The biggest concern with
possibly enacting the Employee Free Choice Act is not the so-called
card-check measure, which would make union organizing easier; it is
the lesser known binding arbitration clause, argues former U.S.
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in an article Wednesday on
politico.com.
He called the arbitration
provisions of recently discussed proposals threats to the economy and
personal freedoms. Labor and the business
community have made the EFCA a top political battleground in recent
months. Long-term care providers and most employers are against the
EFCA.
Although support for the bill has apparently waned enough over
the past few weeks to keep it off the Senate voting schedule, there
is concern that a modified proposal could re-emerge.
Bad idea, Gingrich argues,
especially if it includes the current arbitration proposal, which
calls for binding federal arbitration if workers and owners can't
come to an agreement over wages and benefits within 120 days of a
successful union organizing effort. Gingrich says union bosses could
simply make outlandish demands during contract negotiations with the
hopes that the National Labor Relations Board will exercise its
influence in favor of the unions.
Supporters of the
legislation say the arbitration clause is designed to prevent
employers from dragging out contract negotiations after a union has
been formed. Under the bill, if after 30 days no contract has been
agreed upon, an arbitration board would put together a two-year
contract that would be binding to both parties, “unless amended
during such period by written consent of the parties.”