When forty-eight Senate Republicans blocked the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act with a filibuster on June 26^th, 2007, the anti-worker special interest groups that heavily lobbied against the bill considered it an important victory. However, for the 60 million workers in the United States who wish to join a union; the 23,000 workers who are illegally fired or discriminated against for union support each year; and Senator Ted Kennedy, the bill’s lead sponsor and a longtime champion of certified written majority authorization, it was justice denied.

With just over a year having passed since the day when a majority of Congress stood with working families but the special interests still prevailed, it is important to look back on the difference the Employee Free Choice Act would have made in the past year:

Workers at Russell Disposal in Somerville would not have been subjected to violence and intimidation

In late 2007, well over half of the employees at F.W. Russell Disposal in Somerville signed cards authorizing Teamsters Local 25 as their official bargaining agent, despite the fact that the owner of the company, Charles Carneglia, openly confiscated authorization cards from his employees and otherwise attempted to intimidate them out of supporting the union.

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), an employer may voluntarily recognize a union when a certified majority of employees have stated their desire to join. In the case of Russell Disposal, Carneglia continued to intimidate employees after a majority had signed cards, and fired several leaders of the organizing drive. Had the Employee Free Choice Act been the law, Russell employees would have had union representation once a certified majority signed cards, the company would have faced real penalties for illegally firing union supporters, (the fines currently allowed under the NLRA are nominal) and circumstances would not have climaxed in the unfortunate use of violence by police during a picket line on December 27th, 2007.

In the early morning of December 27^th, over 150 Teamsters and striking Russell employees gathered to picket outside the Russell gate, and after six hours of peaceful protest, saw 40 police officers dressed in riot gear suddenly, unexpectedly and entirely unnecessarily arrive on the scene as Russell trucks driven by scabs attempted to leave the yard.

The video of the incident clearly documents the protestors being abused and arrested without cause, and gives an important glimpse into the character of owner Charles Carneglia, who is seen taunting the picketers while wearing a sombrero, a derisive and arrogant insult highlighting the fact that Russell Disposal routinely exploits the labor of immigrant workers.

Had those forty-eight Republican Senators had the courage to stand up to the special interests, employees at Russell would have had the collective power of a union to stand up to and bargain with their abusive boss.

 

Workers at the Colonnade Hotel in Boston would have received mediation and arbitration in their ongoing contract dispute

Engineers at the Colonnade Hotel in Boston have been in contract negotiations with hotel management since they voted to organize a union with the Area Trades Council in May of 2007. These workers simply want to achieve parity with other union workers who perform the same work at other Boston hotels. The union has proposed to cut the discrepancy in half through pay raises spaced throughout the term of a three year contract, yet management has refused to accept this reasonable demand. Now, more than a year after organizing, these workers are still without their first labor agreement.

Under the Employee Free Choice Act, if an agreement is not reached in the first 90 days of negotiations, either party may refer the matter to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for mediation. If mediation does not produce an agreement within 30 days, the dispute will be referred to arbitration, and the results will be binding for two years.

First contract mediation and arbitration will eliminate the common scenario where employers do not agree to a first contract after an organizing drive, often out of pure contempt for their employees who successfully joined together to bargain for better wages and benefits. Research has found that nationwide, more than a year after voting for union representation, workers are still unable to win a first contract 32% of the time. Click here to read more about why mediation & arbitration rules are needed.

 

Workers at Verizon Business in New England and New York would not have had their rights violated during an ongoing anti-union campaign

Technicians at Verizon Business (VzB), a spin-off of the Verizon Corporation, started collecting authorization cards for representation with the IBEW and CWA in January 2007. By March 2007, five members of Congress, several state-level elected officials and other neutral parties counted the cards and certified that over sixty percent of workers had already signed. You can watch a video of Senator John Kerry, Congressman Stephen Lynch, Lt. Governor Tim Murray, and others do a certified card check by clicking here.

Once it was established that a majority of workers expressed their desire for union representation, the IBEW and CWA asked Verizon Business to voluntarily recognize the unions as the official bargaining agent for VzB technicians. Rather than respect the decision of their employees, VzB launched an anti-union campaign which the National Labor Relations Board has since ruled to have violated workers’ rights. The NLRB ordered VzB in New York and Pennsylvania to post notices in the workplace affirming the right to organize and declaring that it will no longer engage in coercive threats to stop employees from organizing.

Far from being deterred in their union busting effort, Verizon Business has continued to hold captive audience meetings to keep these technicians from joining their union counterparts at the Verizon Corporation, who perform the same work, in the IBEW and CWA. Even the second certified card check did not convince the company of their employees’ will to join a union. Under the Employee Free Choice Act companies will not be able to violate a worker’s right to join a union after the first certified card check.

 

Companies like Wal-Mart would not be able to choose nominal fines over workers’ rights

On June 30th, 2008, the National Labor Relations Board found Wal-Mart guilty of illegally firing an employee during an organizing drive, and bribing other employees to keep them from voting for the union. Will this decision finally stop Wal-Mart from engaging in illegal union busting practices? Not likely. Wal-Mart is simply required to reinstate the employee to his former position and provide back-pay for the time which he was unemployed.

As far as the organizing drive which Wal-Mart illegally thwarted, the NLRB’s decision is not likely to have much of an impact, as the ruling was handed down eight years after the employee was fired! Companies such as Wal-Mart regularly break the law knowing that their penalty will affect their bottom line less than allowing their employees to collectively bargain for fair wages and benefits. Currently, twenty-five percent of employers will fire at least one worker for union activity during an organizing drive.

If the Employee Free Choice Act had passed last year, Wal-Mart would be forced to think twice before firing union supporters, as it would establish meaningful penalties for violating the NLRA. Employers would be responsible for up to three times back pay when an employee is illegally fired and up to $20,000 in civil penalties per violation of the NLRA.

 

The 23,000 workers who were fired or discriminated against in the past year for supporting a union at work would have had their rights protected instead of violated.

The forty-eight Republican Senators who voted against ending debate, and who would have prolonged the debate indefinitely, did more than just kill an important bill. They voted in favor of employers threatening, harassing, and illegally firing employees—more than 23,000 every year. They voted in favor of employers refusing to bargain a contract in good faith with their employees. They voted in favor of companies throwing their money at union busters rather than using it to improve the lives of workers. And most importantly, they voted against protecting a basic human right: the right to make a free choice on whether to join a union.

When the Employee Free Choice Act comes up for a vote again in 2009, more members of Congress must support the bill, and the President of the United States must be willing to sign it into law. That will mean electing Barack Obama as President, and supporting candidates who have voted for, or have pledged to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act. You can send a message to the incoming President and Congress in support of the Employee Free Choice Act by signing the AFL-CIO’s online petition. Click here for the petition.

You can learn more about why the Employee Free Choice Act is vitally important for rebuilding the American middle class by visiting our EFCA page.