Sen. Martinez Repeats False Claims About The Employee Free Choice Act

Sen. Martinez Falsely Claims The Employee Free Choice Act Would Hurt The Economy

Sen. Martinez: "...the EFCA would have a devastating effect on Florida's and the nation's economies. It is important to understand what this legislation actually does." [Politico, 5/21/09]

However, it seems Sen. Martinez does not "understand what this legislation actually does..."

FACT: Higher Wages Create Consumer Activity.  The Center for American Progress Action Fund notes: "One of the primary reasons why our current recession endures is that workers do not have the purchasing power they need to drive our economy. Even when times were relatively good, workers were getting squeezed. Income for the median working age household fell by about $2,000 between 2000 and 2007, and it could fall even further as the economy continues to decline. Consumer activity accounts for roughly 70 percent of our nation's economy, and for a while workers were able to use debt to sustain their consumption. Yet debt-driven consumption is not sustainable, as we are plainly seeing. What is sustainable is an economy where workers are adequately rewarded and have the income they need to purchase goods." [Center for American Progress Action Fund, 2/18/09; emphasis added]

FACT: A Unionized Workforce Leads To Greater Productivity.  According to the Economic Policy Institute: "The dramatic drop in unionization in the United States from 1979 to 2005 did not lead to faster productivity growth than in the seven largest European countries with union density greater than 60%.  In fact, those countries' average annual labor productivity growth of 1.7% equaled productivity growth in the United States.  Output per hour worked is higher in the Netherlands, France, and Belgium, where more than 80% of employees have union contracts (compared to the United States' 12% unionization)." [Economic Policy Institute, 6/20/07]

Sen. Martinez Falsely Claims The Employee Free Choice Act Would Lead To Worker Intimidation By Unions

Sen. Martinez: "EFCA would put in place a 'card check' mechanism that would force workers to declare publicly whether they support a union - creating a scenario rife with opportunities for coercion and intimidation." [Politico, 5/21/09]

However, businesses - not unions - are the ones doing the intimidating...

Workers Are Forced To Attend Anti-Union Meetings, But Not Permitted To Speak Out. According to the Economic Policy Institute: "Anti-union campaign managers can campaign with every worker, throughout the workplace, and around-the-clock. Pro-union employees can campaign only on break time. Management can require employees to attend 'captive audience' anti-union meetings. Pro-union workers can be forced to attend - but denied the opportunity to speak out. Management can post anti-union messages on the workplace's walls and bulletin boards. But pro-union employees cannot make use of these facilities." [Economic Policy Institute, 1/29/09]

House Labor Committee: Businesses Are Able To Intimidate And Even Fire Workers Who Try To Organize Unions. According to the House Labor Committee: "Unlike employers, a union organizer can't fire you, cut your pay, or deny you a promotion. But, if you're an employee actively trying to organize your coworkers, you have a one in five chance of getting fired by your employer for simply exercising your democratic rights. Even a pro-business group could only find 42 cases of union deception and/or coercion in obtaining card signatures over the last 70 years. Contrast that with roughly 30,000 workers who received back pay from employers that had fired or illegally intimidated them for each year of the Bush administration. It's clear where the problem lies." [House Committee on Education and Labor, "EFCA: Fact vs. Myth," accessed 4/14/09]

• One Worker Every Eighteen Minutes Disciplined Or Fired For Union Activity. The National Labor Relations Board found that more than 29,000 people were disciplined or fired for union activity during fiscal year 2007. As noted by the Economic Policy Institute, that amounts to "one worker every 18 minutes." [NLRB Annual Report 2007, accessed 4/14/09; Economic Policy Institute, 1/29/09]

Coercion And Intimidation By Employers Is Increasing. According to the Economic Policy Institute: "Although the use of management consultants, captive audience meetings, and supervisor one-on-ones has remained fairly constant, there has been an increase in more coercive and retaliatory tactics ('sticks') such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment and other discipline, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions." [Economic Policy Institute, "No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition To Organizing," 5/20/09; emphasis added]

• Employers Threaten To Close Plants And Cut Wages. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute found that "employers threatened to close the plant in 57% of elections, discharged workers in 34%, and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47% of elections." [Economic Policy Institute, "No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition To Organizing," 5/20/09]

Sen. Martinez Falsely Claims (Again) The Employee Free Choice Act Eliminates The Secret Ballot

Sen. Martinez: "Sure, unions have seen their membership numbers decline in past years, but is the elimination of the secret ballot - a foundational function of democracy - an appropriate response?" [Politico, 5/21/09]

The myth that the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates the secret ballot has been repeatedly debunked...

CSM: "The Proposed Law Gives Workers A Choice Of Forming A Union Through Majority Sign-Up ('Card Check') Or An Election By Secret Ballot." In an article on the Employee Free Choice Act, the Christian Science Monitor wrote: "The proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot. The current election process, governed by the National Labor Relations Board, strongly favors employers, unions say.  The bill also beefs up penalties for employers that discriminate against workers for their union-organizing activity, including treble back pay for workers found to have been illegally fired." [Christian Science Monitor, 3/11/09]

PolitiFact: Employees "Could Ask for a Secret-Ballot Election." According to PolitiFact.com: "Just like before, if unions got more than 30 percent of the employees to sign cards, they could ask for a secret-ballot election." Additionally, the site wrote: "As a practical matter, secret-ballot elections would be far less frequent if the Employee Free Choice Act were passed. But they would still take place under certain circumstances..." [PolitiFact.com, 3/24/09]

NYT: "Business Groups Have Attacked The Legislation Because It Would Take Away Employers' Right To Insist On Holding A Secret-Ballot Election." As reported by the New York Times: "The bill would give workers the right to join a union as soon as a majority of employees at a workplace signed cards saying they wanted one. Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization." [New York Times, 11/8/08, emphasis added]