After forming an ad hoc committee called the “Committee for a Level Playing Field for Union Elections,” three U.S. retailer giants announced an alternative to the controversial Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Starbucks Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp., and Whole Foods Market, Inc., outlined six principles they believe represent a compromise between business and labor interests. According to Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, “Our proposal is not anti-union, and it’s not anti-business.”
The Employee Free Choice Act, a bill introduced in both houses of Congress on March 10, 2009, contains two particular provisions that have raised an onslaught of contention between the labor and business communities.
First, it would allow a majority of employees to form a labor union by signing card-check petitions. Under this provision, employers would no longer be able to dispute the card-check process through a secret-ballot election if a majority of employees signed the petitions. Second, another EFCA provision provides for mandatory arbitration if an employer and a union fail to agree on a contract within 120 days.
The retailers do not support these two divisive provisions of EFCA, and their alternative plan guarantees the right of both management and unions to demand secret-ballot elections and eliminates EFCA’s provision on mandatory arbitration. The proposal keeps the third main EFCA component — strengthening penalties for employers that either retaliate against employees before union elections or refuse to bargain collectively. The retailers’ compromise, however, also increases penalties for union violations and proposes to treat the certification and decertification of unions equally.
The proposed alternative also tries to alleviate the labor movement’s concerns over union campaigns and elections. It addresses delays in union elections by guaranteeing a fixed time period for secret-ballot elections. The proposal also seeks to give unions and management equal access to employees during nonworking hours throughout a campaign period.
So far, this proposal has caused the labor and business communities to finally agree on something regarding EFCA — neither side likes the retailers’ proposed alternative. EFCA sponsors Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative George Miller (D-California) called the proposal “unacceptable” and noted that it was “written by CEOs, for CEOs.” Business groups also spoke out against the proposed alternative. Doug Stafford, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, stated, “ No proposal that makes it easier for union bosses (or employers) to impose forced unionism on workers is acceptable.”
Although both sides oppose the retailers’ proposed alternative, a compromise may eventually be a possibility since a potential deadlock over EFCA in its current form is expected in Congress and politicians who are undecided about EFCA may favor some type of compromise. Lanny Davis, who is coordinating retailers’ efforts, said he discussed the alternative with the staff of around two dozen Democratic and Republican senators and that most were “positive about our third-way approach.”
Although the retailers’ alternative plan may not be accepted or enacted, it may be a step in the direction of a possible compromise over EFCA. We will keep you updated on the status of EFCA or any future compromises
Learn more about the Employee Free Choice Act and preventing labor unions from organizing your company at the Union Avoidance Virtual Summit