Government, Courts, and the World of Work

In 2002, EANJ surveyed its member-employers on whether they informed employees of the political positions that they were taking and whether they engaged employees in political discussions. Of 157 respondents, one in four (25%) stated that they informed employees of political views and positions.

In 2006, the NJ Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, the Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act.  As first introduced, the purpose of the bill was to restrict the employer’s right to discuss labor unions, but since this type of speech is protected by the National Labor Relations Act, the bill was revised to cover political, civic and religious issues and opinions.

This week EANJ did a follow up survey. 205 employers responded. Only 7 reported that they engaged employees in political discussions.  While we can only speculate as to whether this dramatic decline in political speech is attributable to the chilling effect of the Act, it is apparent  that the Act is preempted by federal law and violates employers’ First Amendment rights.

The law also harms the public. Of the seven employers noted above, 4 are nonprofit organizations. This makes sense, considering that most nonprofits have a direct stake in who gets elected and what laws get passed. Since most nonprofits are prohibited from lobbying, they often engage in educational programs for employees, clients and other stakeholders. Sadly, in addition to violating employers’ free speech rights,  the Act chills organizational speech that serves the public interest.

Unions have long argued that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is skewed in favor of employers. Generally, the NLRA requires a union to win a secret-ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board before a bargaining unit can be legally recognized.  Unions claim that employers unfairly pressure and intimidate employees during the election campaign.

In June 2008, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (EFCA) fell nine votes short of the sixty needed to limit Senate debate on the bill, which would have amended the NLRA by eliminating supervised secret ballot elections and instead require union recognition when a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign valid authorization cards.

Critics of the Free Choice Act believe that it will lead to the intimidation of employees by labor organizers in order to get the cards signed.

Advocates of the Act point to a Human Rights Watch report issued in 2007 that charged Wal-Mart with creating a climate of “fear and intimidation” in its efforts to quash union activity by using an “arsenal of tactics” that includes dispatching a rapid-response team.

The Democratic nominee for the presidency Barack Obama has strongly endorsed the Act. The Republican nominee John McCain strongly opposes enactment.

EANJ’s Annual Meeting on June 20th will provide an overview of What’s On the Horizon, including a summary of the Free Choice Act.

http://www.eanj.org/calendar/CalendarEventDetail.asp?CGUID=%7B0D60E052%2D6C1B%2D4762%2D8B51%2DE2DDEF615EEF%7D&CIID=ent%5F1430&CIV=11