Home  ›  A Bill's Supporters in the House of Representatives Generally Prefer

A Bill's Supporters in the House of Representatives Generally Prefer

Written By Monday, 21 February 2022 Add Comment Edit

Usa federal bill concerning labor spousal relationship protections

The Employee Free Choice Act is the name for several legislative bills on U.s.a. labor law (H.R. 3619, H.R. 1696, H.R. 800, H.R. 1409, H.R. 5000, S. 1925, Southward. 842, S. 1041, S. 560.) which have been proposed and sometimes introduced into one or both chambers of the U.Southward. Congress.[1]

The bill'south purpose, as taken from the 2009 version, was to[ii]

ameliorate the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient organisation to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations [unions], to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

The act would have, first, allowed a spousal relationship to exist certified every bit the official union to bargain with an employer if union officials collect signatures of a majority of workers. The nib would have removed the present correct of the employer to demand an additional, separate ballot when more than half of employees accept already given their signature supporting the union.[three] Second, the bill would have required employers and unions to enter binding mediation to produce a commonage agreement at to the lowest degree 120 days after a union is recognized. Third, the bill would accept increased penalties on employers who discriminate confronting workers for wedlock involvement.

Outline [edit]

The Employee Gratuitous Choice Act would take amended the National Labor Relations Deed in iii meaning means. That is:

  • section 2 would have eliminated the need for an additional ballot to crave an employer recognize a matrimony, if a majority of workers have already signed cards expressing their wish to take a union
  • section 3 would take required that an employer begins negotiating with a union with a view to reaching a collective understanding within 90 days, and if not, the two sides will be referred to compulsory mediation, and if arbitration fails, binding arbitration
  • section 4 increases the penalties on employers who subject workers to detriment for beingness involved in a matrimony.

Section 2, Streamlining spousal relationship certification [edit]

Section two(a) of the bill would have allowed the recognition of a union for the purpose of exclusive commonage bargaining with an employer if a majority of employees sign cards stating their wish that the union represents them.

Currently, the NLRA section ix(c) anticipates that after at least 30% of employees land their wish for wedlock representation, a dissever hugger-mugger ballot will be held to confirm that the majority of employees desire marriage representation.[4] [v] This only happens when there is "a question of employee representation", or in other words, the result is contested (for case, because the employer objects). Undisputed petitions, when all employees and the employer concord, require no further election.[6] However, in practice, the results of the menu check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards.[three] Moreover, even if every employee has signed cards indicating their preference to exist represented by the union, an employer may need a hole-and-corner election, and refuse to deal until one is held.[iii] The consequence of section two would have been that if a majority of employees at a workplace have already put their names on cards, there would have been no further requirement to confirm the union can represent them through an additional ballot. Information technology would accept meant that an employer could not demand a farther hush-hush ballot after a majority of employees had already put their names on cards supporting union representation. The text reads as follows:

(6) Nevertheless any other provision of this department, whenever a petition shall take been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization interim in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor system for such purposes, the Lath shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other private or labor organization is currently certified or recognized equally the exclusive representative of whatever of the employees in the unit, the Board shall non direct an election just shall certify the private or labor organization every bit the representative described in subsection (a).

Section 2(a) went on to allow the National Labor Relations Board to depict upward more detailed regulations for oversight of the bulk recognition procedure.

The process of wedlock decertification would not alter nether the Employee Gratis Choice Act, so an employer can voluntarily reject a union when a majority of employees sign decertification cards or otherwise demonstrate that they no longer want to be represented by a union,[7] or when 30 percent of employees sign a petition to hold a secret ballot election and a majority of participants in the election vote to decertify the union.[viii]

Section 3, Facilitating initial commonage bargaining agreements [edit]

Section 3 of the Nib provided that following a union beingness certified, the union could require the employer to begin negotiations for a collective understanding within ten days. If the employer and spousal relationship are unable to reach agreement inside 90 days, either side may have the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which has provided mediation complimentary of charge since 1947. If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after providing arbitration services for 30 days the dispute volition be referred to arbitration. The results of the arbitration shall be bounden on the parties for two years. The matrimony and employer may concord to extend any deadlines or time limits.

A report past John-Paul Ferguson and Thomas Kochan at the MIT Sloan School of Direction found that only 56% of unions that win an election ever negotiate their start contract.[nine] The AFL-CIO says in a pro-EFCA paper, citing data by Ferguson and Kochan, that this is because "newly formed unions lose their presumption of majority status after one year without reaching a contract. The AFL-CIO asserts that this gives employers the incentive to delay the bargaining process for a year and force the demoralized workers to vote again, ofttimes resulting in the marriage's decertification."[x] They claim that "the Employee Free Choice Human action eliminates the incentive for employers to bargain in bad faith" and it "will dramatically reduce the filibuster, frustration and antagonism associated with the current company-dominated system."

Department four, Strengthening enforcement [edit]

Section 4(a) of the Bill would take made the National Labor Relations Board seek injunctions against employers who discriminate against employees who effort to organize a union. Specifically, the bill allows for an injunction whenever an allegation is proven that an employer threatened to or did discharge or discriminate against an employee who sought representation past a matrimony. An injunction would also accept been available if the employer "engaged in any other unfair labor exercise" that would accept restrained the rights under NLRA section seven.

Currently, such federal court injunctions are required merely for violations by unions. No such remedy exists for unlawful acts committed by employers in violation of workers' rights.

Department 4(b) of the Pecker would have increased penalties for employers violating the law. The amount an employer is required to pay when an employee is illegally discharged or discriminated against during an organizing entrada or first contract drive would accept go ii times back pay as liquidated amercement, in addition to the dorsum pay owed, for a full of three times back pay.

Currently, damages are limited to dorsum pay, less any wages earned by an employee if they are hired by another employer. There would have been no provision for compensatory or punitive damages.

Finally, the bill would have provided for civil fines of upwardly to $20,000 per violation confronting employers plant to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights during an organizing campaign or first contract drive. Currently there are no civil fines for such violations.

Jurisdictional standards [edit]

The Employee Free Choice Act would not have altered the existing jurisdictional standards of the National Labor Relations Board. The jurisdiction of the NLRB remains at the level ready in 1959, $500,000 gross revenues for a retail business concern.[11] The NLRB also requires a wedlock to consist of a minimum of two employees who have no supervisory authority, exempting many small-scale businesses from the increased penalties of the Employee Gratuitous Selection Deed.

Legislative history [edit]

108th Congress [edit]

109th Congress [edit]

110th Congress [edit]

On Feb 14, 2007, in a full Committee markup session, the House Committee on Didactics and Labor voted 26-19[12] to written report the bill to the full House. Republican members of the commission voted unanimously against reporting the bill, citing numerous amendments proposed by Republican commission members that were rejected past the Democratic majority on the commission.[13]

On March 1, 2007, the Firm of Representatives passed the bill, 241 to 185. On March 30, 2007, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, introduced the Senate version of the Employee Costless Choice Act.[14]

On June 26, 2007, the Senate voted 51 to 48 on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to go on to consider the bill, 9 votes brusk of the 60 needed to invoke cloture and prevent an anticipated Republican filibuster.[15] [sixteen] As a upshot, the nib failed to laissez passer during the 110th United States Congress. In the 111th United States Congress, every bit of July 9, 2009, the Senate version of the EFCA, S.560, had forty cosponsors in addition to its sponsor (Edward One thousand. Kennedy, D, MA).[17] [18]

111th Congress [edit]

On March ten, 2009, the beak was introduced in the 111th Congress past Sen. Kennedy (Democrat of Massachusetts) and Rep. George Miller (Democrat of California). Kennedy described the bill every bit "a disquisitional footstep toward putting our economic system dorsum on track," while Miller also put the bill in the context of the 2008 economic crisis, declaring, "If we want a fair and sustainable recovery from this economic crunch, we must give workers the power to stand up up for themselves and once again share in the prosperity they assist to create."[nineteen]

Although just 41 senators were Republicans, Senators Ben Nelson (Democrat of Nebraska) and Arlen Specter (Democrat of Pennsylvania) announced that they did not support the beak in March 2009.[xx] In addition, Blanche Lincoln (Democratic senator for Arkansas) and Tom Carper (Autonomous senator for Delaware) both stated in April that they would not vote for EFCA in its current grade.[21] [22]

Dianne Feinstein (Autonomous senator for California) has also announced that she would prefer to seek culling legislation. Sen. Claire McCaskill indicated in a meeting with the Missouri Sleeping accommodation of Commerce that it is unlikely that EFCA would pass in its current incarnation.[23]

On July 7, 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) chose the neb equally the first piece of legislation that he would co-sponsor, joining forty other Democratic senators.[24]

On July 16, 2009, reports were made that Senate advocates proposed dropping the provisions removing the employer's right to demand an extra ballot.[25]

On July 17, 2009, The New York Times reported that in an try to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a grouping of key Democratic senators are planning to change the proposed legislation to remove the "carte check" provision of the EFCA, which would have immune unions to exist certified solely by majority sign-up.[25]

114th Congress [edit]

On Apr 20, 2016, the pecker was introduced in the 114th Congress by Rep. Alan Grayson (Democrat of Florida).[26]

Debate [edit]

Proponents' views [edit]

Proponents of the legislation affirm that the change is necessary to protect workers' rights to bring together unions. Under current law, employers are non required to accept as determinative their workers' signed authorization forms designating a matrimony as their representative "and may insist that the workers use a undercover-election election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to establish their marriage "even if 100% of the employees provide the NLRB with signed authorizations designating the matrimony as their bargaining amanuensis."[ clarification needed ] [ citation needed ] The EFCA would allow workers to have their union certified as their bargaining amanuensis by the NLRB if a majority of them have signed valid authorizations."[27] EFCA proponents country that under current law the wedlock ballots are "secret in name just" past citing experts such as University of Oregon professor Gordon Lafer, who in testimony before the U.Due south. Congress stated:

In the American democratic tradition the principle of the secret election is not just the fact that you become into a voting booth and pull a mantle and nobody sees what you do. It is your right to keep your political stance individual to yourself earlier, during and after the human activity of voting; that you tin can't be lured or coerced into a conversation that is designed to make you lot reveal your political preferences. In the NLRB, while the vote does take identify in a booth where nobody sees what you're doing, management is immune to appoint in a series of behaviors in the lead upwardly to the vote that force the vast majority of workers to reveal how they're going to vote long earlier they always footstep into the booth.[28]

A U.S. Business firm Commission on Education & Labor report asserted that the overall purpose of the Employee Free Choice Act is "assuasive employees to brand their own determination about whether they want to deal together — to advocate for fairer wages, benefits and working conditions — without the threat or fear of harassment and retribution and fear of losing their livelihood."[29]

The committee's Democrats quoted the conclusion of the nonpartisan international human rights system Human Rights Spotter:

[At present] a culture of about-dispensation has taken shape in much of U.S. labor law and practice. Any employer intent on resisting workers' cocky-organization tin drag out legal proceedings for years, fearing piffling more than an order to postal service a written notice in the workplace promising not to repeat unlawful conduct. Many employers have come to view remedies like back pay for workers fired considering of marriage activity every bit routine costs of doing business organisation, well worth it to become rid of organizing leaders and derail workers' organizing efforts.[30]

In his remarks accompanying the neb's introduction, Representative George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the Firm Committee on Teaching and Labor, stated:

The current process for forming unions is desperately broken and and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to course a union. Although it is illegal, one quarter of employers facing an organizing drive accept been found to fire at least one worker who supports a wedlock. In fact, employees who are active marriage supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for legal marriage activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal action in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalization for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected action, is so weak that information technology does lilliputian to deter law breakers.

Even when employers don't intermission the law, the procedure itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they command the information workers can receive, can strength workers to nourish anti-union meetings during work hours, can forcefulness workers to meet with supervisors who evangelize anti-union letters, and tin even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' admission to employees, on the other paw, is heavily restricted.

The Employee Free Option Act would add together some fairness to the system…[31]

President Barack Obama supported the bill. An original co-sponsor of the Employee Gratis Choice Act, Obama urged his Senate colleagues to pass the pecker during a 2007 motion to keep:

I back up this nib because in order to restore a sense of shared prosperity and security, we need to assist working Americans exercise their right to organize under a off-white and complimentary process and bargain for their fair share of the wealth our country creates. The current process for organizing a workplace denies too many workers the ability to practice then. The Employee Costless Choice Act offers to make bounden an alternative process under which a bulk of employees can sign up to join a union. Currently, employers can choose to take--just are not bound by police to accept--the signed decision of a majority of workers. That choice should exist left up to workers and workers alone.[32]

"I will get in the constabulary of the state when I'g President of the United States," he told a labor federation meeting in April 2008.[33] The AFL-CIO states that, in do, the company-controlled election process actually makes the process less democratic:

People telephone call the current National Labor Relations Lath (NLRB) election system a hush-hush election election — simply in fact information technology's not like whatsoever democratic ballot held anywhere else in our society. Information technology's really a management-controlled election procedure considering corporations accept all the ability. They control the data workers tin receive and routinely toxicant the process past intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who effort to organize unions. No employee has gratis choice after being browbeaten by a supervisor to oppose the wedlock or being told they may lose their job and livelihood if workers vote for the wedlock."[34]

In another oral communication to the AFL-CIO in 2010, Obama vowed to keep fighting for the bill.[35]

Jeff Madrick, the editor of Challenge: The Magazine of Economical Diplomacy and a former columnist for Business Week and The New York Times, wrote that "good bluish-collar jobs are disappearing rapidly as manufacturing industries decline; but many new white-neckband jobs pay poorly, provide minimal health intendance and pension benefits, and offer little job security. There is now no privileged segment of earners in the nation except the upper ten percent or so."

He added that "some 50 million non-unionized American workers, according to surveys, now say that they definitely or probably would join one if given the option. I of the reasons this does not happen, according to Madrick, is the failure of the federal government to protect workers trying to organize into unions. "The fines levied past the NLRB accept long been meager," he notes. "Meantime, direction actions against unions are supported past the nation'south courts." Madrick concludes that "much can...be done" by "seriously enforcing the labor laws and imposing harsher penalties for violating them. The Employee Free Choice Act introduced by [then-] Senator Obama, among others, will exist a practiced examination."[36]

To find out how effective the electric current NLRB system actually is — in other words, how well it reflects workers' wishes to organize into unions and bargain contracts with management — MIT Sloan School of Management professor Thomas A. Kochan and MIT Ph.D. pupil John Paul Ferguson used federal information to runway the progress of more than 22,000 union organizing drives between 1999 and 2005. They plant that "only ane in 5 cases that filed an [NLRB] ballot petition ultimately reached a first contract [between workers and direction]," which they reported in a The Boston World article.[37] "This is despite all the cases already having shown substantial and probable majority support for representation."

They criticized the current arrangement by request, "How tin anyone who thinks elections are a barrier of democracy support a organisation in which a 3rd of those interested in an election never get to hold i? Why would anyone put faith in a process that offers them a 1-in-v take a chance of success?" Kochan and Ferguson thus called for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act along with other reforms.[38]

Opponents' views [edit]

Critics debate that additional utilize of card check elections volition lead to overt compulsion on the part of matrimony organizers.[39] Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Deed likewise claim that the measure out would not protect employee privacy. Representative John Kline, R-Minn., has stated:

It is across me how one tin can perchance claim that a system whereby everyone — your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers — knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee 'free selection' ... It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker is 'free to choose' is to ensure that at that place's a private election, so that no one know how you voted. I cannot fathom how nosotros were well-nigh to sit there today and debate a proposal to accept away a worker'south democratic right to vote in a secret-election ballot and telephone call it 'Employee Free Pick.'[twoscore]

The bill's opponents too oppose the mandatory arbitration of disputes involving the terms of a starting time contract, asserting that such a procedure could found an improper intrusion of government into private business affairs and harmful for competitiveness and innovation.[41] Opponents have also suggested that the mediation mandate could pb to management resorting to offensive lockouts as a means to pressure unions and employees into accepting company proposals before the deadline for arbitration.[42]

Alphabetic character to Mexican government officials from the sponsor of H.R.800. Source: Office of Congressman George Miller

Opponents also point to a 2001 letter to Mexican regime officials, signed by 11 Democrats who later voted in favor of Hr 800, encouraging the "use of hole-and-corner ballots in all union recognition elections" that take identify in Mexico. The letter farther states, "we experience 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," seeming to contradict the spirit of the legislation passed by the Business firm. Congressman George Miller was the atomic number 82 signatory of the 2001 letter and the sponsor of H.R.800. However, Miller and the other signatories to the 2001 letter at present contend that their need for a secret ballot ballot was limited to situations where "workers seek to supersede 1 union with another spousal relationship," although the letter makes no mention of this example and instead states "all wedlock recognition elections."[43]

The "Minority Views" section of the U.S. House Committee on Pedagogy & Labor report on the bill asserts: "H.R. 800, the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Human action, would strip [the correct to a hole-and-corner ballot] from every American worker. Moreover, the bill makes changes to federal labor law's scheme of penalties and remedies that are ane-sided, unnecessary, and unprecedented. Finally, H.R. 800, for the first time in labor law's history, imposes a ane-size-fits-all scheme of mandatory, binding involvement arbitration with respect to initial contracts, on bargaining parties, again stripping American workers of the right to vote on the terms and conditions of their employment."[29] The minority (Republican) views of the committee also quoted multiple federal and Supreme Court decisions:

A secret ballot ballot is the virtually satisfactory — indeed the preferred — method of ascertaining whether a union has majority back up. (Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. 575, 602 (1969)).

[I]t is across dispute that underground election is a more accurate reflection of the employees' true desires than a bank check of authorization cards collected at the bidding of a union organizer. (NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., 347 F.2d 74, 78 (second Cir. 1965)).

Workers sometimes sign union authorization cards non considering they intend to vote for the union in the election but to avoid offending the person who asks them to sign, often a fellow worker, or just to get the person off their back.... (NLRB v. Village 9, Inc., 723 F.2d 1360, 1371 (seventh Cir. 1983)).

In 2007, 28 Republican Senators supported an opposition bill, the Underground Ballot Protection Act,[44] which would eliminate the employ of the card check procedure. In 1947 a similar proposal to eliminate the employ of cards was rejected in briefing in the House of Representatives.[45] [46]

One-time Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern released political advertisements in opposition to the beak, saying: "It'due south hard to believe that whatsoever politico would hold to a police denying millions of employees the right to a private vote.... Quite simply, this proposed constabulary cannot be justified."[47] McGovern first bankrupt with Autonomous Party orthodoxy on the EFCA by opposing the proposed bill in an Baronial 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal:

To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a political party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and compulsion from all sides would exist a expose of what we accept e'er championed.[48]

University of Chicago legal professor Richard Epstein also wrote a The Wall Street Journal editorial opposing the act, maxim that it is unconstitutional due to restrictions on free oral communication.[49]

The U.Southward. Chamber of Commerce's Randel Johnson declared that the "coming fight in Congress over the issue" is a "firestorm bordering on Armageddon."[50] Other business interests take offered similarly strong characterizations of the proposed bill. Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino owner and real-estate developer, stated: "Radical Islam and Employee Free Choice are the 'two key threats to club."[51] Mark McKinnon, a spokesman for the Workforce Fairness Found, said businesses were "hearing nearly information technology, and are ready to riot in the street about it."[52] Forbes mag national editor Mike Ozanian said: "The Employee Free Option Human activity should be called the anti-free option, pro-slavery bill."[53]

Business reaction

During an October 17, 2008, briefing phone call, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus spoke against the EFCA, calling information technology "the demise of a civilization". He went on to say: "If a retailer has not gotten involved with this, if he has not spent money on this ballot, if he has not sent coin to Norm Coleman and these other guys," and then those retailers "should exist shot; should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs."[54]

In January 2009, FedEx exercised an option to buy 15 Boeing 777F planes and had an option to purchase fifteen more. The contract between the ii companies allows FedEx to cancel the 2nd order if Congress passes the EFCA.[55] In April 2009, the Associated Builders and Contractors sent a letter to every member of Congress on behalf of iii,000 construction firms opposing the bill in any course.[56]

Response past states [edit]

In 2010, iv states passed ramble amendments guaranteeing a cloak-and-dagger election on union recognition: Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. This was due in function to the efforts of the organization Save Our Cloak-and-dagger Ballot. All of these are "Right-to-Piece of work" where employees would non have to join the union anyway.

In popular culture [edit]

The Employee Complimentary Choice Act is mentioned in the punk ring Street Dogs song, "Up the Matrimony".

See also [edit]

  • The states labor law
  • NLRB ballot procedures
  • Union organizer
  • Protecting the Right to Organize Deed, a similar congressional proposal
  • Trade Wedlock Freedom Pecker, a proposed Uk constabulary

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ Greenhouse, Steven (2009-03-11). "Fierce Lobbying Greets Nib to Aid Workers Unionize". The New York Times.
  2. ^ H.R. 800
  3. ^ a b c See by and large, Beam, Christopher (2009-03-10). "Uncivil Union: Does card bank check kill the secret ballot or not?". Slate.
  4. ^ See generally, "Neutrality agreements: How Unions Organize new hotels without an employee ballot" Entrepreneur Magazine, 2001
  5. ^ "Employee Free Selection Deed: Myth vs. Fact" Archived 2009-03-25 at the Wayback Automobile U.South. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor.
  6. ^ National Labor Relations Act, Section 9(c) Hearings on questions affecting commerce; p. 14) Archived 2008-09-20 at the Wayback Machine
  7. ^ "Changing National Labor Policy through Executive Branch Action - Withdrawal of Recognition". Retrieved 24 December 2017.
  8. ^ How To Decertify Your Union Archived 2009-03-xviii at the Wayback Machine
  9. ^ Sequential Failures in Workers' Correct to Organize Archived 2010-03-08 at the Wayback Machine
  10. ^ Why We Demand Outset-Contract Arbitration Archived 2009-02-05 at the Wayback Machine
  11. ^ NLRB Jurisdiction Archived 2008-09-20 at the Wayback Machine
  12. ^ "Unionizing nib advances; Cheney threatens veto". Reuters. Reuters. 2007-02-fifteen. Retrieved 2014-04-15 .
  13. ^ "In Unprecedented Assault on Democracy, House Democrats Reject GOP Move to Protect Secret Election Rights for American Workers". Printing on and Labor (Minority). 2007-02-14. Archived from the original on 2007-02-28. Retrieved 2007-02-19 .
  14. ^ S. 1041
  15. ^ Senate Ringlet Phone call Vote[1]
  16. ^ "The Employee Free Choice Human action: Questions and Answers", by Ross Eisenbrey and David Kusnet, Economic Policy Found, 01-29-09 [ii]
  17. ^ "Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)". Archived from the original on 4 July 2016. Retrieved 24 December 2017.
  18. ^ "In Employee Free Choice Deed, a Numbers Game for Labor". 2007-12-22. Retrieved 2008-12-29 .
  19. ^ "U.South. Senate and House Introduce Employee Free Option Act". 2009-03-10. Archived from the original on 2009-03-22.
  20. ^ "Arlen Specter opposes Employee Free Choice Act". Washington Concern Journal. 2009-03-25.
  21. ^ "Blanche Lincoln Against Employee Complimentary Choice Human activity". Arkansas Concern Weekly. 2009-04-06.
  22. ^ "Carper to Oppose Employee Gratis Selection Human action". 15 April 2009. Retrieved 24 December 2017.
  23. ^ Sen Claire McCaskill meets with Sleeping accommodation of Commerce accessed 1 June 2009
  24. ^ Franken Co-Sponsoring EFCA - Hotline On Call: Archived 2009-07-12 at the Wayback Motorcar
  25. ^ a b Steven Greenhouse, "Democrats Drop Cardinal Function of Bill to Assist Unions", The New York Times, July 16, 2009 [3]
  26. ^ H.R. 5000
  27. ^ "Top Union Official Sure of Votes on Card Check - Best Resume". Retrieved 24 Dec 2017.
  28. ^ "Argument of Dr. Gordon Lafer Before the United States Senate Commission on Appropriations" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 24 December 2017.
  29. ^ a b EMPLOYEE Free CHOICE Act OF 2007 | Report page 7
  30. ^ Ibid., page 10  [quoting from "Unfair Reward: Workers' Liberty of Clan in the United states of america under International Human Rights Standards,&#8221 [4] Human being Rights Watch study (Baronial 2000).]
  31. ^ Rep. George Miller of California, 2007Congressional Tape, Vol. 153, Page E260 , February 5, 2007
  32. ^ "EMPLOYEE Costless Option Act OF 2007--MOTION TO Go on". Congressional Record. GPO. 2007-06-26. pp. S8378–S8398. Retrieved 2008-04-26 . [ permanent expressionless link ]
  33. ^ "Remarks for Senator Barack Obama: AFL-CIO". April 2, 2008. Archived from the original on 2009-07-07. Retrieved 2009-07-15 .
  34. ^ WHY Bulk SIGN-Upwardly? Archived 2008-xi-07 at the Wayback Machine
  35. ^ O'Brien, Michael. "Obama says he'll 'keep on fighting' to pass 'card cheque' beak". The Hill . Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  36. ^ Jeff Madrick, "Time for a New Deal," New York Review of Books, Sept. 25, 2008, pp. 65-70
  37. ^ Kochan, Thomas A.; Ferguson, John Paul. "Modernizing labor law". Retrieved 24 December 2017 – via The Boston Globe.
  38. ^ Thomas A. Kochan and John Paul Ferguson, "Modernizing Labor Law," Boston Globe, June 21, 2007
  39. ^ "Tell your Member of Congress to Oppose Card Check Legislation". National Association of Manufacturers. 2007-02-06. Archived from the original on 2010-10-24. Retrieved 2008-11-07 .
  40. ^ "Sometime Wedlock Organizer Details Tactics of Manipulating Workers Just to Get a Majority on the Cards". Printing Release. Commission on Education and Labor (Minority). 2007-02-08. Archived from the original on 2007-02-28. Retrieved 2007-02-19 .
  41. ^ "Binding Arbitration for Unions Endangers Competitiveness and Innovation". Paul Kersey and James Sherk. The Heritage Foundation. 2007-03-05. Archived from the original on 2007-03-08. Retrieved 2007-03-07 .
  42. ^ "Labor motility could backfire on workers". Richard Hankins. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2007-03-02. Archived from the original on 2007-03-22. Retrieved 2007-03-07 .
  43. ^ "Employee Gratuitous Selection Human action: Myth vs. Fact". Business firm Committee on Education and Labor website. Archived from the original on 2007-03-28. Retrieved 2007-04-04 .
  44. ^ (S. 1312)
  45. ^ (H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 41 (1947))
  46. ^ "NLRB v. GISSEL PACKING CO., 395 U.South. 575 (1969)". Retrieved 2008-05-01 .
  47. ^ McGovern vs. unions - First Read - msnbc.com
  48. ^ Mcgovern, George (2008-08-09). "My Political party Should Respect Secret Marriage Ballots". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved 2008-08-ten .
  49. ^ Epstein, Richard A. (2008-12-18). "The Employee Free Choice Human activity Is Unconstitutional". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-12-24 .
  50. ^ Trottman, Melanie (2008-11-29). "Showdown Looms Over 'Card Bank check' Matrimony Drives". The Wall Street Journal.
  51. ^ Vegas Tycoon Bankrolls Republicans, Wall Street Periodical, July 15, 2008.
  52. ^ Greenhouse, Steven (2009-01-08). "Bill Easing Unionizing Is Under Heavy Attack". The New York Times . Retrieved 2010-05-02 .
  53. ^ Forbes on Fox, Fob News Channel. January 31, 2009.
  54. ^ Information technology's Time to Give Voters the Liberalism They Want, Wall Street Journal, Nov nineteen, 2008.
  55. ^ FedEx Threatens to Abolish Jet Orders, Wall St. Journal, March 25, 2009
  56. ^ Associated Builders and Contractors battle Employee Free Choice Act, Business Review of Western Michigan, Apr 21, 2009

External links [edit]

Media related to Employee Costless Pick Act at Wikimedia Eatables

  • Employee Free Selection Act Exposed
  • Employee Gratuitous Choice Act on OpenCongress
  • National Education Association's Position & Actions EFCA

grangeonswevarned.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

0 Response to "A Bill's Supporters in the House of Representatives Generally Prefer"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel