cleIMC home

Cleveland Indy Media Center

cleveland indymedia
About Us Contact Us Subscribe Calendar Radio Show Publish
white themeblack themered themeblack themeblack themeblack themeblack themeblack themeblack themeblack themetheme help


Sep 20 Real Time Presentation Service from Money Maker Ma

Sep 25 Columbus Socialism Forum -- Why You Should Vote So

Add an Event





printable version - email this article

Open Letter to All Republican Senators on a Possible Employee Free Choice Act Compromise
by Employee Free Choice News Monday, Apr. 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM

By using my dual-purpose membership card as a universal card instead of using the current language under the present S.560 bill, there is no question anymore as to whether or not the Employee Free Choice Act 2009 eliminates “Secret Ballot” elections. Under my proposal it would not.



April 20, 2009

Via First-Class Mail

All Republican Senators

Senate Office Building

Washington DC 20510

Re: S. 560 and H.R. 1409 and Employee Free Choice Act 2009

Dear Senators:

I would like to introduce myself. My name is Steven Maritas. I am the Organizing Director for the International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), the largest, oldest and fastest growing 9(b) 3 union in the United States today.

SPFPA specializes in the representation of security police who are entrusted to protect high profile facilities such as the Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Labor, Ronald Reagan Building, Disney, Cape Canaveral, NASA, nuclear facilities and many other state and federal facilities all across the United States.

Since there are only a few certifiable 9(b)(3) unions that can be certified by the National Labor Relations Board, SPFPA is at the forefront of the labor movement in regards to organizing security police officers nationwide. Most recently, the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) had listed the SPFPA once again in the top 15 most active unions in respect to organizing in 2007, which is a record I am proud of and have maintained since becoming Organizing Director back in 2002.

The reason for more letter is twofold. One is to state that both the SPFPA International Union and myself are very much in support of passing S. 560 and H.R. 1409 and Employee Free Choice Act 2009 in its current form. However this can only be accomplished if at least one Republican Senator votes in favor of cloture in order to receive the 60 votes needed to end debate.



While I am very much aware that every Republican Senator at this time will not support bill S. 560 in its current form my first question to you is are you open to any sort of compromise? Yes or no.

My second question relates to the card check provision in bill S. 560. Both Republican Senators and big business continue to state that the Employee Free Choice Act 2009 in its current form (See below) would eliminate “Secret Ballot” elections, which I would disagree. However If the card check provision as a stand alone bill was reintroduced to clearly define an employees right to choose whether or not he or she wishes to choose between a “Secret Ballot” election or to waive their right to a “Secret Ballot” election would you be open to compromise to support such a bill?

If you read the wording of both S. 560 and H.R. 1409 and Employee Free Choice Act 2009 you will see that it clearly states:

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

Based on the above the Board shall not direct an election if majority status is proven.

Before you answer this question I would first like to introduce to you a dual-purpose membership card, which was designed by me back in January 2009.

The intent of this dual-purpose membership card is to give the employee not the National Labor Relations Board, not the union, and not management, the authority to choose which method to be used in forming a union, specifically written and spelled out on this dual-purpose membership card.

Dual-Purpose Membership Card A Winning Solution that would NOT eliminate “Secret Ballot” elections.



By using my dual-purpose membership card as a universal card instead of using the current language under the present S.560 bill, there is no question anymore as to whether or not the Employee Free Choice Act 2009 eliminates “Secret Ballot” elections. Under my proposal it would not.


See Amending The Employee Free Choice Act. A Compromise Every Union Can Live With. Press Here

Under this method a simple majority of 50 plus 1 would now be eliminated since the majority of employees would now have to waive their right to a “secret ballot” election for recognition to be achieved vs. the current proposal.

Furthermore the general public would look more favorably on this method vs. its current form since once again it is the employee who decides which method to choose not the National Labor Relations Board, not the union, and not management, the Employee, giving new meaning and spirit to the Employee Free Choice Act.

See Thinking Outside The Box to Get The Employee Free Choice Act EFCA Passed Press Here

At this time I would also point out a few facts in support of the Employee Free Choice Act 2009 and the use of the dual-purpose membership card compromise as a stand-alone bill.

1. Card checks are “long accepted and sectioned by the Board “Rockwell International., 220 NLRB at 1263.

2. Union elections are already held by either secret ballot or by card check. However the employer currently determines the process. What the Employee Free Choice Act 2009 is asking is that the workers who are voting choose the method of election.

3. While those oppose the Employee Free Choice Act 2009 argue that union organizers would still use intimidation, fear, coercion, peer pressure and other tactics during an organizing campaign the same would be true under an anti-union employer driven campaign. The Supreme Court stated in Gissel, “ may be Group Pressure” may be “equally present in an election,” and employee generally “ should be bound by clear language of what they sign…”Gissel, supra 604,606 which my dual-purpose membership card clearly presents.

4. Under the present system the above arguments would still exist. Nothing changes in regards to card signing under either system. However the Act already provides recourse for employees who believe that a union used coercion in soliciting cards under Section (b)(1)(A). See, e.g., Gulf Caribe Maritime, Inc., 330 NLRB 766 fn. 3 (2000).

5. While those oppose the Employee Free Choice Act 2009 argue that under Dana Corporation coercion and a number of illegal methods were used to obtain signatures, there is no genuine empirical support for these claims and the majority of the Board who ruled in this particular case concedes that there is NO evidence in the record that “the authorization cards were coercively obtained or otherwise tainted.” Dana Corp., NLRB 1283 (2004)

In conclusion, I ask that you take the time to respond to my questions in writing as to your positions. Please note this letter has also been forwarded to Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, Congressman Miller and Stewart Acuff Assistant to the President AFL-CIO. All responses will be forwarded to them as well.

Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, EFCA, EFCA Compromise, Employee Free Choice,Free Choice, Free Choice Act, Labor Unions, Unions, Union Blogs, Workers Rights, Republicans, Senators,Steve Maritas, SPFPA

add your comments


LATEST COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 1 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by the website visitors.
TITLE AUTHOR DATE
SEIU President Stern Considers Alternatives to EFCA Washington Post Alec MacGillis Monday, Apr. 20, 2009 at 11:55 PM
IMC Network: www.indymedia.org Projects print radio satellite tv video Africa ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq nigeria south africa Canada hamilton maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg East Asia burma jakarta japan manila qc Europe alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol bulgaria croatia cyprus estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege lille madrid malta marseille nantes netherlands nice norway oost-vlaanderen paris/île-de-france poland portugal romania russia scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia west vlaanderen Latin America argentina bolivia brasil chiapas chile chile sur colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso Oceania adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne oceania perth qc sydney South Asia india mumbai United States arizona arkansas atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado danbury, ct dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk idaho ithaca kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma omaha philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca seattle tallahassee-red hills tampa bay tennessee united states urbana-champaign utah vermont virginia beach western mass worcester West Asia armenia beirut israel palestine ukraine Topics biotech Process discussion fbi/legal updates indymedia faq mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer

© 2000-2006 Cleveland Indy Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Cleveland Indy Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy