The focus on binding arbitration continues with an op-ed by the California Chamber of Commerce outlining its opposition to the supposed ‘compromise’ on EFCA.
CalChamber expressed specific concern with having less communication time in light of possible “quickie” elections replacing card check:
The CalChamber is pointing out that the ability for employers to communicate directly with their employees is crucial to an informed decision. Anything that interferes with that—whether it is a direct prohibition or a virtual prohibition by reducing the time for an election—would be harmful to employees and unfair and costly to the business.
And of course, the CalChamber explains why binding arbitration is not a good proposition:
Current law enables the employer and the union to negotiate an agreement without government interference or intrusion into the process.
The Employee Free Choice Act authorizes an arbitrator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to force a settlement if management and the newly certified union at a given work site aren’t able to come to terms after 90 days of bargaining and 30 days of mediation.
It would dictate all terms of a contract, from wages to work schedules to vacation time to health benefits. Decisions would be final, not subject to appeal.
At the end of its op-ed, CalChamber is urging employers to contact California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was one of the few Democrats who expressed concern about including card check in EFCA.