Resource CenterslashLegislative Updates

 

Important Legislative Updates from NPA:

H.R. 800, "The Employee Free Choice Act"

Dear NPA Members:

In a prior email, we told you about H.R. 800, the "Employee Free Choice Act," which had been introduced by House Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA).

We regret to report that on March 1, 2007, by a roll call vote, the House passed the bill by a vote of 241 to 185. The bill was supported by 99% of Democrats and opposed by 94% of Republicans. Senator Kennedy (D-MA) has vowed to introduce the bill in the Senate very soon. Although President Bush has vowed to veto the bill, it is unclear at this point whether there would be enough support for the bill to override a veto.

H.R. 800 would change current labor law in three fundamental ways:

  1. It amends the National Labor Relations Act to eliminate the private secret-ballot elections run by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Federally supervised secret ballot elections were originally put in place over 50 years ago to protect workers from intimidation or coercion by employers, unions or co-workers. Under the proposed card check legislation, unions would be able to represent employees as soon as a majority of workers signed a card stating their intention to join the union, a process overseen by union members.
    Existing law triggers an NLRB-sanctioned election once 30 percent of workers demonstrate a desire for union representation. Under current law, a card check may be used only with the employer's consent. Unions want this legislation to pass because organizing by card check is easier, cheaper and faster than an NLRB election. Yet, in doing away with the ability to vote privately, Congress will eliminate important safeguards for all workers.
  2. It sets strict 90-day time limits for reaching an initial collective bargaining agreement (or a longer period if agreed to by both parties). Current law sets no time limit on reaching an initial agreement. It simply requires the parties to bargain in good faith to attempt to negotiate a contract.
  3. It directs the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to intervene if an agreement cannot be reached. Failing that, disputes then go to binding arbitration and are subject to a decision binding on both parties for two years, unless both parties agree to a different length of time. Currently, unless the parties agree otherwise, federal mediators have no authority to impose contract terms on employers and unions.

The parking industry has been targeted by labor unions in several markets. This legislation will make it much easier for unions to organize employees. The fight over this bill now moves on to the Senate. Please take the time now to communicate with your Senators by e-mail or fax (a sample letter follows for you to personalize) or phone call and register your opposition to H.R. 800. If you do not know who your Senators are, visit http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Thank you for your continuing interest and assistance in this matter. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Marty Stein and Andrew Blair

Draft Sample Letter

For your company letterhead, please feel free to personalize:

Dear Senator__________:

As a ________ of the _____________ Company, I encourage you to oppose H.R. 800, the "Employee Free Choice Act." Our company is a member of the National Parking Association (NPA), an organization representing more than 1,200 member companies across the United States and internationally. We and NPA strongly oppose H.R. 800, because it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights of employees to decide whether or not they wish to be represented by a union, and with the rights of management and labor to negotiate their own terms to collective bargaining agreements without government intervention.

H.R. 800 would, among other things, amend the National Labor Relations Act to eliminate the secret ballot elections run by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). These procedures were originally put in place over 50 years ago to protect workers from intimidation or coercion by employers, unions or co-workers. Having the right to vote in private on such an important issue without undue influence is a fundamental right in our free society. Under the proposed card check legislation, unions would be able to represent employees as soon as a majority of workers signed a card stating their intention to join the union.

By contrast, existing law triggers an NLRB-sanctioned election once 30 percent of workers demonstrate a desire for union representation. Furthermore, under current law, card checks may be used only with the employer's consent. Some groups want this legislation to pass because organizing by card check is easier, cheaper and faster than an NLRB secret- ballot election. Yet, in doing away with the ability to vote privately, Congress will eliminate important safeguards for all workers. In this case, expediency should not prevail over protecting the fundamental rights of workers.

The card check bill will effectively ban employers from the playing field, not only during organizing drives, but also during the resulting contract negotiations due to the strict time limits within which a collective bargaining agreement must be reached and the binding arbitration that would follow shortly thereafter. Current law requires the parties to bargain in good faith to reach a labor contract. It does not impose artificial time limits on the bargaining process, nor does it give a government mediator the right to impose contract terms on the parties.

The ability of the American worker to vote privately, without peer pressure or fear of reprisal in the workplace, is worth preserving and is a critical aspect of the American democratic tradition. I hope you will carefully consider the ramifications of the legislation and decline to support H.R. 800.

Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Title