Labor Pains: Because Being in a Union can be Painful

Forbes: Binding arbitration is bad for workers

Steve Forbes has an op-ed in today’s Politico discussing how an EFCA without card check is still not a viable option for both small business owners and employees.

Forbes points out that the so-called compromise of “quickie” elections unfairly favors union organizers:

Quicker elections give union bosses the opportunity to lobby workers — in many cases, without the knowledge of the employer or the majority of employees — while disallowing the small business the opportunity to communicate with its own employees about unionization.

Quick elections are simply another way for union bosses to force unionization on businesses and gain dues from workers with little regard for how increased costs and burdens will affect an employer’s ability to stay in business.

The perils of binding arbitration continue to remain in the legislation:

Another egregious provision in EFCA — and potentially the most detrimental — is mandatory, binding arbitration. This threatens employers with a federal government takeover of their small business and takes away a worker’s right to have a say on his or her own contract.

EFCA would allow federal bureaucrats to mandate contract terms on businesses and eliminate an employee’s right to vote on that contract. Those mandates on wages, benefits and workplace conditions would increase costs and burdens on employers resulting in massive layoffs and increased unemployment.

Another reason why EFCA is a bad proposition – and why union leaders are so eager for its passage – is because of how binding arbitration will force businesses into the fledgling pension plans that would  undermine their viability:

Even more troubling, government arbitrators would use forced arbitration as a means to place businesses into failing union pension plans without their consent.

In being forced to join pension plans that in many cases are not financially stable, small businesses would assume responsibility for the pensions of workers from other businesses and industries. The immense liabilities that would ensue would render many of these businesses insolvent.

In summary, EFCA is still problematic because the supposed “compromises” still favor union organizers, binding arbitration’s onerous obligations continue to remain in the bill, and businesses will be forced to assume the unsustainable obligations of unions’ pensions.

Categories: Center for Union FactsEFACNews