Posts Tagged ‘EFCA’

Prof. Chomsky lectures at Boston College (Feb ’09) on the election of Obama in relation to democracy in Bolivia, the public relations of US elections, the Investment Theory of Politics, the new cabinet, bailouts, and protectionism — followed by Q&A that includes Palestine-Israel discussion. (more…)



The free market can never truly be free without the workers free to assemble and organize to demand and negotiate the price of their labor supply. But, compulsory assembly is coercive. It’s tyrannical when it comes from the unions and a gross abuse of power when it comes from the State.

I’m about as pro-union as it gets, but more importantly, I’m a voluntaryist. No one who stands for liberty can stand for the absolute authority of 50+1 tyranny of the majority and no one for liberty can not stand against the Employee Free Choice [sic] Act (EFCA).

The EFCA (or HR 800) is proposed legislation by Democrats which would “amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.”

It sounds like a great idea, right? It sounds as if it expands workers’ rights to unionize.

Nope.

What EFCA does is refuse a corporation to hold secret ballots among their workers. Sounds like it takes the workers’ right to unionize from the hands of the bosses and hands it to the workers, right?

Nope.

The EFCA has what’s called a “card check” policy whereby workers vote to unionize by signing their names. Every union organizer lobbying for a workforce would then have the names of those who voted against unionizing.

Worse, this puts workers’ fates in the hands of the National Labor Relations Board — a federal agency that gets lobbied and paid off by all sides of the same coins, just like the rest of the federal agencies.

Rev. Al Sharpton has been speaking out against the EFCA on his radio show:

Yeah, well, what I don’t understand about it which is why I’m in the campaign is why wouldn’t those of us who support workers being protected, why would we not want their privacy protected? I mean why would we want them opened up to this kind of possible coercion?

… clearly I’m for any legislation to give any state the right to organize, but I’m talking about specifically where workers are not protected from coercion, in terms of these card-checks that you talk about, and as arbitration because explain, Charlie King, to me the whole question that you raised, if you have a federal arbitrator who says that this is the deal, even when the union only established out of card-check, is the deal for two years, and there’s nothing you can do about it, I mean, a lot of the business that we afford for the African American community to get contracts and sub contracts and all. They could face some very serious problems here.

and Fmr. Sen. and 1972 Democratic Party presidential candidate George McGovern spoke powerfully against the EFCA in an ad released a month before the election:

Surely, the president-elect wouldn’t sign a such a coercive bill against workers?

Yup.

Mr. Obama told the AFL-CIO last April that he will “make it the law of the land when [he’s] president of the United States.”

What gets caught up in the Newspeak is the assumption that if you’re pro-EFCA, you’re pro-Big Labor, making you pro-worker. This is false, as no one in the MSM wishes to discuss what hinders workers from having more freedom to choose and dispose of their representation and their methods of non-violent, non-coercive negotiating: the Taft-Hartley Act, which was called the “slave labor bill” when it was passed in 1947 and is still a part of American law.

The government shouldn’t have agencies picking winners and losers between bosses, union organizers, and individual workers. For one, government’s nothing more than a window breaker when it enters the marketplace, but more importantly, the individual workers don’t have the big Beltway lobbying firms representing them. The worker is forced to depend on the union they have and if they don’t like their representation, the difficulties of unionizing make forming new unions not worth the effort because (remember) the Big Labor that already exists has a primary objective of keeping their power over the industry of organized labor with the lobbies (that have politicians in their pockets) to maintain that power.

When the State has no power to empower, it has no power to destroy. Favoring either side of a coin by an institution with the authority to seize, confine, and kill is the very definition of fascism — the “third solution between socialism and capitalism.” We know far too well that when government butts its nose into the marketplace, bosses or union representation wins and workers lose.

What also gets left out of the Newspeak for the sheep is that organized workers and their bosses sign contracts, voluntarily. Gridlock in the negotiation process before contract signing can be resolved by more voluntary negotiating or mutually voluntary third party mediation in the private sector. A breach in a contract should be handled in the courts.

Keyword: “voluntary.” Anything else would be coercive. Coercive wages are theft. Coercive paid labor is wage slavery.