Reply #3: Here's my compromise...

[Earth Bound Misfit]

EFCA represents Labor's best chance for LONG OVERDUE reform of the NLRA. The card-check provision serves it's purpose in the bill as a "lightning-rod" by drawing the media and public's attention to an indisputable FACT (IMO):

The current system is broken, and needs fixing.

The bill as written, IMO, never had a chance to be passed. To use a sports analogy, passing it as written would be like hitting a world series game 7 bottom of the 9th inning grand slam home run to win for labor.

I would be willing to give up the card-check provision in exchange for a fairer election process, one that would:

1)shorten the length of time between petition and election.

2)give equal access to employees to both management and the Union during the period between petition and election.

3)Would streamline the redundant appeals process currently in place for post-election objections:

If the NLRB finds that the election was "fairly" conducted and certifies it, the employer is obligated under the law to bargain in good faith with the workers' chosen representative. HOWEVER THE EMPLOYER CAN "LEGALLY" DEFY the NLRB's ORDER by engaging in what is called a "TECHNICAL REFUSAL TO BARGAIN." Using this tactic, the employer REFUSES the union's bargaining request and forces it to file a NEW UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE with the NLRB. The NLRB must then initiate an unfair labor practice case based on the employer's refusal to bargain, and seek support for the NLRB ruling from a federal appeals court. YEARS OF LITIGATION CAN FOLLOW. And all this takes place AFTER the NLRB's ALREADY LENGTHY 2 stage appeal process. Ours took 11 months, some take longer, depending on circumstances.

I would be willing to make concessions on the arbitration and mediation provisions, maybe extend the period from 90-120 days to a year before the mediation and arbitration process starts. The 90-120 days is unrealistic, and IMO would actually deter any real bargaining in that period, because neither side would want to give an arbitrator a "starting point" in determining the final contract terms.

The one thing I would be unwilling to compromise on is the "penalties" provision. These are a must. A common expression of U.S. labor law says that the NLRA is remedial, not punitive. The NLRB cannot penalize an employer for breaking the law. It can only order a "make-whole" REMEDY restoring the status quo as the remedy for unfair labor practices.

This is what typically happens when an employer breaks the law:

The NLRB issues an order stating something like "we shall order it to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union,..." and further "order" them to POST A SIGN FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS "IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE" stating (sarcastically paraphrasing) "We know we were naughty, but we promise we won't do it again".

OOH, THAT'LL REALLY SCARE 'EM.

Of course, they DO "do it again", because the current law provides no real disincentive for employers to flout the NLRB's "orders".

No, no compromise WHATSOEVER on the penalties provision. I'm sure the counter to that would be mgmt would want increased penalties on Unions who commit similar violations. Fine with me. Although I am fully supportive of Unions, I am not naive enough to think that Unions don't break laws, too, and by increasing penalties on Unions also, it provides even further protection for workers, which is NEVER a bad thing.