The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Guest Blog: Hirsch on the American Employee Free Choice Act

by David Doorey August 25, 2008
written by David Doorey August 25, 2008

A while back, I did an entry describing how Wal-Mart was warning its employees in the U.S. about  the horrors that could be bestowed upon them if Obama were to win the upcoming American election.   That horror would take the form of a bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which Obama has gone on record as supporting.  The most important feature of that proposed legislation–the part that gives Wal-mart managers sweaty nightmares–is a card-check model of certification, similar to that still used in some of Canada’s jurisdiction (Federal, Quebec, Manitoba, for example).  
The trouble with a card-check model, from the perspective of a company like Wal-mart, is that it limits the ability of the company to try and convince employees that collective bargaining is very bad for them (or in Wal-Mart’s case, to threaten to close the store and fire everyone if the union wins the vote:  see my entries on Wal-mart’s closure of a unionized store in Quebec and its unlawful threat to close the Windsor, Ont. store if the employees voted for the union).  Ironically, it is precisely because of companies like Wal-mart, who are prepared to break labour and employment laws in order to prevent their employees from exercising the right to try out collective bargaining, that the movement for a card-check model maintains its momentum.
What struck me most about the fact that Wal-Mart was holding captive audience meetings to ‘warn’ employees of the dangers associated with a card-check model is that it would feel the need to do so in the first place.  Could this Employee Free Choice Act actually make it into law in the U.S. if Obama wins?   Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog decided to pose this question to our American friend and labor law expert, Professor Jeffrey Hirsch of the University of Tennesse Law School.  Here is his response:

The Employee Free Choice Act is a U.S. labor bill that has garned a
surprising amount of attention.  Part of the reason is that it was one
of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Democratic majority
in Congress after the 2006 election.  Employers’ strong opposition and
the overly simplified analogy to political voting has probably also
helped attract attention.

EFCA would require the NLRB to certify a union that obtained
authorizations cards from a majority of employees, much like some
provinces in Canada have done.  EFCA would also create fines and
imposing certain arbitration requirements on first contract
negotiations, among other things.  The argument for EFCA is as a means
to offset what unions widely perceive as the NLRB’s failure to restrict
employers’ intimidation of employees during campaigns.  The
opposition–often using a mob/union comparison–decries the lack of a
secret ballot.  I doubt the sincerity of many employer-side groups, who
rarely care much about employees’ free choice unless it’s to vote
against unions, but acknowledge that secret ballots would be the best
choice in an ideal world.  Of course, it’s not an ideal world, as the
level of employer intimidation that goes on almost certainly exceeds
union intimidation.  EFCA, then, seems to me to be an imperfect solution
to a bad situation.

The prognosis for EFCA’s passage probably comes down to a simple number:
60.  In other words, if Obama wins the election and Democrats get 60 or
more seats in the Senate (which is required to vote for cloture and end
a filibuster), EFCA will almost certainly pass.  Anything short of that
scenario likely means that it will not pass.

Interesting times indeed.  If the law actually passes, it could influence the discourse in Canada, where advocates of mandatory ballots have often argued that the U.S. vote model, although flawed in some aspects of its design (such as the extended delays prior to votes), ensured greater employee freedom to decide than does a card-check system.   How odd it would be to hear Canadian labour law scholars and unions arguing that the Canadian system (now largely a mandatory ballot one) needs to catch up to the American card-check model.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
The 4 day work week?
next post
Toyota's No Layoff Policy

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
35m

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 4 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
4h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

Not seen comparable stats for Canada.There are terminations, but also better laws in most Canadian jurisdictions, including

- remedial certification
- interim reinstatement
- card-check/quick votes

“1 in 5 workers in US is fired for organizing a union” https://onlabor.org/labor-law-reform-is-needed-for-unions-to-succeed/

Reply on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Retweet on Twitter 1623103873161330688 Like on Twitter 1623103873161330688 1 Twitter 1623103873161330688
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.