Many workers’ groups and unions such as the AFL-CIO argue that The Employee Free Choice Act is a landmark step in the fight for workers’ rights. It enables workers and unions to push for recognition, despite resistance from employers. But others argue that the act restricts the right of workers to a free and secret ballot, by imposing a ‘card check‘.

The Bill is intended to amend the existing National Labour Relations Act to make it easier for unions to gain recognition. The aim of the act is to increase workers’ opportunities to organise to improve their working and living conditions, and to reduce the power of businesses to stall the process or retaliate against workers who attempt to organise.

The Bill provides for workers to file a petition to have an organisation recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining, without the requirement of holding an election. Unions claim that the organisation of elections can be used by employers to delay the process of recognition and intimidate and coerce workers to prevent them from voting in favour of a union.

The Bill would require that the petition show the majority of workers within the bargaining unit have authorised an organisation to represent them. Once the organisation has been authorised, it and the employer would have 90 days in which they can conclude a collective bargaining agreement. If they are not able to come to an agreement, they must go through mediation and, if necessary, arbitration in order to do so.

The Bill requires that employers do not engage in anti-union campaigning activities during the recognition or bargaining processes or act in a discriminatory way towards union members and activists. If the employer engages in such activities then they would potentially be subject to remedial actions such as fines or paying workers back pay.

One contentious issue (aside from businesses’ concerns that forced recognition of unions would sound a death knell for them in a time of economic recession) seems to be that the views of named workers are revealed through a ‘card check’ or ‘majority authorisation ballot’. However, under the current system majority authorisation is required to show that there is support for the union, but does not result in recognition. Instead the site moves to a secret ballot, while the employer is in possession of signed authorisation slips from all workers who are in support of the union.

By enforcing recognition after the majority authorisation, without requiring a ballot, unions are far more likely to be recognised and there is no opportunity for employers to affect the decisions of employees. In Impactt’s view this is a step forward in US trade union law, which should strengthen workers’ bargaining power and allow them greater opportunities to protect their own interests.

Impactt’s own research has shown that where there are effective unions in place at a work site, workers are more likely to be paid the minimum wage and overtime premiums, and be treated fairly. They are also less likely to work excessive hours or be fined. The promotion of good labour standards is facilitated most effectively through a representative union. In Impactt’s opinion, the strengthening of workers’ ability to unionise will promote workers’ rights and improve labour standards across the USA.   

Perhaps the most high profile Tesco critic of recent weeks is the US Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidential election – Barack Obama. Mr Obama recently wrote to Tesco Chief Executive Sir Terry Leahy encouraging the retailer to engage with Trade Unions, after the management of the company’s US operation – Fresh & Easy – refused to have discussions with UFCW, a grocery workers’ union.

At the same time, Tesco is also under pressure from War on Want and Labour Behind the Label who have undertaken research into the living standards of workers in some of Tesco’s Indian suppliers. The two organisations claim that workers earn an average of £38 a month – £14 below the estimated living wage of £52 per month, while working long hours and even having to do forced overtime shifts. The report also claims that workers are put under pressure to meet onerous targets, and are fired if they fail to do so.

Tesco has responded to the War on Want allegations saying they were ‘unsubstantiated’, they have criticised War on Want for declining to engage with the supermarkets. “Out of the blue they make these allegations without producing any evidence,” Tesco said.

In the UK, meanwhile, TV cook Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is encouraging Tesco to improve the welfare of the intensively reared chickens that it procures. Animal welfare campaign groups have also focussed on the sale of live turtles in Tesco stores in China

Labour standards are now an established issue at the Tesco AGM. Last year War on Want filed a shareholder resolution focused on living wages in Bangladesh. In 2006, Action Aid brought South African farm-worker Gertruida Baartman to address the shareholders. The debate around Primark shows that these issues are only growing in consumers’ awareness and we can expect more calls for retailers to respond.