This paper presents the professional opinion of a Human Resources group addressed to a U.S. congressional representative regarding the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). It outlines the act's three core provisions—majority card-check union certification, mandatory collective bargaining timelines with federal mediation, and enhanced penalties for employer retaliation—and evaluates both their strengths and drawbacks. The paper argues in favor of EFCA on the grounds that current labor law inadequately protects workers from employer intimidation, that union membership demonstrably improves wages and benefits, and that stronger enforcement mechanisms are needed to align U.S. labor practices with international standards.
This document contains the professional opinion of highly qualified Human Resource professionals on the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. The group has thoroughly reviewed the proposal, evaluating its strengths and weaknesses before preparing this document. This has been done with full recognition that their role is crucial in informing the acceptance or rejection of the act.
It is the belief of this organization that employees can progress when they unite in the quest to achieve improved remuneration from their employers. The rising prices of goods and services—food items, household goods, and increased interest rates, among others—have placed an increased burden on many workers without a corresponding increase in wages to meet these additional costs. While workers' salaries have remained stagnant, those of top executives have continued to rise. The Employee Free Choice Act therefore comes as a tool to correct this imbalance. It seeks to remove one-sided barriers that work against unions representing employees and gaining ground through collective bargaining. Through this act, workers have a chance to improve their working conditions and increase compensation (The Employee Free Choice Act, n.d.). Workers will have the freedom to choose which union to join, as well as the opportunity to bargain collectively for better pay. As employers and the broader economy make economic gains, workers will be positioned to benefit as well.
This act has the full support of unions, as it seeks to improve upon the earlier National Labor Relations Act. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will make it easier for employees to become union members, to organize themselves into a union, and to contribute to the activities of labor organizations. It will also introduce punitive measures against employers who act unfairly toward workers involved in union activities. It is a pro-labor act introduced in 2009, and it introduces three key provisions:
First, where half of the workers in an organization sign cards designating a certain union to represent them, that union will be recognized by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB will then certify that union as the sole body with the mandate for collective bargaining with company leadership.
Second, the union certified by the NLRB as the exclusive representative of the workers may, after ten days of certification, negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the organization's executive. Management will be required to meet with the union for this purpose when the union requests it. Should the union and management be unable to reach an agreement after ninety days, federal mediation may be sought, though an agreement may also be reached through arbitration.
Third, where an employee is terminated because of their support for union representation and the NLRB finds the employer guilty, the employee is entitled to three times their salary as compensation. The employer may also be fined when the violation is found to have been committed knowingly. Fines for such statutory violations may reach up to $20,000.
The law currently in force has been seen by HR professionals as an impediment, in many cases, to the rights of workers. When workers have attempted to form unions, they have been subjected to victimizing tactics such as intimidation, harassment, and even termination. Some workers face intimidation through constant threats from their supervisors, and in 25% of private-sector union organizing campaigns, workers involved have been fired (Employee Free Choice Act, n.d.). Additionally, 44% of those who have successfully organized unions have been denied contracts. Workers are therefore in a difficult position: they have the legal right to form unions but lack meaningful protection from their employers' retaliatory tactics.
The Human Resource group supports the adoption of this act, as its members believe workers should have the freedom to organize into unions that can better negotiate their terms. Workers will be able to gain access to suitable employment conditions, valuable retirement plans, an equitable standard of living through fair pay, and health coverage. Workers who are members of unions earn higher pay than those who are not (The Employee Free Choice Act, n.d.). Unionized employees also receive greater health coverage from their employers and are more likely to have guaranteed pension plans. This act will therefore enable workers to negotiate for better pay while also imposing penalties on employers who fail to adhere to established guidelines. Negotiations in good faith and within reasonable timelines are expected under EFCA.
"Card check" rules, when reinforced, will benefit workers primarily by creating an avenue for joining a union without fear of intimidation or job loss. The secret ballot will not be eliminated under EFCA; it may still be used, for example, where more than one-third of employees wish to be represented by a particular union. What will change is that employees—rather than management—will have the authority to call for a secret ballot (The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009). When more than half of employees have signed cards for a given union, a secret ballot will not be required, and the chosen union will receive NLRB certification. This is a significant strength of the EFCA, since under current law an employer can reject a majority-selected union even when all employees have endorsed it.
We recognize that alongside its advantages, the act carries inevitable disadvantages. Many large companies, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, opposed this act—particularly companies whose workers were on hourly contracts (Chris, 2015). The Chamber of Commerce argued that the act would compromise fairness and democracy and would reduce employees' capacity to decide independently whether they wish to be represented by a union. It also contended that the act would not deliver reform but would instead restructure what it described as "carefully crafted" laws developed by legislators over many years.
Union membership in America has declined significantly. It is estimated that just over 11% of employees are union members, and private-sector union membership stands at only 6.7%. Interestingly, workers who are union members have been found to be happier than those who are not, according to a study conducted by Patrick Flavin and Gregory Shufeldt, professors at U.S. universities.
Some of the arguments raised against this act concern mandatory first-contract dispute resolution. Critics see these disputes as working against organizational competitiveness and creativity. The arbitration component, according to opponents, can have the undesirable consequence of locking out employees so that pressure is exerted on unions to accept the company's offer before the arbitration deadline elapses (Chris, 2015).
Through EFCA, employees can join whichever union the majority prefers. Current legislation grants employers the authority to conduct a secret ballot, which they can draw out over a long period. EFCA speeds up this process. However, opponents view this as a violation of employee privacy, since employers, unions, and colleagues would know which union a worker supported. They do not regard this as free choice but rather as an infringement on privacy rights.
"Chamber of Commerce objections and privacy concerns"
"Employer violations, stronger penalties, international labor norms"
"HR endorsement and comparison to prior reform proposals"
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.