Proposed Changes to EFCA Still Handcuff Manufacturers

updated July 24, 2009

Employers and employees alike should be aware – and concerned – that efforts are underway in Washington to amend EFCA’s language in ways that could put the legislation on the fast track to approval in the U.S. Congress. For example:

• Reports indicate that Democratic leadership in Congress is trying to craft a compromise version of EFCA that would attract support from all 60 Senate Democrats, making it filibuster-proof (and delay-proof).  As a result, the bill could be approved with less public debate than is usual for a policy change of this magnitude.
   
• The New York Times reported on July 17 that some U.S. Senators would be willing to replace one of the key features of EFCA – the card check provision itself – with an abbreviated union election schedule of five to ten days (compared to the usual six to eight weeks). This compromise proposal could have strong appeal to people on both sides of the union representation issue. It could allay concerns some people have about EFCA doing away with workers’ right to a secret ballot union election, and it could satisfy others who think employers have too much time under current law to wage anti-union communication campaigns prior to the election vote.
   
• Additional potential changes to EFCA that have surfaced in news reports include requiring companies to give union organizers access to company property and barring employers from requiring workers to attend anti-union meetings.

Employers must make sure their employees understand that forces are at work trying to speed through legislation that could fundamentally alter workers’ relationships with their employers through a union organizing process that could deny workers adequate time to hear both sides, collect the facts, talk with each other and their families, and decide which option – union or no union – is in their best interest. Rest assured that the OMA is monitoring developments in Washington to help keep you informed of the latest developments in the public debate over card check.