Senator Webb supports worker rights - Employee Free Choice Act
By: relawson
Published On: 5/18/2007 10:24:58 PM
I just discovered that Senator Webb is a cosponsor of a bill designed to make it easier for workers to form unions - called the Employee Free Choice Act. Great Job Senator Webb!!! Of course, the Chamber of Commerce opposes it. But since when have they ever supported the rights of workers?
http://www.inrich.co...
(...)
The bill, called the Employee Free Choice Act, "would restore a level playing field to labor relations in the United States," Webb said in a statement. Judicial and administrative actions in recent years have made it harder for workers to certify unions, he said.
James R. Leaman, president of the Virginia AFL-CIO, said about the push for the bill, "It's important to let people have an opportunity, on the job, to say whether or not they want a union without being coerced or intimidated by their employers."
Comments
Excellent, I wonder how this would (Lowell - 5/18/2007 11:07:45 PM)
affect the so-called "right to work" laws (Leslie Byrne calls them "right to be poor" laws) in Virginia...
It would have no effect (Jambon - 5/18/2007 11:58:00 PM)
on "right to work for less" laws. Those laws prohibit unions from making union membership a "condition of employment" in a workplace. in other words, it allows workers to "freeload" by not having to join the union even if they work under a union contract.
Dr. King said this about "Right to Work" laws:
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as right-to-work. It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone. Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights."
- MLK Jr. speaking on right-to-work laws in 1961
The EFCA is about making it easier to organize a union in a non-union workplace. Totally separate from right to work.
Thanks for the clarification. (Lowell - 5/19/2007 6:52:28 AM)
Hopefully, Congress will do something about the "right to work for LESS" laws as well.
"Right to Work" was designed to kill unions (relawson - 5/19/2007 7:18:52 AM)
And for the most part, it worked.
Union membership restrictions should not be legislated. (loboforestal - 5/19/2007 12:25:39 PM)
Workers rights to negotiate this issue with business should not be illegalized.
I think what you're saying is that (Lowell - 5/19/2007 12:29:02 PM)
all workers should be free to form unions, to organize, and to negotiate with businesses, right?
Yes they should, but specifically what I'm saying is ... (loboforestal - 5/19/2007 1:24:56 PM)
Unions should have the right to negotiate whether or not new employees must join the union. The unions ( a bunch of guys looking out for their best intersts) can ask for a business ( a bunch of guys looking out for their best interests) for new employees to apply for union membership. While the law should not require someone to join a union, the law should not prevent the unions and companies agreeing to make union membership for some positions a part of their business agreements.
Right to work means sole representation (relawson - 5/19/2007 9:08:12 PM)
"While the law should not require someone to join a union.."
Right to work laws mean just that, and the law has resulted in people getting union benefits but not paying for them, and massive drops in union enrollment. In short it is what helped destroy unions.
Hopefully a union member or leader will throw their views in. Although I support unions, I am not a member of one given that they rarely exist in the IT field.