Steve Forbes: EFCA's Binding Arbitration Is Bad For Workers
In Politico today, Steve Forbes opines that EFCA's "Binding arbitration is still bad for workers." Forbes reviews and criticizes the potential "compromised" version of EFCA recently reported to be under consideration. After noting again the problems with "quick elections," he then explains:
EFCA would allow federal bureaucrats to mandate contract terms on businesses and eliminate an employee’s right to vote on that contract. Those mandates on wages, benefits and workplace conditions would increase costs and burdens on employers resulting in massive layoffs and increased unemployment. These contracts would be binding for two years, which raises the question: In this economy, how many businesses would be able to last that long?
The whole piece is worth a read. Forbes' conclusion:
The small-business community is committed to defeating this legislation and will not be fooled by attempts to soften the language to secure 60 votes only to reinstall poisonous provisions later in the process. And according to Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern, that’s exactly what union bosses intend to do.
It is clear that Big Labor will say and do anything to move this legislation forward and that it is not concerned with the integrity of the debate or whether businesses and our economy can withstand the results. Big Labor’s concern is not for workers but the bottom line of the organizations they have mismanaged.
Our bottom line is that it is nonnegotiable that workers must have a say on the terms of contracts that deal with their wages, benefits and workplace conditions. And it is nonnegotiable that workers have the right to vote via secret ballot and be afforded enough time to make an informed decision about unionization.
