Quantitative study finds Card Check would cost millions of jobs

Reader Comments

Mar 5, 2009

Examiner: Stop the lies. The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish secret ballot elections. Section 2 allows for employees to choose between recognizing authorization cards or having a secret ballot election. Just because you say it over and over until you are blue in the face will not change Section 2 of the Act allowing for that choice.

Mar 5, 2009

AFL-CIO have done studies to dispute her conclusion.

Mar 5, 2009

The Employee Free Choice Act does not "abolish" secret ballot elections.

Mar 5, 2009

The Examiner meets the definition of insane as described by Albert Einstein. Doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different conclusion. Section 2 of the Employee Free Choice Act gives employees the choice between a secret ballot election or card check. The EFCA takes away an employer disputing the card check unless less than 50% of the employees sign authorization cards.

Mar 5, 2009

That's a fact. We earn more allowing us to buy more which keeps the economy rolling.

Mar 5, 2009

I think the examiner must be against free speech. At least when it is anti to their thoughts.

Mar 5, 2009

Dear Insane: Here's the exact words from EFCA. I don't know how much clearer it has to be: Section Two of the proposed Card Check bill says when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) “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 … the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection A.”

Mar 5, 2009

How could any news outlet actually take this 'study' seriously? If it's actually saying that higher union density means higher unemployment, then how is it that union density has plumetted and unemployment rates are on the rise? Let's not look at Canada, let's look at our own country. When we had the highest union density in the 50s, we also had one of the lowest unemployment rates. Since then...union density has gone down, unemployment is up. It doesn't take an 'economist' to see this study's own argument contradicts itself. Ridiculous it's even in print.

Mar 5, 2009

Section 2 amends Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). You then have to go to Section 9 of the NLRA. The process of forming a union through secret ballot elections does not explicitly change under the Employee Free Choice Act. Workers may still utilize the election process to achieve union representation. Heck, even the Heritage Foundation recognizes this. If you want, I will post the appropriate sections tomorrow from the NLRA. The bottom line is that the employees get to choose between elections or card check. Have a good night and I will post those tomorrow.

Mar 6, 2009

The economists’ statement, which was spearheaded by Harvard economist Richard Freeman, MIT’s Frank Levy, and Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, notes that even though millions of American workers have said they want a union to represent them in the workplace, the current system overseen by the National Labor Relations Board most often thwarts that desire. It describes today’s process as “drawn out and acrimonious, with management campaigning fiercely to deter unionization, sometimes to the extent of violating the labor law.”

Mar 6, 2009

The problem is that the election process overseen by the National Labor Relations Board has become drawn out and acrimonious, with management campaigning fiercely to deter unionization, sometimes to the extent of violating the labor law. Union sympathizers are routinely threatened or even fired, and they have little effective recourse under the law. Even when workers overcome this pressure and vote for a union, they are unable to obtain contracts one-third of the time due to management resistance.

Mar 6, 2009

Even they say it would be the choice of the employees to have a secret ballot election. "To remedy this situation, the Congress is considering the Employee Free Choice Act. This act would accomplish three things: It would give workers the choice of using majority sign-up-- a simple, established procedure in which workers sign cards to indicate their support for a union – or staging an NLRB election; it triples damages for employers who fire union supporters or break other labor laws; and it creates a process to ensure that newly unionized employees have a fair shot at obtaining a first contract by calling for arbitration after 120 days of unsuccessful bargaining."

Mar 6, 2009

National Labor Relations Act - Section 9 (c) B states " If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.

Mar 6, 2009

4 SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION. 5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9(c) of the National 6 Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by 7 adding at the end the following: 8 ‘‘(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this sec9 tion, ...

Mar 6, 2009

Section 9 (c) 0f the NLRA has 5 subsections. The Employee Free Choice Act would add a section 6 but as stated in Section 2, "‘‘(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this sec9 tion,..." As a result, this act gives employees the choice between a secret ballot election as stated in Section 9 (c) B or to use card check if the Employee Free Choice Act is enacted.

Mar 6, 2009

If you choose not to go to the pdf link, here is where some of these economists are from who conducted the study: The Brookings Institute, University of Maryland, Harvard University, Rutgers University, Stanford University, Center for Economic Policy and Research, Princeton, Duke, Cornell, University of Texas, MIT, Economic Policy Institute, UMass, Columbia, Howard University, New York University, Boston University, Northwestern, and Institute for Womens Policy Research.

Mar 6, 2009

"Layne-Farrar works for LECG, a NON-PARTISAN 'economic consulting' group in Chicago" BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! NON-PAETISAN, THAT'S A GOOD ONE!!!! Bottom of page 1 footnotes reads: "Financial support from The Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs is gratefully acknowledged". Hmmm. Who or what is "The Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs" you ask?: About the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs: The Alliance is chaired by HR Policy Association and includes the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, The International Council of Shopping Centers, the Real Estate Roundtable, the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. NON-PARTISAN...BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ...STOP, YOU'RE KILLING ME!!!! ...BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Mar 6, 2009

Whether you follow the money as in watergate or follow the crumbs like Hansel and Gretel, you find Dr. Layne-Farrar is a biased conservative economist. She speaks on the conservative talk show circuit, most recently on Ed Morrissey. Thanks to JD for his comment letting us know who LECG is.

Mar 6, 2009

These people really need to come up with some new material. Thanks to "Follow the trail" for pointing out Dr. Farrar's appearances on the conservative talk shows.

Mar 6, 2009

Where can a person view the studies conduted by AFL_CIO disputing Dr Farrar's study?

Mar 6, 2009

Will my higher wages off set the cost of my union dues?

Mar 6, 2009

Where does the union bosses get their money?

Mar 7, 2009

There is easy fixes to the animosity. All union card checks campaigns are to be require NLRB filings and employer notificatin. Card Check campaigns have 30 days from employer notification to union filing with the NLRB. If between 30-50% card checks are submitted, there will be a follow-on election. The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

Mar 7, 2009

I will look forward to one of the union thugs to approach me. I will remind him what it means to be an American. The only thing these unions want is your monthly union dues,,,,,by gun point if possible. Say no to the destruction of the USA and show those union thugs your gun point, eh?

Mar 7, 2009

yes

Mar 7, 2009

dues are not that much. You probably spend more on coffee each month. I drink a cup a day and if I cut that in half, my dues would still be less.

Mar 7, 2009

go to the afl-cio website

Mar 7, 2009

what does it mean to you to be American? Your comment is vague. Your animosity towards unions is not, i.e. your gun comment. Until you open your mind, there is probably no point in debate. I will say if you are inferring about the secret ballot, before you speak, you should probably read the NLRA and the EFCA and become informed instead of showing your ignorance.

Mar 7, 2009

The Employee Free Choice Act amends the NLRA by adding Section 6. It will give the employees looking to form a union the option of a secret ballot election or to recognize the union by a majority of sign authorization cards.

Mar 8, 2009

I earn more with my mind than any union can ever afford to have me paid. The EFCA is bad for America, with and without our current & collectively self-inflicted economic distress. All remarks here are self-interest distortions.

Mar 8, 2009

John: Your a legend in your own mind. I have to disagree with you that unions are bad for America. It's your type of attitude that is bad for America.

Mar 9, 2009

Not everyone wants to be in a union. Not everyone needs to be in a union. Some worksites need it and some want a union representing them. It is for those who want a union that the Employee Free Choice Act was developed. They should be able to choose to be in a union without any interference from the employer and they should be able to choose how the union is recognized, be it a secret ballot election or through authorization cards. That was the intention of the National Labor Relations Act, not what the recognition process has evolved into today.

Mar 9, 2009

I agree that some workplaces benefit from union representation and some do not. EFCA is bad for America because union reps can coherse hard working American's into joining a union. This fact you absolutely cannot dispute. Who is protecting employee's from this? Under EFCA there are penalties for employers but none for unions. If the first year contract goes through mandatory binding abritration, the 2 year contract is forced. Under EFCA, employees lose their right to ratify the contract. Who is protecting employees from this? I can't argue the fact that employer's lobby against unions. Why wouldn't they? In my experience, unions create an "us vs. them" mentality in the work place. This divisiveness is difficult if not sometimes impossible to work with. EFCA is not what we want. Listen to the facts and revise the law to protect our hard working American's in ALL situations from both employer greed to union greed. They both exist.

Mar 9, 2009

I can dispute, disagree and partially agree with you. First you state: "union reps can coherse hard working American's into joining a union" I have heard stories that this happen but according to the NLRB, employers have been found to threaten and coerce employees at a much higher rate than the organizers.

Mar 9, 2009

You state: "Under EFCA there are penalties for employers but none for unions." The Employee Free Choice Act amends the National Labor Relations Act(NLRA) that already address Unfair Labor Practices (ULP's) for labor and management. Currently, if an employer commits an ULP and is found guilty of the violation, the company only has to post a notice that it did commit the ULP and promise not to do it again. There are really no teeth for the violations. The EFCA would rememdy that with financial penalties. There are already financial penalties for unions when the NLRA was amended by the Taft-Hartley Act.

Mar 9, 2009

You state: "employees lose their right to ratify the contract." While that is true under any arbitration, if the employer and labor do happen to successfully negotiate an agreement, then the employees would be able to vote on ratification. You assume they will not come to an agreement which does happen frequently as a stall tactic by the employer to frustrate the new union. Bottom line is if an agreement is reached, the employees will be able to vote to ratify.

Mar 9, 2009

You state: "unions create an "us vs. them" mentality in the work place." I have heard it the other way too. There are stories of both happening, however, in my experience as a member of a construction union, we have always viewed our relationship with contractors as a hand in glove. We work together. We have a program called the Code of Excellence that both sides adhere by. So for us, we don't pit contractor against union and vice-versa.

Mar 9, 2009

It will be good for America and its workers.

Mar 10, 2009

I have personally have seen where Union big wigs live and how they always have big boat

Post a comment