In the letter, CDW urged members of the Senate and House "to oppose all efforts to pass any provision included in the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA H.R. 800/S. 1041 in the 110th Congress)."



"We wanted to take the opportunity to remind members of Congress of the overwhelming opposition from the business community, their constituents and union households to this anti-worker legislation," said Brian Worth with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. "This bill is a job-killer and fundamentally undemocratic."



The letter also stated:



"This legislation poses not only an assault on an individual's right to privacy, but a direct threat to economic growth and job creation.



Particularly at a time of economic uncertainty, Congress should not enact measures that threaten our economic competitiveness, including the Employee Free Choice Act.



Furthermore, this legislation would have a particularly devastating impact on small employers who are the primary source for new jobs in our economy."



President-elect Obama's Administration and the new Congress will face its first true test early next year in the form of the anti-worker Employee Free Choice Act -- that allows unionization without secret ballots for workers. This Act, more aptly titled the Employee "Forced" Choice Act, is nothing short of a full-frontal assault on American democracy and worker privacy. Backed by union special interests and their Congressional allies, the anti-worker bill would effectively strip employees of the right to vote in private when deciding whether or not to join a union.



"It's ironic that members of Congress, all of whom were just elected by secret ballot, would even consider legislation that would remove that right for millions of American workers," added Worth.



CDW survey data indicates that support for maintaining private ballots in union organizing cuts across party lines. By a significant majority, Democrats, Republicans and Independents support maintaining a worker's right to cast their vote in private. Even among union households, a significant majority (69%) oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. And 76% of union voters say having a federally supervised secret ballot election is the best way to protect workers' rights when organizing a union.



A copy of CDW's January 7, 2009 letter to Congress is available at www.MyPrivateBallot.com.



About the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace



The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace is made up of more than 500 associations and organizations from every state across the nation that have joined together to protect a worker's right to a private ballot when deciding whether to join a union. In 2008, CDW embarked on a multi-million dollar public education campaign in key states that included polling, television, radio and internet ads and direct mail. For more information and a listing of our membership, please visit www.MyPrivateBallot.com.



Source: Coalition for a Democratic Workplace



------------------------------------------------------------



Despite the need for reform, critics of EFCA continue to misinform the public about the bill and hide the serious shortcomings of current labor law. Democrats are committed to setting the record straight and passing this important legislation on behalf of American workers and their families.



MYTH: EFCA will prevent the use of secret-ballot elections.



REALITY: EFCA does not strip workers of their right to choose a secret-ballot election to decide whether to select -- or not to select -- a union representative. EFCA simply gives workers the additional option of selecting a union representative by majority sign-up.



For More Information on EFCA please visit these websites



http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org



http://efcanow.blogspot.com/



What the Employee Free Choice Act Really Does is Takeaway The Employers ability to use FEAR and Intimidation AGAINST ITS WORKERS in the form of UNION-BUSTING Tactics.



Employer Anti-Union Behavior Is Widespread

Findings from a new report reveal that most employers take full advantage of the opportunity to tread on workers’ rights to a “free choice” before a union representation vote. They do this by aggressively intimidating, harassing, and coercing workers in an effort to undermine union support.



Among employers faced with organizing campaigns:



30% of employers fire pro-union workers.



49% of employers threaten to close a worksite when workers try to form a union, but only 2% actually do.



51% of employers coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism.



82% of employers hire high-priced unionbusting consultants to fight union organizing drives.



91% of employers force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors.



Employer Anti-Union Behavior Impedes Union Organizing

The report confirms that union membership in the United States is not declining because workers no longer want, need, or attempt to form unions. Instead, the falling membership rate is related to employers’ systematic use of legal and illegal tactics to stymie union organizing.



Aided by a weak labor law system that fails to protect workers’ rights, employers manipulate the government-supervised union recognition process in a way that allows them to abuse their power and significantly influence the outcome of union representation elections.



In 91% of the union recognition petitions filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the survey, a majority of workers indicated they wanted a union before the process began. In several cases, workers demonstrated more than 80% support.



Seven Sophisticated Unionbuster Techniques Employers use to Intimidate their Employees



Supervisors as Frontline Soldiers: Supervisors, who themselves have no legally protected right to be represented by a union, are manipulated into delivering anti-union letters, speeches, and informal chats prepared by unionbusters, essentially doing the dirty work of the unionbusters and management.



One-on-One Meetings: During organizing drives, 78 percent of workers are forced to attend closed-door or isolated meetings with supervisors.5 These aren’t friendly impromptu chats, but well-planned meetings to decipher employees’ feelings about the union and persuade them against the union.



Captive Audience Meetings: So-called ‘captive audience’ meetings are held for employees during work hours to disseminate propaganda against union representation and to attempt to discredit the union. Employees are almost always required to attend, but union organizers may be intentionally disinvited. Often, the meetings are rigged so that workers who are already against the union are assigned to ask questions to sow misinformation.



Delay: Unionbusters often attempt to delay union representation elections by legal maneuvers so they have more time to implement other tactics needed to increase tension, dissension and the employer’s chance of winning the election.



Divide & Conquer: The unionbuster creates opportunities and crafts persuasive messages to make employees feel that there is a tense division among staff concerning the union election. They may go so far as to pit one group of employees against each other, based on race or ethnicity.



Letters, letters, letters: A unionbuster’s specialty is hammering out materials—be it cartoons, leaflets or management correspondence—to make the case against the union. 92 percent of companies involved in organizing drives mail anti-union materials to employees’ homes.



Love offerings: In order to convince employees that they don't need a union, unionbusters may advise clients to provide indirect bribes, like unexpected increases in wages or benefits or ‘feel good’ measures like free food and lottery tickets.



http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/ARAWReports/UROCUEDcompressedfullreport.pdf



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n2_v46/ai_15515998/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

Why Does The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace Continues to Spread More Lies about the EFCA?

Why Does The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace Continues to Spread More Lies about the EFCA?