Card Check: More Dissembling from Labor on Arbitration

By April 14, 2009Labor Unions

From the Huffington Post and Art Levine, yet another perfervid propagandist for the Employee Free Choice Act, pushing back against business’s opposition to the binding arbitration provisions:

[Binding arbitration] aims to put an end to the delays and stalling that lead nearly half of all union election victories to never achieve a first contract for workers. As David Madland , director of the American Worker Project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, points out, “The basic rationale for arbitration is that employers who want to remain anti-union continue their anti-union campaign after a union’s recognized: they delay, stall, and avoid negotiating a first contract.”

Delays? Stalls? The facts say otherwise. the National Labor Relations Board’s 2008 annual report — a non-partisan document – Chairman Peter Schaumber on behalf of the Board says:

“There are those who have expressed a view that the Board’s representation processes take too long. Our performance in FY 2008, as in prior years, demonstrates that those concerns are not warranted. NLRB elections are held expeditiously. Indeed, our latest statistics show that initial elections are held within a median of 38 days, one day less than the 39 median days achieved in FY 2007, and 95.1 percent of all initial elections are conducted within 56 days of the filing of the petition, compared to 93.9 percent in FY 2007.” (Emphasis added)

As Pat Cleary comments: “It has been discouraging how the facts have been routinely discarded throughout this debate. The unions’ henchmen – and women – in the Congress are often heard railing about election delays as a central reason for undermining democracy. From a plain examination of the facts, it looks like they’d better find another argument.”

Or they’ll just shout louder.

UPDATE: A commenter notes that your blogger has erroneously conflated the delays in holding an election versus the delays in reaching a first contract. Agreed. It’s a result of careless reading. The points hold individually. We’ll leave it up as ….transparency.

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • John C says:

    Concerned IAM Member has a valid point–the Schaumber and Cleary quotes address the election process, not the binding arbitration issue. Levine says that “nearly half of all union election victories never achieve a valid contract. I don’t believe that for a second. But what are the actual numbers. How often do certified unions not receive contracts?

  • Do you understand the difference between post election collective bargaining and the amount of time it takes to hold an election after cards are signed? Two completely different things.

Leave a Reply