International Law

IFA Opposes New Card Check Law

Image via Wikipedia

In what is sure to be a controversial law, the IFA urged Congress to oppose the Card Check legislation.

"This legislation is not labor reform," David French, IFA vice president of Government Relations said in letters to every member of the House and Senate. 

"The legislation is an assault on the rights of employees and employers.  The bill's provisions have been specifically crafted to replace fairness in labor laws with expediency and will cause irreparable harm to the U.S. economy."

Opposition to EFCA is a top legislative priority for the IFA's members who represent more than 85 industries and employ more than 21 million workers.  Passage of this law would restrict IFA members' ability to grow their businesses and employ more people, harming the tax base of local economies and delaying recovery from the current economic recession. 

French explained that the EFCA mandates union recognition if a majority of employees in a designated bargaining unit signs authorization cards, but provides no safeguards to ensure that signatures are obtained fairly and freely.  The bill also provides for a binding arbitration process if a first contract is not agreed to within 120 days of union recognition. 

If enacted, parties to contract negotiations will have little incentive to bargain in good faith, and contracts ultimately will be imposed on workers and employers by a third party. 

Finally, the bill imposes dramatic new penalties on employers for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, but not a single new penalty is proposed for union or labor organizers. 

This is a very tough call for the AAFD and CFA, the two trade associations representing independent franchisee associations. On one hand, the AAFD would like to see more collaborative relations between franchisors and franchisees. But, on the other hand the AAFD must be aware of their member's opposition to any legislation which increases their own labour costs.

Be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Full post as published by Misleading Advertising Law on December 03, 2008 (boomark / email).