TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2006
King County Council backs Employee Free Choice Act
But labor law reform languishes without a vote in Republican-controlled Congress

The Metropolitan King County Council on Monday passed a motion in support of enacting the Employee Free Choice Act, historic legislation introduced in Congress to reform our country's ineffective labor laws and restore the freedom to form unions. Voting in favor of the motion were all the Democratic council members -- Larry Phillips, Larry Gossett, Bob Ferguson, Dow Constantine and Julia Patterson -- plus Republicans Pete von Reichbauer and Jane Hague.  Voting against the motion was Republican Kathy Lambert. (Republican Reagan Dunn was absent.)

“Employees deserve to know that they will not have to look over their shoulder as they try to improve conditions at work -- the Employee Free Choice Act is a safeguard against coercion and retaliation by employers,” said Council Chair Larry Phillips. “The Act also protects the rights of the employer by allowing disputes to be referred to binding arbitration.”

The EFCA would require employers to recognize the union when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing representation, provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes, and establish stronger penalties for violation of the rights of workers seeking to form unions or negotiate first contracts.

"On behalf of the affiliates of the Martin Luther King, Jr. County Labor Council, I would like to express my gratitude to the members of the King County Council who voted to support this important statement on behalf of working families," said David Freiboth, Executive Secretary of the MLKCLC. "This bipartisan effort is a great example of coalition building and demonstrates the recognition of the need to give workers a level playing field when they decide to seek union representation."

In addition to Freiboth, testifying in support of the motion were Kathleen Oglesby, Labor Liaison to King County Executive Ron Sims (who supported the motion); the Rev. Dr. Sanford (Sandy) Brown, Executive Director of the Church Council of Greater Seattle ; Marcus Courtney, Organizer for WashTech/CWA Local 37083; and Les French, Customer Care Representative and Shop Steward at Cingular Wireless. Nearly 1,000 call-center workers at Cingular in Bothell recently formed a union after their employer agreed to recognize their card-check election to join the WashTech/CWA union.

What's the status of the EFCA?

The EFCA has 215 co-sponsors -- just three shy of an outright majority -- in the U.S. House of Representatives, but has languished without a vote because of opposition by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republican leaders. It has been co-sponsored by Washington Democratic Reps. Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, Jim McDermott and Adam Smith, but Republican Reps. Dave Reichert, Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings have steadfastly refused to support the EFCA. In the U.S. Senate, the EFCA has 44 co-sponsors, including both Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray.

"The right to organize is a fundamental right of workers in this country," said Rep. Adam Smith (D-9th). "It was the stepping stone to other such basic rights as overtime pay, benefits, livable wages, safe working conditions, and the 40-hour work week. Since the 1930s however, the system has been grossly diluted and manipulated in favor of the employer. The Employee Free Choice Act provides much needed reforms to the flawed labor law that currently regulates organized labor and binds the National Labor Relations Board to an unprecedented and long overdue commitment to the rights of employees and union organizers. I look forward to working with my colleagues to push this valuable legislation through Congress."

Why is the EFCA necessary?

According to a Cornell University study, nearly all private-sector employers fight their employees’ efforts to form unions in some manner. A quarter of them even illegally fire workers who stand up for a union. Even when workers manage to win their union, they never get a contract in one out of every three cases.

That's why Human Rights Watch lists the United States alongside many Third World nations as a violator of basic human rights, due to the degree to which we restrict the freedom of association and the freedom to form unions.

Each year thousands of workers in the United States are spied on, harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise victimized by employers in reprisal for their exercise of the right to freedom of association. In the 1950’s, victims numbered in the hundreds each year. In 1969, the number was more than 6,000. By the 1990’s, more than 20,000 workers each year were dismissed or otherwise victims of discrimination serious enough for the government-appointed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to issue a reinstatement and “back-pay” or other remedial order…

Loophole-ridden laws, paralyzing delays, and feeble enforcement have created a culture of impunity in many areas of U.S. labor law and practice. Employers intent on resisting workers’ self-organization can drag out legal proceedings for years, fearing little more than an order to post a written notice in the workplace promising not to repeat unlawful conduct.

Human Rights Watch found that millions of workers, including farm workers, household domestic workers, and low-level supervisors, were expressly excluded from protection under the law guaranteeing the right of workers to organize. In Washington and North Carolina, Human Rights Watch found evidence of campaigns of intimidation against migrant workers.

Other findings included: one-sided rules for union organizing that unfairly favor employers over workers, allowing such tactics as “captive-audience meetings” where managers predict workplace closures if workers vote for union representation; workers being caught up in a web of labor contracting and subcontracting that effectively denied them the right to organize and bargain with the employers holding the real power over their jobs and working conditions; employers having the legal power to permanently replace workers who exercise the right to strike; and harsh rules against “secondary boycotts” that frustrate worker solidarity efforts.