S.560 - Employee Free Choice Act of 2009

A bill 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 the organizing efforts, and for other purposes. view all titles (4)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill 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 the organizing efforts, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Popular: Emploee Free Choice Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 58 total comments.

  • manfriday111 03/11/2009 10:22pm

    This is a travisty on free, fair, and secret ballots …. If this ram-rod effort succeeds the next effort will be to select our congressional candidates by “committee” rather than primary elections … already tried in several states …. shades of the BIG MACHINE!!!

  • Comm_reply
    cmstever 11/06/2009 10:22pm

    all this bill does is allow workers to form unions easier. it forces nothing.

  • clintbryant 03/12/2009 4:13am

    The left wants everyone to be in a union. Unions bring businesses down. See GM, Ford, Chrysler.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 7:43pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Labor did not choose to make fuel inefficient vehicles – that was the high paid management. Labor gets the blame becuase they advocate for the worker. If the US had a single payer healthcare insurance sstem, this would reduce the financial burden on all business, and therefore reduce to need for unions.

  • Comm_reply
    callagan 04/08/2009 6:47am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Apparently you have never been in an old style bully union, where the Union (like the old Teamsters) takes a percentage of your wages, is not held to account for what they use it for, including political contributions, promises you a retirement (but does all it can not to pay for it), is exempt from audits (yes, it’s true), has strongarm henchmen to make sure your primary allegiance is to the union, and not your job.
    This is 1930’s and 20’s again.

  • Comm_reply
    bathukopian 05/28/2009 6:39pm

    I’m not aware of any unions that fit your description that represent workers today. I think they use the dues to negotiate contracts that allow workers better working conditions and higher wages.

    I just don’t see the similarity between the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009, and the 1920’s or 1930’s…

    I think unions are more important now than ever.

  • Comm_reply
    cmstever 11/06/2009 10:35pm

    and apparently you never heard of the Ludlow massacre, and the triangle shirtwaist company fire, and the list goes on. In these situation workers were killed because the rights of workers were cost effective. Management was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of workers either through out right murder or being locked in a high rise building when it happened to catch fire. Unions are not prefect but there are a lot better then no union. you don’t like the union taking a percentage of money i assure you with out unions wages would never have been livable. Unions are responsible for lunch breaks, 8 hour work days, bath room breaks, etc the things that a lot of people take for granted.

  • Comm_reply
    Ocyris 05/04/2009 4:31pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Your right labor didn’t choose. The American consumer chose. They decide they liked big SUVs and gas guzzlers. So that’s what American car companies made. In hindsight was it the right choice? Probably not, but hindsight is 20/20.

  • Comm_reply
    fortermlimits 08/26/2009 7:44pm

    You’re kidding right?!?

  • Comm_reply
    cmstever 11/06/2009 10:22pm

    well said

  • leehorton 03/12/2009 6:27am

    There was a time for Unions, and they may still do some good, though at best very little. I do not like Unions trying to Bully people around and trying to jam something down someone’s throt that wants nothing to do with them, sounds a lot like the Big Government we have been experienceing since the elections took place. Liberls are always trying to force us to accept something we do not want.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Comm_reply
    callagan 04/08/2009 6:51am

    You seem to be a self proclaimed “liberal” and concerned for the majority. The majority should be allowed to vote, in elections and for or against unions. The only way to ensure that the “majority” rules is to have fair and secret elections, not card-check strongarm tactics…Glad you have this compassion for the majority.

  • Comm_reply
    Ocyris 05/04/2009 4:23pm

    The Republicans lost their way. Liberals are like an over protective parent. At some point you’ve got to strike out on your own and take a few hits but if you survive you’ll be all the stronger for it.

    This bill provides no protection for those who have no desire to unionize. Their vote against a union might as well be a target painted on their back.

  • Comm_reply
    mizentropy 05/22/2009 8:18pm

    The problem with liberals is that they do not recognize the rights of the individual. They have a collectivist view of rights and pander to groups. If you are not part of that “group” then you have no rights.

  • Comm_reply
    bathukopian 05/28/2009 6:45pm

    What groups are you talking about?

  • Comm_reply
    cmstever 11/06/2009 10:44pm

    if you knew anything about political science you would know the liberalism about individual rights, it just so happens that a lot of the time individual rights and collective rights go hand in hand.

  • Comm_reply
    mizentropy 05/22/2009 8:16pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Liberals are only concerned for the majority who vote them in even if they are dead or illegal.

  • Comm_reply
    bathukopian 05/28/2009 6:42pm

    I get things forced at me from conservatives that I don’t want. So what’s your point?

  • Comm_reply
    mlaur 08/14/2009 5:51pm

    And, I don’t like employers who use the threat of losing one’s job as leverage to prevent organizing. There is power in numbers. As was evident in last election. And, there is less fear when one has others to stand beside them.

  • Comm_reply
    cmstever 11/06/2009 10:38pm

    before there were unions employers were directly responsible for the deaths of their workers and the day unions are no more i promise you history will repeat itself. and if big government is so bad then maybe we should privatize the police and the fire department and even the army it worked out great for Rome.

  • cj5 03/12/2009 10:14am

    Stop being so simple minded. Read the bill before you start slapping misnomers, and generalizations about unions and organized labor. The bill does not just acknowledge organizations, “whenever a petition shall have been filed by an EMPLOYEE or GROUP OF EMPLOYEES or ANY INDIVIDUAL or LABOR ORGANIZATION acting in their behalf alleging that a MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an INDIVIDUAL or LABOR ORGANIZATION for such purposes”. The free market capitalism that has run rampant on the U.S. economy, tearing apart all essences of fair practice has absolved all rights of employees to obtain any bargaining leverage, in order to gain a substantial living wage, reasonable health or medical benefits, or fair treatment in the workplace. Big business is not the only one allowed to be free to do what they will in a free market.

  • PhillyBuster 03/17/2009 6:27am

    There are way too many things wrong with this bill. The rights of the worker who wishes not to be represented by a union are destroyed. They are at the mercy of those employees who do not care about their job, or more generally resent successful people. I will give you an example. There is no stipulation for how long a signed card is good for. So, an employee, who doesn’t particularly care about there job, has a bad day. They decide to get back at their supervisor and they sign a card. Two weeks later that individual recognizes they made a mistake and reacted poorly to the situation. Their mistake is a permanent vote for the union, and they cannot take that back. They just impacted the rights of every employee whether they want a union or not. How is that “free” or “fair”?

    In addition, a union cannot be cast out by a majority of card signings in favor of removing the union. They would actually have to hold a private election to get it out. That is hypocrisy, period.

  • Comm_reply
    bathukopian 05/28/2009 6:49pm

    Your example highlights the thoughtlessness of an impulsive and irresponsible person. This is a poor example.

  • Comm_reply
    cmstever 11/06/2009 11:03pm

    its not hypocrisy, it is choice, there is a difference. Hypocrisy is when one preaches something and does another. Choice allows for someone to decide between two or more options, and there is no preaching involved.

    so your saying that because some hypothetical situation may occur, and could present a minor inconvenience to an employee, who in your scenario, didn’t particularly care about their job in the first place, the vast majority of people should miss out on all the good that can be achieved. what good things you may ask. Well, how about a livable wage for everyone. There was a time when a single income was enough for a family to not just survive but prosper on. How about having a voice in what happens in the work place, you know kinda like democracy, then people might take pride in there job.

  • versacold1 03/24/2009 6:01am

    Imagine what this vehicle will accomplish for social welfare in the United States if it passes. Slugs of tax payer dollars funding the organized labor machine. What a perfect landing platform being masterminded, mandated health care programas and “no choice benefits” for workers.
    Mainly the under performing employees would want what this bill offers,protectionism. That is the trade off, give up the opportunity for performance based advancement in companies. With this act in affect, seniority will rule. No merit, no motivation, no moral to be the best, every dead wood employee that don’t belong on the payrolls will rally behind this bill…I hate it!

  • Comm_reply
    cmstever 11/06/2009 11:15pm

    Social welfare? Is that anything like the General welfare that is found in the Constitution? What tax payer dollars are you talking about, unions are funded from within. did you know that the American people pay 2.6 trillion dollars on health care? American business would actually be able to compete with foreign companies if they didn’t have to pay for their employees health care. We are the only country that does that. “With this act in affect, seniority will rule. No merit, no motivation” do you have anything to base this off of or does it come from your biased guess. who needs a better work place, i sure don’t, i don’t like this bill either.

  • jazz836062 03/25/2009 9:12am

    My wife is from south-east Texas, where many oil refineries are. Most of the workers on those refineries are apart of a union. One of her ex-boyfriend’s father was not part of the union. When the union went on strike and the father was still going to work, the family received death threats and union strikers tried to burn down their house. Those same people would come up to your face and ask(force) you to join the union or pay the consequence. Needless to say I am against this in every: way, shape, and form. The reason for a secret ballot is so that people are not singled out and “influenced” to vote a certain way by force.

  • Comm_reply
    cmstever 11/06/2009 11:22pm

    well before unions management did the same thing, except they did burn down your house and they shot your family too (I’m not exaggerating, things like that happened its historical fact, Ludlow Massacre). and when you do cross the picket line you take away the unions power to do anything, and that means that your threatening the families of the union workers.

  • ronbar87 03/25/2009 9:20pm

    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.


Vote on This Bill

22% Users Support Bill

244 in favor / 842 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments