H.R.1409 - Employee Free Choice Act of 2009

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Official: To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 73 total comments.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    MatadorBID 03/16/2009 1:58pm

    More like power to the unions. It was unions that lobbied against card check when they truly stood for the best interests of employees, but now it is the unions who lobby for it so they may utilize the same bully tactics they once feared from the employer.

  • Comm_reply
    RDMIAM 03/26/2009 2:50pm

    Thank you Uncle Sugar !

  • Comm_reply
    adamchristiaan 04/03/2009 7:49am
    Link Reply
    + -3

    They already have the power to form a union. All this does is open up a majority to the harassment of a 30% minority.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    callagan 04/08/2009 6:36am

    They were threatened with termination for trying to unionize? Where, when, who….that is illegal and you’re just make this s..t up!

  • Comm_reply
    flemingtonteaparty 05/02/2009 2:32am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    That ain’t how it works, and you probably know it. Workers don’t go to “management” to get ballots. They bring in the NLRB to conduct a union election.

  • Comm_reply
    callagan 04/08/2009 6:41am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    you mean “power to the union”?

  • ibdarrel 03/16/2009 3:21pm

    to call this employee free choice act is a gross misnomer. it’s more union open field act and puts the choice in the hands of those that apply the most pressure to employees

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • waitin4payday 03/17/2009 7:43pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    MichaelBN wrote:
    “Finally, nowhere in The Employee Free Choice Act is it dictated that workers may not choose to vote via a secret ballot.”

    Umm…yes it is. Right here…

    “If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).”

    Could you imagine if we elected our country’s presidents in this manner?

  • callagan 03/18/2009 5:20am

    George Orwell your predictions have come true….Calling this the Employee Free Choice act is the double speak usually reserved for the naming of referendums in Washington State….where the name is the reverse of the intent, and meant to confuse the voters. 1984 is here.

  • JonathanArmesto 03/18/2009 3:44pm

    “Calling this the Employee Free Choice act is the double speak usually reserved for the naming of referendums in Washington State…”

    The People would like to present exhibit ‘A’: The U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT.

  • Comm_reply
    deborahg6 03/31/2009 6:48am

    The Patriot Act argument is really getting old…move on. Almost as bad as the “we inherited this debt” one. You got the President and Congress you’ve always wanted and what has happened so far in the first few months is staggering beyond compare.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 7:34pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Ands thanks to the failed policies of the Republicans, there will be even more Democrats in 2010.

    America thanks you.

  • Comm_reply
    dankennedy73 06/24/2010 7:40am

    Yes, I supose the argument for our liberties is getting old. Let’s just all of us shut up and allow the conservatives to strip all our rights from us without a word of dissent….will that make you happy?

  • Comm_reply
    flemingtonteaparty 05/02/2009 2:36am

    The word “patriot” does not mean the opposite of what that bill put into law, and therefore in no way qualifies as Newspeak.
    Calling this “free choice”, when it will end up being “coercion”, is clearly the opposite, and is a classic example of Newspeak.

  • Comm_reply
    flemingtonteaparty 05/02/2009 2:36am

    The word “patriot” does not mean the opposite of what that bill put into law, and therefore in no way qualifies as Newspeak.
    Calling this “free choice”, when it will end up being “coercion”, is clearly the opposite, and is a classic example of Newspeak.

  • MichaelBN 03/20/2009 4:03pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    There’s nothing in that clause that bans the use of a secret ballot.

    If the employees decide that there should be a secret ballot before bringing the card checks into the place, who’s to stop them?

    My suspicion is that most of the people who oppose this bill really don’t much care about democracy among employees in the work place. It makes a fine populist sounding argument, though, and, as with all of the Newspeak being done these days by The Corporacracy and its supporters, it’s not surprising that middle class people, what’s left of us, once again working against their own best interest, as mentioned.

    It must be how The State was able to get Syme so excited about working on that Newspeak dictionary.

  • Comm_reply
    justanothervoice 04/10/2009 2:58am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    MichaelBN, I think this is part of the disconnect..A workplace is NOT a democracy. It is a workplace, an organization in most cases created to make a profit. If you were to open a business with say 100 manual laborers, do you allow those employees to set the wages, or the work hours? If all the employee vote to receive the same pay as you, do you allow that?

  • ramanajan 03/23/2009 8:06pm

    It is not democracy in the workplace to be forced to join a union in order to work somewhere and then have your dues support political activities that you do not agree with. It is not democracy to have another powerful control over your life that, in many cases, is simply another burden on you the worker because the union is not looking out for the very people it professes to protect, but is more interested in self preservation.

  • justanothervoice 03/24/2009 6:09am

    While many believe a union protects workers, and in some cases that is true, a union organizaer is paid for each person they sign up. They have the same goal as a used car salesperson and that is make their commission.

    So there is a choice to be made by workers, a greedy union who only wants your dues, or a greedy corporation whose main goal is profit. For me, I have to go with the one who writes the paychecks.

    It is interesting to note, an employer may be punished for lying to employees about a union, there is no punishment for union organizers lying or spreading rumors about the corporation.

    If a group wants to organize, why is a secret ballot a bad thing. Originally, that was done to protect the worker, why the change of heart? Probably because workers want to speak for themselves instead of paying someone every week to speak for all of them.

  • PhillyBuster 03/24/2009 1:54pm

    MichaelBN; I am middle class and I hate this thing. We do not need Detroit/Cleveland all over the USA.

  • ronbar87 03/25/2009 8:53pm

    This is not an employee free choice act. It is a way for unions to take total control. It not only is taking away the choice to vote by secrete ballot, but also taking away the right of the people to not be a member if the union is voted in. My state has a right to work law that give us the right to work in a unionized company with out being a member of the union. Personally, I don’t think anyone should be forced to be a member of anything they have to pay money to be a part of. And then to have the union tell them how to vote or who to vote for, to spend their due on a candidate that may not be the candidate of my choice. This is supposed to be a free country, forced unionization would take away many freedoms we now have. Supporting certain political candidates can prove to be detrimental to our rights and freedoms. Such as the way the union supported Barack Obama for president, and now everyone is concerned about our rights to own guns.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 7:37pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    If you can afford bullets, you can afford to pay for a license and register your firearms. No one wants to take your firearms away, they just want to know if you are selling them to people who can not legally possess a firearm.

  • Comm_reply
    flemingtonteaparty 05/02/2009 2:38am

    Register criminals, not guns.

  • Comm_reply
    mlittle145 02/21/2010 7:24am

    It’s very interesting that you would state this is a free country but not support organized labor. Let me ask you this: do you get any paid sick leave at your place of employment? Or paid vacation? Do you have holidays off? Do you work 40 hours a week? Do you work 5 days a week, rather then 7? Does your employer offer health care? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, you have organized labor to thank for it. It was the struggle of organized labor that brought all of these things about. Corporate executives don’t take a job for a company without a contract spelling out every level of compensation, why shouldn’t the other employees (the people who actually do the work that makes that company the money) have the benefit of having a contract spelling out what their compensation and benefits should be?

  • yancura44 03/26/2009 7:11am

    in a constitutional republic such as ours, the nright to a secret ballot is inherent in the laws of our land. EFCA certainly takes away that right. give the bill a close read and you will realize that is true. This bill if passed will lead to cohersion to those voting which is why I am against this bill. I am not against unions but I am against the way they would function if this bill became law.

  • RDMIAM 03/26/2009 2:46pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I can not support this bill. I hope you can’t either. At one time there was a place for Unions, but not any more! Any company that deals with Union workers will find themselves in the same situation as GM! They simply are bad news and are not necessary!

  • bmwtriton 03/31/2009 5:19am

    This is payback for the unions endorsing Barack Obama and the Democrats. The campaign contributions were given by the unions to influence the Democrats’ decisions on labor. That is nothing short of bribery, and, the last time I checked, bribery is a felony, and convicted felons should be prohibited from running for office, and those currently in office should be forced to resign. The FBI should investigate the motives for this legislation and for the unions’ contributions. If it is for corrupt purposes, those involved should be prosecuted.


Vote on This Bill

25% Users Support Bill

176 in favor / 519 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments