How People Voted
 |
 |
32% For, 68% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 800, The Employee Free Choice Act
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Original version created by webmaster
H.R. 800 would amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, and it would provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts.
Detailed Summary
Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 - Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit.
Sets forth special procedural requirements for reaching an initial collective bargaining agreement following certification or recognition.
Revises enforcement requirements with respect to unfair labor practices during union organizing drives, particularly a preliminary investigation of an alleged unfair labor practice which may lead to proceedings for injunctive relief.
Requires that priority be given to a preliminary investigation of any charge that, while employees were seeking representation by a labor organization, or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into, an employer: (1) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an employee to encourage or discourage membership in the labor organization; (2) threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against an employee in order to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of guaranteed self-organization or collective bargaining rights; or (3) engaged in any other related unfair labor practice that significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of such guaranteed rights.
Adds to remedies for such violations: (1) back pay plus liquidated damages; and (2) additional civil penalties.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2007: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 66.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
G. Wilson
February 15, 2007, 11:37am (report abuse)I have read that H.R. 800 actually would be taking the secret ballot right in union elections away from the union workers, thereby taking away right to privacy. The bill supposedly is proposing for all union members to vote by card ballot with employee/union name and info on it. I suppose this is another bill with a secret agenda like this hidden in very small print so the general public would not really see the problem...giving the bill a misleading name "Employee Free Choice act".
Jim Lockwood
March 29, 2007, 12:26pm (report abuse)This bill is clearly NOT about free choice. Telling a worker that they must choose whether or not to unionize when confronted by a coworker or union representative with a ballot card in hand is WRONG. The union would never stand for the employer taking the vote, so why should we allow the union to collect the votes in a face-to-face confrontation? Taking away the right to a secret ballot is contrary to the basic concept of free choice!
Jody Egan
June 13, 2007, 2:47pm (report abuse)As an intrested member of a union I have read the entire text of this bill, and contrary to the statements I'm reading posted, I don't see where this bill in any way will change the election process. What it will do is help prevent the current illegal activity taken by many companies to prevent union organization. Don't be fooled into believing that companies will not and do not violate the law in any way they think they can to keep unions out. This bill only strentghens enforcement of existing laws.
Jan, San Francisco, CA
April 4, 2008, 8:01pm (report abuse)Jody, you are wrong. One part of this bill DOES most certainly take away a union member's right to a secret ballot and replaces it with a card check. Perhaps other portions protect workers, but demand that your reps remove that portion and protect your right to secret ballot, freeing members from intimidation! People fought long and hard for secret ballots. Don't give them up now!
John J - Dublin Oh
August 27, 2008, 5:43pm (report abuse)The right to a secret ballot is being challenged here. Any congressman or Senator who supports this legislation must be called on the carpet to explain why they support removing secret ballot from union members or those trying to organize a union. Removing the secret ballot opens the selection of the union to intimidation and strong arm tatics.
Susan J
September 22, 2008, 10:53am (report abuse)The hidden costs per family of this bill is that even more companies will close and move to foreign countries where they don't have to pay union wages and worry about negotiating contracts with unionized workers intimidated into joining a union in the first place. If the US is going to continue to make it harder for companies to operate in the US we should start exporting some of this liberal hoo-hah as well. Do you think employers in China and Mexico give a flip about employees rights? Come on folks?
Dan K
September 24, 2008, 4:50pm (report abuse)Removal of the secert ballot in union elections is enough not support this bill but it supersedes state laws (where states have right to work laws)with Federal law. No more right to work, one more fascistic policy supported by unions & the left.
H. Wolf NY, NY
November 6, 2008, 10:48am (report abuse)I was a longstanding member of a union so I write this with a good understanding of both sides.
Our economy can not afford this law. When Italy enacted a similar law the country was plagued with strikes. Utility companies frequently were unable to provide basic services, the transportation network was negatively impacted, and 40% of small business folded.
We need to reform Labor law but not in this fashion. This could mark financial ruin for our delicate economy.
We need instead focus on minimum wage increases and fair working hours. Things which do not put our counties businesses in peril of surviving.