Costco, Starbucks, and Whole Foods unveiled this past Sunday an alternative to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). According to a very informative Bloomberg.com article by Holly Rosenkrantz, “Under the alternative being sought by the three companies, management could demand a secret-ballot election, and a provision of the original bill requiring binding arbitration for union contracts would be dropped. Penalties would be increased for companies that take action against workers before union elections and refuse to participate in collective bargaining. The alternative would also set a fixed period in which a union election must be held, and would provide unions with the same access to meet with workers as employers get before an organizing vote.”
Not surprising, the proposal was quickly rejected by staunch supporters of EFCA (e.g. the AFL-CIO, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa), as well as some pro-business groups (e.g. National Right to Work Committee).
If you’re counting votes in the Senate, the business community won a key vote yesterday against EFCA when Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) stated his intention to vote against the legislation. You can watch his speech below, or read the text here.
In Senator Specter’s words, “The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.”
I agree. Bad timing.
Like the retailers, Senator Specter is looking for a middle ground solution. His approach is to make specific revisions to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which he outlines in the text of his speech. Among his suggestions: Establishing a timetable (e.g., require that an election must be held within 10 days of a filing of a joint petition from the employer and the union) and adding unfair labor practices (e.g., an employer or union official visits to an employee at his/her home without prior consent for any purpose related to a representation campaign).
Is a middle ground solution for labor reform possible? It sure doesn’t look that way. In my opinion, there will be no compromise on EFCA. It will either pass or fail based on which lobbying group spends the most money to sway “swing senators” their way.
Finally, in related news, FedEx is threatening to cancel a multi-billion dollar order for cargo planes with Boeing if Congress passes a law that would make it easier for unions to organize at the company, according to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal. Specifically, there’s a bill in Congress that would remove employees from FedEx’s Express unit from the jurisdiction of the federal Railway Labor Act of 1926 to the National Labor Relations Act. Organizing rules are more stringent under the railway act, hence the reason why FedEx wants to maintain the status quo.
Is the type of action FedEx is threatening to take a harbinger of what’s to come from other companies if EFCA passes?
