Greetings,

 This is an important read for all of us in the union- especially given the confusing information surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  We, the Teachers Union (et al),  are supportive of the EFCA and  below tells us why we need to be.  Let your legislators know we want and NEED the Employee Free Choice Act.

Thanks,

Lynn Nordgren
MFT, Local 59

Dear Colleague:

In these difficult economic times, anti-union groups funded by anti-union corporations are investing millions of dollars to disseminate misinformation about the critically needed Employee Free Choice Act.

CEOs, sometimes the very ones pleading poverty when their employees seek a raise, are spending millions of dollars to preserve a system that allows them to intimidate, harass and fire workers when they try to form a union and bargain for a better life.  In fact, a recent report by the Center on Economic Policy Research found that pro-union workers were fired in 26 percent of NLRB election campaigns between 2001 and 2007.

These CEOs allege they oppose the Employee Free Choice Act because they want to protect a worker's right to a secret ballot.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The truth is that they have a vested interest in preserving a system that unfairly favors management and leaves workers unprotected.  In an unguarded moment at a trade conference in 2007, an anti-union company owner lamented what the Employee Free Choice Act would mean:  "You have no chance to retaliate-I shouldn't say retaliate."  A reporter at the conference noted "peals of nervous laughter from the audience."

Preserving the secret ballot is not these CEOs' motivation. Preserving their "chance to retaliate" is.  Under the current system, it is up to the employer to decide whether workers can form a union through majority sign-up or an NLRB election.  Currently, even if every worker signs a union card and demands union recognition, the boss can refuse to recognize the union and insist on an NLRB election.  Anti-union CEOs favor the NLRB election process, and it's not hard to see why.  The NLRB election process bears little resemblance to a democratic election.

Imagine if congressional elections allowed one side to employ the tactics that CEOs use to keep employees from exercising free choice.  One side, and one side only, could:

Force voters to attend their campaign rallies or be fired.

Fire, intimidate, and harrass their opponent's supporters or deny them raises with little legal consequence.

Force voters to meet one-on-one with their supervisor to discuss how they should vote.

Prevent their opponent from campaigning in the one place where all the voters can be found, while they campaign there nonstop.

And, if an opponent wins the election, delay that person from taking office for months or years.

If this type of election doesn't sound free, fair, and democratic, that's because it isn't.  And that's the system the opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act seek to preserve.

There is another way.  The Employee Free Choice Act will restore fairness to the process by giving workers the choice, not CEOs, on how to form a union - by majority sign-up or an NLRB election.  Majority sign-up has been used since 1935.  Studies have found that majority sign-up results in less pressure and less coercion than NLRB elections.  It also results in better labor-management relations, avoiding the workplace strife that is used to keep workers from asserting their organizing rights.  Yet majority sign-up is only available to workers when their employer allows them to use it.  Under the Employee Free Choice Act, employees could use majority sign-up to form a union, regardless of what the CEO thinks.  And if workers prefer an NLRB election, that option remains available.  It's just not the CEO's choice any longer.  .

That's why it's called the Employee Free Choice Act.

We urge you to cosponsor and support the Employee Free Choice Act. By restoring workers' rights to organize and collectively bargain, we will ensure a more fair and sustainable economic recovery by letting workers exercise their bargaining power again and giving working families a seat at the table.

Sincerely,

Rosa L. DeLauro  
Member of Congress

Andre Carson 
Member of Congress