Employee Free Choice Act: The Salient Features of the Act and their Implications on the Employees Labour Rights. The Strengths of the EFCA (Essay Sample)

Employee Free Choice Act
Name
Institution
Introduction
The Employee free choice act is a Labor Relations bill that was introduced in both chambers of the U.S Congress in 2009. It passed in the House of Representatives but has not yet passed in the senate. The aim of the act was to amend the National Labor Relations Act, particularly, with the view to enable employees join and/or form unions, or assist the unions to act on behalf of employees against unfair labour practices. Although formulated with noble motives, some provisions of the act have been viewed by some stakeholders as working against the rights of employees whom the act purports to protect. The bill seeks to deprive some powers which employers exercise in subjecting employees to secret ballots whenever they have a request for labour union representation. Should this bill pass and get implemented, it will end this secret ballot system of joining and forming trade unions, and instead, employees will be able to form and join trade unions by a simple majority will.
The aim of this paper is to analyze the Employee Free Choice Act to determine whether its establishment offers any benefits to the employees, and whether as the HR group we should recommend the act to the employees. To do this, this position paper will analyze the salient provisions of the act while noting the implications they have on the employees. In addition, this paper will identify the strengths and weaknesses of the act pertaining to labour union movement and the employees’ plight. Finally, this paper will state its position regarding whether the HR group should approve the act.
The Salient Features of the Act and their Implications on the Employees Labour Rights
Among the most salient features of the act, include its express provision that a union would be allowed to represent the unionisable employees if it is able to collect the majority signatures of employees in its recruitment of those employees. Secondly, the act provides that an employer ceases to have the right to demand additional ballot polls if more than half of his employees join a union. Thirdly, the act requires that employers and the union should enter into negotiated talks to come up with a collective bargaining agreement within a maximum of 120 days after the union becomes the recognized union, failure to which the government would impose an arbitration proceeding on the parties to come up with the collective agreement. Fourth, the act would increase the penalties for unfair labour practices, especially, discrimination against the workers who join a recognized union (Adams, 2007).
These provisions empower the employee and restore the powers that trade unions ought to have when defending the employee against unfair labour practices. In addition, the provisions named above strengthen and facilitate the rights of employees to join, form, and participate in the activities of trade unions within the law. For instance, the fact that employees can form and join trade unions without the input from employers regarding a ballot system implies that the employees have more power against the corporate bodies, which, over time, had become corrupt and bureaucratic thus undermining their collective bargaining power (Friedman, 2007).
The Strengths of the EFCA
The EFCA’s main strengths are premised on the advantages and freedoms that it offers to the employees regarding the formation, joining, and participating in the affairs of a trade union with complete immunity for their actions (Sherk & Kersey, 2009). For sometime now, the American Legal system has allowed elections that were skewed against the advantage of the employees.
A majority of companies would legally compel workers to participate in anti-union meetings, some of which included personal conversations with their supervisors. These meetings were meant to dissuade employees from joining particular trade unions that were perceived as a threat to the economic advantage of the employers. In these meetings, says a research by University of Oregon Professor Gordon Lafer, employees would be forced to reveal their preferences for trade unions to enable the employers strategize ways to defeat unions that were not favourable to their interests. In several instances, unionized employees would be treated unfairly. In other instances, they would be fired from their jobs. Similarly, union supporting employees would face threats of sacking from their jobs (Madland & Walter, 2007).
However, with the new act, employees will establish, join, and make any trade union their representative merely through attaining a 50 percent popular support from the unionisable employees in every workstation. The bill abolishes the secret ballot method which was marred by corruption and intimidation by employers. This mode of establishing trade unions implies that the workers’ rights are observed, and that democracy prevails over bureaucratic means (Madland & Walter, 2007). Preventing workers from joining unions violates their basic human rights, and is also bad for economic development and democracy. This fact is premised on the fact that strong trade unions prevent employees from wage lags, discrimination, and other unfair trade practices by employers (Ortega, 2007).
Secondly, the EFCA purports to impose heavier penalties for unfair and unlawful trade practices by employers. Firing, spying, and compelling employees to join or desist from joining particular trade unions will receive heavier penalties under the EFCA. Under the NLRA, employers are relatively more powerful than employees and trade unions. They determine the trade unions that employees can join, and control employees’ access to information. On numerous occasions, they have also restricted employee participation in pro-union affairs. Some employers would also use illegal means to compel their employees to join unions that were friendlier to them (Ortega, 2007). With the EFCA’s 50 percent rule, employers will not threaten employees any more. They will be able to join, participate, and pass information across regarding their union with complete immunity. In addition, should an employee be fired, for any reason, the bill demands higher compensation for them. The bill also imposes higher penalties for employees who engage in unlawful and unfair practices (Madland and Walter).
Weaknesses of the EFCA
Although the EFCA is relatively stronger at protecting the employees plight, it also has inherent shortcomings, which may work against the employees’ interests. For instance, since the bill seeks to increase employees’ freedom in joining and participating in labour unions by abolishing the secret ballot system, this very same move may work against the employees. First, it does away with the confidentiality of the secret ballot, thereby exposing the employees who are pro-union and those against it to the employers. In addition, it also implies that employees who do not participate are ignored. This fact, therefore, implies that some employees will be exposed to intimidation, while the others may be left without proper protection. It will also be easier for trade unions to compel employees to enter into collective bargaining units even if the units are not for their interests, or if they are oblivious of the collective bargaining units (Forde, 2007).
Secondly, the bill has failed to specify a specific period with which arbitration proceedings ought to take place. Instead, it allows both parties, the union and the employer to keep extending the arbitral period. One party, most probably, the employer, may keep extending the arbitral period in bad faith, and for purposes of buying time, which may work against the interests of the employees (Sherk & Kersey, 2009).
Another inherent weakness that the EFCA has is the fact that it insists on taming the employers powers against the interests of the employee but fails to do the same towards the unions. It is widely known that some unions engage in illegal practices, especially during the organizing period. For instance, some unions have been accused of obtaining certification through coercive means, where they force employees to vote for particular decisions that are in the unions’ interests (Forde,  2007). The act should have encompassed ways through which employees would be protected against the chances of illegal acts by labor unions.
The Group’s Position on EFCA
The title of a piece of legislation has the potential to influence its chances of success in passage, as well as its acceptance once passed. Many laws are named after their creators, such as the Wagner Act, or the Taft-Hartley Act. Other laws are given more technical names to describe their intended purpose, such as the Economic Rehabilitation Act. Other laws are given more creative names, such as the Freedom of Information Act, or the Employee Free Choice Act. These names are like the flavored coating on vitamin pills, intended to make them more palatable to other lawmakers, to special interest groups, and to the general public. Naming a law something like "Right to Work" may create implications about the Act itself, which are or are not entirely accurate. A Right to Work law is not necessary for someone to obtain employment. Instead, the concept of a Right to Work law is that employees have the choice to join a union or not.
The decision not to join a union would not carry consequences, either financial or otherwise. What would this mean to an employee? To answer that question, we need to step back and look beyond union membership itself. Once a company recognizes a union, that organization becomes the sole representative of all employees within that bargaining unit. In other words, although employees may not be members of a union, this may be construed as removing the i...