New Law Would Authorize Government Control of 4 Million Small Businesses

[Skyowl's Wife]

Source: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17736

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 1409, S. 560) does more than take away secret ballot elections: It empowers the federal government to impose contracts on newly organized companies. The government would set wages, benefits, work assignments, promotion procedures, and any major changes to business operations. Because EFCA has no meaningful small businesses exemption, it would authorize federal control of up to 4 million small businesses employing 39 million Americans. Consequently, bureaucrats with no management experience would effectively control these small businesses, says James Sherk, the Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy at the Heritage Foundation.

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act affects both large and small businesses, says Sherk:
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has a small business exception, however, this exemption has not been updated for inflation since 1959.
It covers all non-retail businesses with gross revenues of $50,000 a year and retail businesses with gross revenues over $500,000 a year.
To put those figures into perspective, the average private-sector worker costs his or her employer $56,000 a year in wages and benefits--before the cost of any capital needed to do the job.
A business with one worker earning average pay would not qualify, consequently, the law has no meaningful small businesses exemption.

The Heritage Foundation used Census Bureau data to calculate how many small businesses EFCA would affect: The act covers 4,180,000 businesses employing 38,934,000 workers.

EFCA takes away these workers' right to a secret ballot vote on joining a union -- a consequence that has attracted considerable controversy, says Sherk. However, the bill has a second provision of equal if not greater significance to small businesses that has attracted much less attention: EFCA replaces collective bargaining with government-imposed contracts for newly organized companies. In practice:
EFCA will effectively eliminate collective bargaining for initial contracts because the system provides no reason for unions not to hold out for a government contract.
Unions would have strong incentives to make extreme demands and hope the FMCS appointed arbitrator splits the difference between these demands and management's position.

Granting such a radical amount of power to the FMCS puts control of workplaces in the hands of unaccountable government bureaucrats, says Sherk.

Source: James Sherk, "EFCA Authorizes Government Control of 4 Million Small Businesses," Heritage Foundation, WebMemo #2341, March 12, 2009.

For text:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm2341.cfm

For more on Unions:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=43

[Skyowl's Wife]

Union membership has been falling for years, until now it's about 6% of the workforce. This would drastically change that!

[Lostinoz]

I do not know a whole lot about unions, having never worked in one. When I was about 17, I worked in a factory that was taking a vote on whether or not to bring one in and the owner of the factory told us he would shut the company down if we did. This was my first and last encounter.

"The government would set wages, benefits, work assignments, promotion procedures, and any major changes to business operations. Because EFCA has no meaningful small businesses exemption, it would authorize federal control of up to 4 million small businesses employing 39 million Americans. Consequently, bureaucrats with no management experience would effectively control these small businesses, says James Sherk, the Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy at the Heritage Foundation."

This is very frightening! :mad:

[Skyowl's Wife]

Today, the unions take x percentage of your wages (or a set amount in some cases), to "represent" you. This is "collective bargaining". Mad at your company? Go to your union rep, let HIM pitch your bitch. Sounds wonderful. The reality?

Son-in-law works for Alcoa in a right-to-work state, so the employees aren't forced to join the union. In a case where a weekend job (at TRIPLE time) needed to be done, a union member was called to be offered to work. He wasn't home, a message was left on his machine. He was called again, same response. Someone else was given the job. On Monday, the guy comes in, goes to his rep and gripes. Alcoa had to pay him as if he'd worked the hours in addition to whatever they'd paid the guy who really did the job.

In the auto unions, they have something called "the jobs bank". If someone was laid off, they went into the "jobs bank". What's that mean? They get to stay home until something comes open at 90% of their pay.

I've read that with benefits, on average throughout the automakers, each worker costs about $75 per hour. They don't make that much, but that's what the company pays for them. Some goes to their "almost full pay for life at retirement" plan, some to their 100% medical for life for them and their families. A better plan than the military get!

A big chunk of what the unions are paid go to campaign contributions to get socialists (some call them democrats) elected, whether the member wants that flavor or not.

In the early days, unions had a place. They helped women (sex or there's the door) and children (6 years old? you work 6 days a week for food and a nickel a day) and men out of a type of slavery including incredibly unsafe working conditions and absolutely no job security. There are now federal laws on the books protecting workers from these things, the unions' time is past.

[Lostinoz]

Wow, now I see how this would have a devastating effect on the small business owner! They won't be satisfied until everything is government owned and/or government operated. :mad:

So, what would an alternative be to boycott these actions should they actually pass? Back-alley trading of goods or what?

I will definitely be writing/calling my representatives, though I am convinced it does little good anymore.

[Skyowl's Wife]

Aye, it would devastate small business. It would also open you up to being intimidated by union thugs and finding yourself in a union whether you wanted to or not. "Sign this or else". It would also raise the price of everything the small businesses made. WE would pay for it, even if we weren't IN the union. AND it would elect more socialists (their true aim, I suspect).

Write to your congress critters (both house and senate), write to Nazi Pelosi and Harry Reid. Tell them you object.

Write to any congress critter you see resisting this crap and tell them you support them!

Going off the grid helps you avoid their confiscatory taxes but not this so much. It is one more stake in the heart of American business, which is what BO wants IMHO - to kill it all.

[Skyowl's Wife]

Oh, and it also steps all over State's rights - the right-to-work states would have that power taken from them.

Remember, our civil war was fought because of crap like this, the fed was making rules that they had no right to make and states didn't agree with and eventually quit enforcing. That is one of our "red-alert" trigger points, when the states quit enforcing what the fed is shoveling.

Citibank has given them a small dose of this by saying we don't want any more of your money and strings.

[cbprice797]

This is just the tip of the iceberg that is government interference in our lives.