Risky Business

Employee Free Choice Act: From Beltway to Main Street

By Matthew Bandyk

Posted: May 19, 2008

If you have a real thing for wonky Beltway policy debates, then you know about the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill hailed by the left as an essential step to rolling back poverty and decried by the right as an affront to healthy capitalism. The bill passed in the House but stalled in the Senate last summer, but now people outside Washington are going to hear more about this issue as states are going to consider passing their own version. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council recently announced that any state that enacts something like the Free Choice Act will get negative points in the SBE Council's yearly index of how healthy the climate in certain states is for small businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive.

The Employee Free Choice Act would allow employees to vote on whether or not to unionize with an open system of signing cards, as opposed to the secret-ballot process that is the status quo. It sounds arcane, but the basic debate when it comes to small business is this: Is a process that would effectively increase union members a good thing? The SBE Council gives some reasons to think not:

Card-check, which eviscerates the current right employees have to cast a private vote regarding whether they want union representation or not, enables abusive organizing tactics. This mandated approach to union organizing—where everyone in the workplace would know how each individual feels about union representation—will only serve to establish an environment that is ripe for harassment and underhanded tactics. This unfair, turn-key approach to forced unionization will be especially burdensome and costly for small businesses.... The 'card-check' bill would boost the level of unionization, increase costs, and restrain productivity. That, of course, means that businesses become less competitive. Of course, in the long run, both business owners and employees would suffer.

A problem with considering just how much something like the Employee Free Choice Act affects small business is that the subject of union membership in small businesses seems like a critically understudied issue. I gave the Bureau of Labor Statistics a call, and it said it doesn't collect any data on whether or not union members work for small businesses, and if they don't do it, probably no one else does, either. If we can't know that, it seems equally hard to predict just what would change if card-check was allowed.

Maybe the only answer is to see what the actual people on the ground think. Any small-business people out there, what are your thoughts on unionization? Do the proposals in this bill worry you?

To Mr. Wal-Mart

Your argument does not make sense. You say unions were great when your father was working and then blame some government agencies for the demise of some industries.

I think we need OSHA started in 1970 under Republican President Nixon.

I am not sure why you included the Environmental Protection Agency started in 1970 under Pres. Nixon again.

I think we also need the EEOC started under Pres. Johnson in 1964.

And the NLRB started when the NLRA started in 1935 allowing unions to be great when your father was a union member.

You seem to blame unions for our economic mess. What I see wrong with that scenario is unions have gone from 37% in the 70's to about 8% recently in the private sector. During that time, wages for workers have remained stagnant. In fact over the last 9 years, wages have gone backwards when you account for inflation.

During those same 30 years that unionization has declined, CEO pay has increased dramatically. CEO's in the 70's used earn about 30 times what their workers did. As of last year, that number increased to 430 times their workers.

Should owners make a profit? Absolutely! The owner had the idea and invested in the idea. Should the workers who produce or sell the product share in those profits? Absolutely!

I have no problem with the owners making a profit. Just don't forget who helped make the profit. The other thing, if the owner profits, the business stays open, and workers keep working.

What has hurt the U.S. more are the free trade agreements. They should be fair trade agreements. Workers from India make $87 per month and do not have many labor laws. South Korea only allows a certain amount of U.S. made cars but dump KIA's by the thousands into our country. That is not fair.

Lastly, you infuse patriotism into your argument. IBM recently submitted a patent that would sell software showing companies how to outsource the maximum amount of workers and still receive maximum tax breaks from our government. In my opinion, that borders on treason.

So who is more a detriment to our country; the poor schlep who is trying to increase his standard of living or companies like IBM who are promoting outsourcing while taking our tax dollars?

Jim Clarkson of PA @ Aug 13, 2009 14:14:06 PM

EFCA

When was the 500 K limit instituted? Maybe today, it should be more like 1 Million. From what I have read about EFCA, workers who feel disrespected and want to form a union under EFCA can have the choice to have a secret ballot election or use the card check. If 30% want an election, the workers will have an election.

I am confused somewhat though on the argument that if wages are increased, the company will go out of business. If the company has a product that is beneficial to society and people want that product they will buy it. First, I don't think your employees are going to ask for a $10/hr raise. They may want more money in their check but they want to continue earning money. Why would they want to cut off the hand that feeds them? If they would get a $1 raise, is there anything that could help the business operation be more efficient?

A hypothetical question: Let's assume EFCA passes, do you really think that every business from micro to Mega will unionize? Personally I don't think so. Even at the height of unionization before Reagan, it reached only around 37%.

A question for business owners: Do you treat your employees well? Do you treat them with respect? If you can answer yes to those questions, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Re: the adage "the more you make, the more you spend". People in this country do not save. In 2007, people saved -1% of their wages. It may not be right but it is a statistic. What it means is people spend their money. They do not save it for a rainy day. W told us to go shopping and we did.

Another question: If people are earning more money, and 70% of the economy is driven by the consumer, won't people dump more money into the economy?

Another adage: A rising tide lifts all ships.

Jim Clarkson of PA @ Aug 13, 2009 13:31:21 PM

Employee Free Choice Act

Forced Singing

Forced contracts

How can this citizans of this peoples republic be deprived of ther rights to freeley decide if they want to be part of a contract. Forced aceptance may be patt of nations pracitces.

BUT is entireley out of order in the USA.

Seams like our electid congress and representives and executives have blind spots when it comes to suporting the

a method of decision that preaty well alows freedom of choic

That is a secrete ballot.

Also why not hav a National right to work law.

Mark Thomas of NV @ Mar 08, 2009 18:50:14 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Risky Business

Risky Business

Matt Bandyk, a reporter for U.S. News, explores capitalism from where it all begins, with the entrepreneur, whose risk taking and experimentation provide the roots from which the rest of the economy grows. As much courage as it takes to create one's own business, even the entrepreneur needs some help, and this blog will look at news, trends, and practical advice for starting and running a small business.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!