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

Harper's Magazine on the Employee Free Choice Act

by David Doorey June 17, 2009
written by David Doorey June 17, 2009

The battle for labour law reform in the United States continues to drag on, with the corporate special interest lobby frothing at the mouth about the prospects of having to bargain collective agreements with unions.  There is an interesting piece in Harpers this month describing the efforts of the corporate lobby group to stop the legislation.  This piece exposes the hysterical reactions to the legislation by corporate America, including such stalwarts of employee rights as Wal-Mart.  The CEO of Home Depot is quoted referring to the EFCA as ‘the demise of civilization’.
This is all nonsense and corporate spin, of course.  All the legislation would do is implement the model of labour relations we used in most of Canada for 50 odd years without our democracy crumbling.  Its main contribution would be to allow unions to be certified when a majority of workers express a written confirmation of their desire to move from the individual employment model, in which the employer effectively sets the terms and conditions of employment unilaterally, to a model in which the workers join together and bargain a collective employment contract aided by a professional union negotiator.  For obvious reasons, employers prefer the model in which they get to set conditions of employment unilaterally, aided by a common law ‘at will’ model that allows them to dismiss workers for any reason at all (or no reason) with no notice.  So it’s easy to see why employers don’t want the EFCA.  But to suggest that the legislation is anti-democratic or apocalyptic is pure hyperbole.
Here’s a nice summary from the Harper’s piece of the situation that the EFCA seeks to remedy:

Although the business lobby has framed its  opposition to EFCA around the issues of the “secret ballot” and labor “coercion,” the current  rules give management a chokehold over union elections. Employers can require that workers attend “captive audience” meetings, that is, anti-union presentations during the workday at which union supporters are forbidden to speak. Firing of  union activists and intimidation of employees  during organizing drives are routine practices and have been encouraged by lax enforcement of the  law: according to the NLRB’s most recent annual report, it took an average of about eighteen months for administrative-law judges to rule on charges of unfair labor practices. In the uncommon cases where an employer is found guilty of  illegally firing or demoting a worker, the firm typically needs only to reinstate the worker and pay back wages, minus any income the worker may have earned in the interim. With delays so long and penalties so minor, as the group Human Rights Watch noted in a recent report, companies often regard fines as “a cost of doing business”—a small price to pay for defeating worker organizing efforts.

Truth is, corporate American has created the need for this sort of legislation by its blatant willingness to break the law in order to prevent employees from joining the union.  If union certification votes were actually ‘fair’–meaning unions and employers have equal or near equal access to the employees to communicate their message and employers did not commonly threaten, intimidate, or dismiss workers who support unions (see study discussed here, noting that 57% (!) of American employers threaten to fire everyone if the union wins the vote)–then there would be no need for a EFCA.  But American employers do not actually want a ‘fair’ vote.  They want a vote in which the employees vote against unionization, and a system the encourages that outcome.  This is precisely what the current NLRA model does.

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
Stelco to Recall 800 Workers, or Face Big Severance Pay Bill
next post
Can You Buy Wine in Ontario if the LCBO Workers Strike?

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

TheLawofWork Follow

@ ·
now

Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter Like on Twitter Twitter
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
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gender
  • 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
  • New Zealand
  • 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.