‘Forced’ choice could kill jobs

OPINION:

Despite reports that “card check” is off the table, Congress is still considering a compromise to the job-killing legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). There is nothing “free” about it for workers or businesses, and there is no room to compromise on a bill shown to cause unemployment.

Card check is the provision in what more aptly would be named the Employee “Forced” Choice Act that would strip workers of the right to vote using a secret ballot during a union election. Instead, a union “election” would be held with every worker publicly signing his name to a card, assuming every worker wanted to sign the card. Certainly, it would be immensely difficult not to sign the card if a union boss followed you around the office or showed up at your home.

Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, has hinted that he may bring up the full bill for a vote, which would include card check. Whether it’s the original bill or one with compromise language, either one is dangerous to the rights of workers and job providers, already struggling in a faltering economy.

Under EFCA, employees and employers also would lose the decision-making ability to negotiate contracts The most egregious provision of EFCA would have a federal bureaucrat with no knowledge of the particular industry dictate wages, benefits and workplace conditions under a contract binding for two years. This mandatory, binding arbitration is different from other forms of arbitration, in which the arbitrator just interprets the contracts agreed upon by both parties. Under EFCA,a government arbitrator would dictate the terms.

This mandatory, binding arbitration would violate the rights of workers to vote on contracts and would increase costs and burdens on employers, resulting in massive layoffs and increased unemployment.

Even more troubling, government arbitrators would use mandatory, binding arbitration as a means to force businesses into failing union pension plans — without their consent — creating massive liabilities that would be devastating for workers and employers.

EFCA is truly a political payback for union bosses. Let’s face it: Any legislation that would allow for union bosses to recruit new union members by taking away those same workers’ rights screams “political payback.”

A recent Workforce Fairness Institute report even found that passage of EFCA would result in $35 billion in political spending money to unions over the next 10 years. If you are skeptical, consider that the head of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) projected 1.5 million new dues-paying union members every year for at least 10 years if EFCA is passed.

What this report reveals is that through EFCA, unions would have even more to spend on political activity, giving them greater resources to drive their agenda, reward their political allies, and punish their political opponents. Workers who already have seen their pension programs mismanaged stand to lose the most, as many will be paying dues to a union whose existence they didn’t get to vote on based on a contract they also didn’t get to vote on.

A study earlier this year by noted economist Anne Layne-Farrar found that an increase of 1.5 million union members in year one would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs by the following year.

Any legislation that strips the rights of workers and businesses to vote via secret ballot or to have a say in contract negotiations is a complete and total nonstarter. Our country cannot afford increased unemployment or diminished freedoms; and therefore, we cannot afford EFCA.

Katie Packer is the executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute.