Friday, July 17, 2009

New EFCA Compromise, with no Card-Check

NLRB Steven Greenhouse (New York Times) is reporting that a new EFCA bill looks to be coming together.  It doesn't appear to be finalized yet (although please let me know if you've found draft language), but the basic outline seems to involve many of the features we've been posting about for a while:  quick elections, union access rights, ban on captive audience speeches, arbitration, increased damages, and no card check.  A brief summary of them:

Though some details remain to be worked out, under the expected revisions, union elections would have to be held within five or 10 days after 30 percent of workers signed cards favoring having a union. Currently, the campaigns often run two months.

To further address labor’s concerns that the election process is tilted in favor of employers, key senators are considering several measures. One would require employers to give union organizers access to company property. Another would bar employers from requiring workers to attend anti-union sessions that labor supporters deride as “captive audience meetings.”

Check out the entire article, which describes some of the political machinations involved--and stresses that it's not a done deal yet.

Hat Tip:  Dennis Nolan, Rob Walkowiak, Jeff Wilson


Labor Law | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New EFCA Compromise, with no Card-Check:


Compromise legislation could include a provision that prohibits employers from withdrawing recognition based on a majority showing, unless the union consents. That would make for parity on the front and back end. A change in representational status could occur only upon: (1) a Board election; or (2) a majority showing coupled with the consent of employer and union.

Posted by: Labor Law Blog | Jul 17, 2009 7:34:00 AM

This compromise should come as no surprise. Look for the EFCA to be put to a vote before the end of te summer? Why? One of EFCA, strongest supporters is Kennedy and I am sorry to say his health status is questionable. Same with Senator Byrd. I am not sure if one or both of them will be replaced with Democrats. Given the need for 60 votes, that is my prediction.
Mitch Rubinstein

Posted by: Mitchell Rubinstein | Jul 18, 2009 12:45:09 PM

I wonder if an expedited process will be provided for DEcertification and deauthorization elections?

My guess is not.

Posted by: James Young | Jul 18, 2009 7:46:47 PM

James, you raise this every EFCA post. No EFCA bill to date cuts out the 45 day card check decert process.

You raise this without ever seeing the bills. Since we are making assumptions without any facts, I have one. I'll assume that absent election bars or contract bars, the same quick election processes are available for elections of all kinds.

Posted by: Per Son | Jul 20, 2009 7:25:21 AM

Well, "Per Son," we are both commenting in ignorance ... EXCEPT for the fact that the original bill plainly applied to certification elections, and therefore, plainly favored unions.

And referencing "the 45 day card check decert process" is just silly, and beneath what I've come to expect from your comments. You know as well as I do that the Dana/Metaldyne process (which is what you are talking) is entirely limited in its application (only where there is card-check pursuant to neutrality agreements), and has a life expectancy of about 30 seconds once President Barry's nominees are confirmed to the Board.

Posted by: James Young | Jul 21, 2009 8:39:19 AM

Post a comment