section, so I've removed it along with the POV tags. —EqualRights (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had worked on this article a bit last year. On returning to it, it was much more POV, with many more lengthy quotes from the "for" side than from the "against" side. I restored some of the quotes that had been taken out of the opponents' section-- from George McGovern and law professor Richard Epstein-- and since it is still about half the size of the proponents' section, if the quotes are taken out of the article they should be replaced by other, similar quotes if the proponents' section remains the current size.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Work needed

This article could use some work I think. As a reader I found it highly ambiguous as to the actual topic. The article does a good job of outlining the various views for and against this legislation but it doesn't really do a good job of neutrally presenting exactly what this bill is and what it will do to U.S. law. Some articulation on those points is badly needed as this topic is a treasure trove of misinformation from both sides in the American media. Thank you.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the misinformation was difficult to sort through in collaboratively writing the article to this point. Though, most of the basic relevant information about what the bill would do is right in the article lead. One needs to understand current NLRA procedure w.r.t. unionization in order to understand what the proposed legislation would do. Thus, both the current procedure, and what aspects the proposed law would change, are briefly explained in the lead. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of edits by SPA with COI

I have removed the edits made by User:Gflight12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), essentially rolling back the article to be equal to its status as of 03:22, 11 May 2009 (other than attempts by Kenosis and myself to remove some of the inserted bias, all of the edits since then were vandalism and reverts).

The edits of Gflight12, though partially referenced, were a clear attempt to inject a pro-act point of view into the article, as demonstrated by the choice of quotes as to characterize businesses as acting in bad faith, the editorializing so as make said characterization explicit, the embedded (in violation of WP:EL) external links to SEIU articles on the various businesses and issues, etc. Furthermore, the user's history makes it clear it is a single purpose account with a conflict of interest: the only change it made other than the series of changes here was this edit to Service Employees International Union, where it added various embedded ELs to SEIU pages, with the edit summary "I added in the names and position titles of SEIU's executive officers and added our global partners." (emphasis added) While it's entirely permissible for a SEIU member (or even more likely in this case, an officer or member of their press corps) to contribute information on SEIU's views on the legislation (properly sourced, of course), the idea that they could present their opponents' views in a neutral, non-biased manner is highly suspect. John Darrow (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

John, I've reinserted the last paragraph of the "Opponents' views" section, except for the Newt Gingrich quote, which was not verified by a reliable published source. The other quotes are cited to the Wall Street Journal and NY Times, both generally reliable with quoted material. The content of the first sentence of that paragraph, also cited to the WSJ, was added earlier by another user. The diff of my partial reinsertion of just-removed material is here. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(I'm not sure why the U of Chicago quote keeps getting pulled into this, as there is no visible change in the diff; the user must have changed the spacing slightly when he inserted the other quotes.)

My issue here was that a user clearly from one side of the issue quote mined people from the other side in order to find the most exaggerated, hyperbolized characterizations of the issue, framed them with further biased descriptions of who the quoted people were, and put the entire thing in in a "see how horrible these people are? All they can do is use hyperbole and exaggeration to defeat this bill, because they know they couldn't win on the facts" fashion. (They also cherry picked within the sources they quoted e.g. mentioning the USCC's $10 million campaign against the bill, while ignoring its own $10 million campaign for it, both mentioned in the Las Vegas Sun article they inline-linked to the word "campaign".) This is something one would expect to see in a press release by one side trying to rally its foot soldiers; but as for Wikipedia, it's so biased that, in my eyes, no amount of other policy (such as the quotes being verifiable) could justify the WP:NPOV violation.

That being said, I'm not opposed to a reasonable number of quotes appearing in the article, as long as the quotes and the information about who made them are framed and presented in an appropriate neutral fashion. At the same time, if we are going to include quotes which are obvious hyperbole from one side, it seems to me that neutrality demands that we include a similar number of quotes which are obvious hyperbole from the other side. John Darrow (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of much of the biased material posted by the SPA in general. These quotes, though, AFAICT, are very extreme characterizations of the proposed bill from publicly visible members of the business community who previously have been deemed adequately notable to have WP articles, e.g. Chamber of Commerce, and so forth, using terms "armageddon", "slavery", etc. "rioting in the streets". The WP articles on the Chamber and the several others quoted were not put in by the SPA you mentioned, John, but by other WP users. It seems to me the reader who chooses to read that far into the article should be aware of the extremity of the characterizations being used against this bill. If there are similarly hyperbolic quotes from notable sources in favor of the bill, yes, of course the reader should be concisely made aware of such characterizations as well. This is not "quote mining", but rather is presenting selected quotes that appear to represent the "lay of the land" w.r.t. this proposed bill. Is the argument that the business community merely tepidly opposes the bill and these quotes were taken out of context? I doubt it. The reaction of the business community appears to be very strong, and thus reliably sourced examples of the intensity with which members of the business community have characterized the EFCA appear to me to be appropriately included at reasonable length. One paragraph of examples seems reasonable length. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree there has been horrible bias in this article on both sides, and the actual explanation of the bill, as well as analysis of possible impacts, are seriously lacking. I also think perhaps this article might need to be re-written, as it has a lot of clutter. Also, doesn't the Employee Free Choice Act restrict a state's ability to implement portions of right to work laws or hold some sort of impact on them, perhaps if they do that should be addressed (haven't done my homework on that part :P) --Monsuco (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

RE " haven't done my homework on that part": The homework is a pain in the neck on this topic, at least without having a law degree and/or being thoroughly familiar with the NLRA and procedures of the NLRB.
RE "there has been horrible bias in this article on both sides": Yes, and the article presently reflects this basic fact by presenting the views of both sides of the "coin". (The discussion in this talk section mostly had to do with how much of each to present, and how properly to present each side within WP policies and guidelines. Since you've brought up a broader issue about the article as a whole, I've taken some time to try to briefly respond in a way that I hope is helpful both to you and, perhaps, to the article.)
RE "... and the actual explanation of the bill, as well as analysis of possible impacts, are seriously lacking": There are at least two distinctly different issues here, which you've superimposed in one sentence, Monsuco. One issue has to do with how the article deals with the bias of published opinions that advocate opposite sides of this contested piece of legislation. Another issue has to do with how well this article explains a hotly contested proposed legislation that requires, essentially, both a law degree and also an intimate familiarity with existing labor law to fully decipher the text of the legislation. I suspect this is roughly how the WP article on this topic got to its present form. The lead explains the existing procedure for forming a "union" in words a generally educated layperson can understand, then proceeds to explain in similarly lay language what the proposed legislation would do to change that procedure, as best as has been possible up to this point in time, more or less within the presently accepted Wikipedia method of writing articles.
..... I hope the above explanation is reasonably adequate to bring presently involved participants back to the specific issues of this talk section, which had to do with how many points of view to include in the article, and how to present them fairly and within WP policies and guidelines. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding again to John Darrow, I'm going to reinsert the paragraph about the multi-million $ campaign by the Chamber of Commerce (cited to the Wall Street Journal, and the several other statements of notable participants in the debate over the proposed EFCA, which were the original issue in this talk section. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you also going to insert a similar paragraph about the unions' multi-million $ campaign for the bill, also cited in reliable sources (e.g. the LV Sun article mentioned above)?

This still rubs me the wrong way, basically having had an activist from one side select which of the other sides's quotes are used to represent the latter's views. Surely not everything said by opponents has been hyperbole; adding more hyperbole without adding a similar amount of the proponents' hyperbole just doesn't seem like a neutral article to me. John Darrow (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to think that surely the "unions" have invested multi-millions of $ in support of this proposed legislation that's fairly obviously designed to make it somewhat easier for employees to unionize, legislation which also involves increased penalties against employers who violate the NLRA. To whatever extent the labor unions have invested such $ into advocating for this proposed legislation, i should think notable quotes of union representatives' perspectives on the EFCA would properly be included in this article. As I noted just above, I've reinserted the notable quotes that are cited to sources widely agreed within the WP community to be reliable sources w.r.t. direct quotations, at least lacking compelling evidence to the contrary that such quotations by media such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times might be false. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)(Just to prefix this, I'm okay with the current version of the article, with the one paragraph of sourced quotes marked as "strong characterizations" rather than the bias-inciting "demonizing", if that version is the consensus of others here.)

I think we're talking past each other here. I've never had an issue with the sourcing of the quotes (with the possible exception of the one sourced to Media Matters, which looks like it might be too partisan to be considered a WP:RS, but I'm sure another record of said quote could be found to replace that source). The issue has always been with the particular selection of quotes. Let's say that a given side of an issue been quoted 20 times about it, 10 of which contained exaggerations or hyperbole, and 10 of which did not. Would it really be reasonably within WP's WP:NPOV policy to only include quotes from among the 10 exaggerated ones? Yet that's basically what happened here: all the quotes being included here were specifically selected by the COI user explicitly so as to make their opponent's side sound as exaggerating (and thus as untrustworthy) as possible - the editiorializing included directly in their changes to the article basically admitted as much. That's pretty much the definition of quote mining, and, as I said before, something that's to be expected in a press release meant to rally a side's troops - not in an encyclopedia which considers neutral point of view one of its core policies. John Darrow (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, more or less agreed. Media Matters, incidentally, has developed quite a reputation for thoroughly doing their homework and accurately presenting what they find. For example, they don't hesitate to provide reliable evidence of mistakes by the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, or any other media. Seems to me they're a reasonably reliable source w.r.t. something like a direct quotation, as is the case here. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please look at the recent changes to this article, this is getting out of hand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.138.224 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert to article before july 14th changes

Someone please examine this newly added paragraph:

On July 7, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) along with 39 other Senators (all Democrats in case you didn't notice) chose the bill as the first piece of legislation that they would co-sponsor. [49] Due do them co-sponsoring this bill, there is a high chance they will not be re-elected due to the fact they all the care about is telling other what to do and force them to join unions which are killing jobs. They don't realize that a majority of their constituents are opposed to the EFCA. But that is socialism at its finest.

I do not think this lives up to wikipedia's standards. Someone please remove this obvious violation.

abandonment of card check

Card check was removed from the bill a few days ago, according to the NYT.[3] -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good eyes. Thank you for the heads-up. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

111th Congress POV

I'm guessing that this section ought to be rewritten, with its mentions of "job killing" and "socialist" Democrats.Mario777Zelda (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This apparently was a recent POV pusher who inserted the passages to which you refer. The hyperbolically biased phrases have been deleted. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proponents view

This article is on my watch list. Can we please keep opponents views out of the proponents section? This is the third of fourth time I have seen this happening. I am removing that material for the time being while we decide how to integrate that into the opponents viewpoint. EricLeFevre (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tone of Article

The article seems to read negatively on the Bill. I'm not quite sure what to change, but it should be changed. Rootbear75 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There was some blatant vandalism which I've removed, and in so doing have removed the tag you added. Please have a look over the article again, and see if the problem is resolved or if you have a more specific concern. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No requirements to form a union

This article is wildly inaccurate. There are no requirements to FORM a union. The requirements are what you have to do before you can FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO JOIN THE UNION.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is reasonably accurate and properly cited to reliable sources. A choice of a majority of employees to have a collective bargaining representative is not accurately characterized as you have here and in your edits to the article today. "[W]hat you have to do before you can FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO JOIN THE UNION", as you say here [italics mine], is to get a majority of employees to agree that you're going to be their representative. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply declaring I'm wrong is not a "discussion". The previous characterization in the article is flat-out wrong, and reverting to that is vandalism. I'm going to delete the false statements, and if anyone re-adds them without sources, that will be vandalism, and not subject to the 3RR.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

False statement 1: "In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his or her colleagues." Truth: The Constitution guarantees the right to association. People can join a union without any card check. The card check is to be RECOGNIZED.

1. 2 "It would take away employers' present ability to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check."

Truth: employees already are allowed to choose a secret-ballot election with less than a majority. If employees already have it, how would the new law "give" that to them?

1. 3 "Under current labor law, workers can select union representation either through an election process or through majority sign-up"

This makes it sound like workers can individually choose, when in fact a majority gets to make a choice, and impose that choice on everyone else.

1. 4 "An election may be held if more than 30 percent of employees in a bargaining unit sign cards asking for representation by a union."

They ask for a specific union, not for "a" union.

1. 5 "A company can refuse to bargain with a union chosen by workers through majority sign-up, even if 100 percent of the workers want to be represented by the union."

Flat-out false. The company has to hold a secret ballot, and if everyone votes for the union, the company has to recognize it.

1. 6 "The choice of whether to use an election process or majority sign-up to form the union is now exclusively controlled by companies"

Again, recognize, not form.

1. 7 "Since the inception of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, it has been legal for workers to form a union when a majority of employees in a bargaining unit..."

Recognize, not form.

1. 8 "The most widely publicized change the Employee Free Choice Act would make is a change to give workers an option of how they form a union."

Again.

1. 9 "The process of forming a union through secret ballot elections does not change under the Employee Free Choice Act."

Again.

1. "Proponents of the legislation assert that the change is necessary to protect workers' rights to join unions."

Again, workers are free to join unions no matter what. This is using weasel works of "proponents say" to sneak in a flat-out false statement.

You people are making it sound like it's illegal for people to form a union without card checks/secret ballots. That's flat-out bullshit. And you don't even have the decency to discuss it on the talk page.

As I said, any edit that does not address these points is vandalism and not subject to 3RR.Heqwm2 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, missed one. "employers are not required to honor their workers' signed authorization forms designating a union as their representative" They ARE required to honor the forms in that they require a secret ballot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm2 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Heqwm2, your arguments are all original research. Please read WP:OR. --Dr.enh (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Argument by assertion is not civil discussion. The current edit is blatant POV. You are playing wikilawyering games to support blatant POV. Are you really stating with a straight face that this article is an honest description of the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm2 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with this claim: "and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check." They ALREADY have the right to have a secret ballot. So the law wouldn't GIVE that to them. Explain how this is "original research" or otherwise not a legitimate point.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've presented something that needs to be fixed, and no one has presented any counterarguments. So that means that I can change it without there being any valid argument that I am violating the edit war rules.

Now, onto this claim: "employers are not required to honor their workers' signed authorization forms designating a union as their representative". This has no source given. Dr.enh claimed in his edit summary that "source is valid, even though link is dead" which makes no sense. "Verifiable" means "verifiable". It doesn't mean "WAS verified at some point in the past", it means "CAN be verified NOW". Secondly, it give the wildly inaccurate impression that employers can simply IGNORE cards, which is false. Sufficient number of cards do impose an obligation on employers. I don't see why people insist on having the more accurate discussion of the situation reverted, unless they are opposed to having an NPOV article.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr. enh, you reverted an edit without discussing it on the talk page. You called a good-faith edit not only "vandalism" but a "lie". You are in grave violation of WP policies.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Heqwm2 reported for 3RR violation by User:Dr.enh at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring No one has presented counterarguments because the edits of Heqwm2 are directly contradicted by the source. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And still no one has responded. The article claims "It would take away employers' present ability to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check." Is no one willing to explain how the cite supports that claim? Besides not being supported by the cite, this statement is POV, in using "ability" for employers and "right" for employees.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is alleged to be POV? In this context "ability" is synonymous with legal "right". Either way is OK by me. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Heqwm2, you've placed a "citation needed" after two citations are already provided in the article in support of a passage that presently reads as follows:

[The EFCA] would take away employers' present ability to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the ability to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check.^[3][4] The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.^{[3][4][citation needed]}

• Current fn#3, from the Congressional Committee on Education and Labor "Myth vs. Fact" page ([4]):

  "MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the "secret ballot" election.
  FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the secret ballot eleciton process. That process, also known as a National Labor Relations Board election would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act allows workers, not corporate executives, to make that decision."

• Current fn#4, from the Christopher Beam source ("Uncivil Union: Does card check kill the secret ballot or not?"):

  "Here's how it works currently: Say you work at a factory and you want to form a union. First, you approach your favorite union and request a bunch of blank cards. (Here's what they look like.) Then you go around to your colleagues and ask them whether they want to sign up. If they do, they sign their name to the cards. Once you get 30 percent of the total work force to sign cards, you're eligible to hold an election on whether to form a union. (Workers usually wait till they get at least 50 percent or 60 percent, just to make sure they will win the election.) You then present the cards to the National Labor Relations Board and the employer. The employer can then either recognize the union right away or request a secret-ballot election, which must happen within 60 days. If more than 50 percent of employees vote for a union, they've got a union. If not, they don't."
  and,
  "Workers still have the option of holding a secret ballot election, of course. But, again, as a practical matter, it's hard to imagine why a group of workers, having just won a union, would then also decide to hold an election. Sure, a smaller group of workers—it'd have to be at least 30 percent—could still petition for a secret ballot. But the legislation clearly states that '[i]f the 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 as the representative.' "

  ... Kenosis (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of the cites you give have clear POV issues. The so-called "Myth vs. Fact" link seems to be an outright propaganda outlet, making statements that, according to my research, are outright dishonesty. To top it off, you don't explain how these cites support the claim. The Beam article says "a smaller group of workers—it'd have to be at least 30 percent—could still petition for a secret ballot". Key word: petition. Under current law, workers can already "petition" for a secret ballot. So this law isn't "giving" anything.Heqwm2 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As to your other edit, you said "so even if 100 percent of the workers have signed cards indicating their preference to be represented by the union, an employer can refuse to bargain with a union and demand instead a secret-ballot election". But the secret ballot is not INSTEAD of bargaining, it's PRIOR to bargaining. If the employees vote for the union, then the employer has to bargain with them. I don't see why you people insist on making it sound otherwise. What, exactly, is your objection to my edit?Heqwm2 (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Heqwm2 you seem to lack an understaning the definitions of words. Please consult a dictionary re: "bargaining" in the context of labor law. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break

One point that I don't see being brought up is an employee's right to protection from other employees. The current system of forcing a secret ballot provides that protection, while an option to bypass the secret ballot does not. EXAMPLE: Let's say that 90% of the employees want to unionize. If a secret ballot is forced, after the union is formed, nobody in the union will know which 10% voted against the union. Those workers will be protected by the secrecy of the ballot. On the other hand, if the 90% majority is allowed to bypass the secret ballot and use the card check, then they will have the names of all of those that didn't want to unionize. This puts an enormous pressure on the minority of workers.

By enabling to majority to bypass the secret election, the inherent protection of the secret election is taken away from the minority voters. I don't know where this will best fit, but it is worth pointing out.--199.48.5.2 (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to include our ideas about advantages and disadvantages of the bill nor to advocate whether the bill should be passed into law, but instead to summarize it from a neutral point of view based on reliable sources. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss how to improve the article within Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
..... As to your point of view, it's an interesting one added to the many conflicting perspectives that have been published about workplace collective bargaining and secret ballots and the like, and what this legislation would do to whom. Proponents would I think maintain that employees already are commonly exposed to pressure, often involving the perception of the danger of individually or collectively losing their jobs. Every employer knows this, and after the education sessions (er, "employee meetings") by the employer leading up to the "secret ballot", the employees do too. Opponents would tend to assert that employees are protected by the secret ballot from the manipulation and pressuring of unions and their fellow employees. The "sides" are widely divergent in their assertions about what constitutes fact, each levying claims and counterclaims and counter-counterclaims, which is why thus far proponents' and opponents' views are given separate treatment in the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)