The Episcopal Church has added its support to the growing movement for the Employee Free Choice Act.

As a member of St. Martin's Episcopal Church in Charlotte it does my heart good to post this:

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/07/21/episcopal-church-supp... /

by Seth Michaels, Jul 21, 2009

The Episcopal Church has added its support to the growing movement for the Employee Free Choice Act.

At the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, held July 8-17, bishops and deputies approved a resolution asking Congress and the president to restore workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain.

The resolution, “Fix Our Broken Labor Laws,” explains that the church strongly supports the freedom of workers to collectively bargain for a better life.

Episcopal bishops and deputies are asking Congress to pass legislation that fulfills three key principles, the resolution says:

1. Provide workers the choice of seeking union recognition either through an election or through a majority sign-up on cards, which are then verified by the National Labor Relations Board.
2. Adopt more effective remedies for violations of employees’ rights, comparable to the remedies for discrimination provided by existing civil rights laws.
3. Where the employers and unions are unable to reach agreement on their first collective bargaining agreement within a reasonable period of time, resolve the dispute by submitting it to mediation and if mediation is unsuccessful, then to binding arbitration.

The Episcopal Church has a long record of support for the freedom of workers to form unions and opposition to abusive tactics that prevent them from exercising their right to bargain.

By passing this resolution, the Episcopal Church joins a coalition of faith groups representing a broad variety of religious traditions in support of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Comments

I am at odds here, I think

There is something sacrosanct about secrecy in balloting, not only in our public elections but in voting on most human endeavors. I know that businesses/industry has used coercive tactics when it comes to union activities, but to disallow secret balloting with regard to unionization as an effort to kind of "even the playing field" isn't the answer.

Taking away someone's right to make their own decision in private in this regard without being subjected to obvious coercive tactics is just as bad as what the unions object to by companies in the first place.

The answer to having legitimate, non-coercive union elections is to make sure that laws governing these elections are maintained.

It is no different than being in a meeting where a leader that advocates one side asks for a "show of hands" for those that are in agreement with him. A few "tough minded" individuals might go against the leader, but for the most part, most people will avoid confrontation and suspected retribution if they vote against what is presented.

What could be more fair than to have people be able to vote to become unionized without anyone knowing how they voted? What makes this any different than when we vote for our various political representatives?

If companies are breaking the law in this regard, that must be dealt with. Taking away someone's right to privacy in this respect is not the answer.

1. Provide workers the choice

1. Provide workers the choice of seeking union recognition either through an election or through a majority sign-up on cards, which are then verified by the National Labor Relations Board.

So the the "vote" on how to vote secret or a card check itself?

The unions know they are more likely to get more votes if there is no secret ballot. That is the only real reason they support card check. The thing is, the rest of the bill already addresses the "problems" with having a secret ballot for union elections.

I am not a big fan of the modern union, but they are legal and I have to respect the law. Card check, on the other hand, merely shifts what power the company may have had over the election process to the union. That's not right either. The "fix" for the election process is NOT in the method of voting, it is in the campaign itself. My god, the Left goes ape-poo when someone suggests checking ID's at the polls, but there's no problem with forcing the unwilling to "vote" in public?

Take away card check and the bill will pass right away. Leave it in there to languish and it's just proof the "reform" is really about getting more unions and not about fixing the process.

It depends on how the "choice" is made

If the "choice" to have a secret ballot or to have the majority of cards signed is solicited by union activists that get the cards signed in the first place, anyone with half a brain knows that those activists getting the cards signed will put an undue pressure on the prospective signer to check the box that says something like "I would like the union to represent me if a majority say that signing the sign-up card check this same box", or something like that. I mean, if you're being handed this card and told to fill it out in front of a union activist, most folks will not check the box saying "I would like to have a secret election to determine if the union will represent me".

It is not rocket science.