Even though this past year was a disappointing one for Big Labor from the perspective that they weren’t able to get enacted into law their top priority, the job-killing Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act, that does not mean that the small business community can rest on its laurels. The fact is after spending half a billion dollars to get pro-labor candidates including President Barack Obama elected, union bosses like Andy Stern, Richard Trumka and Gerald McEntee expect “payback”.
And that isn’t just a safe assumption. They have said as much. Shortly after the 2008 election concluded, McEntee told The Washington Times, “EFCA was ‘payback’ for the labor movement’s massive campaign effort for Mr. Obama and the Democrats.”
While there have been numerous and significant political “payback[s]” for the union bosses over the course the year, Big Labor’s top priority remains EFCA and we know they will say and do anything to receive this bailout which would hand them more political power and resources. In fact, in the first decade alone, the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act would ensure union heads have at least 35 billion additional dollars to reward supporters and punish opponents. But that leads one to ask, who are their opponents?
In this case, Members of Congress rejecting EFCA are opponents, as are small business owners and workers who are against the forced unionization that would result from enacting this legislation. So, elected representatives holding positions in line with the public at large, and the public itself would be targeted by the union bosses. This means, the sole beneficiaries are Big Labor and their supporters on Capitol Hill who happen to owe them.
EFCA would increase union membership by taking away workers’ fundamental rights to cast secret-ballot votes during union-organizing elections. It would make it easier for unions to get new members since this card check system would require workers’ public declaration of either support or opposition to having their workplaces unionized, thereby opening them up to coercion and intimidation.
In addition, workers would have no vote in their own negotiations, including terms for wages, benefits, or workplace conditions since the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act would give government bureaucrats the ability to mandate contract terms for at least two years without the consent of the employer or employee.