GPCC Opposes Alternative EFCA Legislation Until Current Legislation is Removed

The S.560, otherwise known as the Employee Free Choice Act or EFCA, currently needs 60 votes for cloture so that the bill can come to a final vote in the United States Senate. Serious efforts are now underway by officials in support of the EFCA to develop an alternative version of the legislation that would increase the likelihood of securing the 60 votes.

The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce continues to oppose cloture of the S.560 and vigorously opposes any alternative EFCA legislation until S.560 is removed from the legislative calendar and from consideration in the United States Senate. This would allow substantive negotiations to take place without the threat of a bill being readied for a vote.

The GPCC has encouraged its 5,000 member companies and organizations to contact their U.S. Senators urging opposition to cloture of the current legislation and to express their opposition to any alternative EFCA legislation.

The current EFCA legislation would change the way that union elections are conducted by eliminating employees’ right to privacy. Currently, employees can decide to unionize through a secret ballot election under the constant supervision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). EFCA would instead allow a simple “card check” that would theoretically represent the true intent of the employee.

The GPCC strongly believes that under this system the election process could become open to the possibility of corruption and intimidation and that the open elections would inaccurately represent the will of the workforce.

Among the alternatives are the concepts of quickie elections, mail-in voting, union access, and baseball-style arbitration:

• Quickie elections would preserve the use of the secret ballot process, but on a compressed time frame. This would put the employer at a disadvantage in communicating their message to employees, even though unions will have had weeks and months to communicate to employees during the drive to get cards signed. Quickie elections will thus deny employees the ability to make a fully informed decision.
• Mail-in voting would have workers send in their ballots by mail. However, because unions are legally permitted to visit workers' homes, they could pressure workers to sign on the spot and hand over the ballot to be mailed, taking away any private vote. In addition, such organizing activity could be conducted without the employer ever knowing that a union campaign was going on.
• Union access provisions would require employers who call meetings with their employees to discuss unionization to give unions equal access to their employees, on company time and on company premises. Unions already enjoy the opportunity to meet with employees in a wide array of locations, including their homes (employers must provide the unions with employees' addresses) in ways that the employer is prohibited.
• Baseball-style arbitration or last final offer arbitration refers to a form of binding arbitration used to settle contract disputes in baseball. Both sides present their best offers and the arbitrator picks one or the other (either collectively or on an issue-by-issue basis). This process encourages both sides to present proposals that are most likely to be picked. However, arbitration in professional baseball is mutually agreed to by contract; this proposal would use the force of federal law to require businesses to submit to government arbitration and remove the employees’ ability to ratify final contracts. In addition, any form of binding arbitration puts the employer in the position of having a third party – with no financial or operational responsibility for the business – to determine wages and conditions of employment.
• Another possible provision would create a two-sided card whereby workers could express a preference to have a union either through the card check process or by secret ballot election. This approach assumes that the employee wants a union; it will disenfranchise employees who do not want a union at all. It would also provide just as much opportunity for union organizers to pressure employees into signing cards as the currently proposed card check organizing scheme.