A good discussion about the tactics that may be used to “replace” the EFCA can be read here.
The scary bottom line of what Democrats want you to see as their willingness to compromise on this hideously rights-eroding matter is that whether or not people are or are not allowed to properly vote for unionization (meaning vote by secret ballots instead of by public humiliation), when union contract terms are in negotiation, it will become very, very easy to call for “binding arbitration”. And who’re they gonna call? None of than those shining knights in government. The very same government that owes very big favors to the unions that shoved Barack Obama into the spotlight. And such call for conflict-of-interest “arbitration” can be done after only 90 days of – shall we use the President’s favorite word here? – dialogue between the union and the employer.
The Senate intends to hold sessions – starting tomorrow – to discuss the EFCA, though they are being cagey and not going to mention it by name; instead they have given it the dubiously grandious title of: “Rebuilding Economic Security: Empowering Workers to Restore the Middle Class”. And in deference to their claims of bipartisanship and fairness, they will have one person testifying at the hearing (out of 7 or 8, depending on your source) against the EFCA.
I don’t know about you, but I’m getting very, very tired of this government telling me what to do. If I want to join a unionized company, I will. If I don’t, I won’t. It’s really that simple. I believe that to force unionization on an employer is, in many instances, flat-out wrong. It is not only wrong but unethical and immoral to do so when the workers would prefer no union but are put in the position of trying to take a stand against the big-money bullying and humiliation tactics used by the well-funded union organizers.
Kinda like what the Demon-crats are trying to do with this issue.