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.   

We would like to congratulate the swift work of those who have campaigned on this issue, and have achieved a meaningful win for working conditions!

 This comes only two weeks after agency workers’ rights were dealt a blow in the form of a judgement in the Court of Appeal, which confirmed a prior ruling that agency workers cannot claim an employment relationship between worker and labour user, regardless of the amount of time they may have worked in a particular role. 

Gordon Brown’s support of a new Temporary and Agency Workers’ Commission seeks to bring together two parties (the TUC and CBI) that have historically had different views on the provision of rights to temporary and agency workers in the UK.  Both parties have taken radically different stances towards the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill which is due to have its second reading in Parliament later this month.   The Bill, which is sponsored by Andrew Miller MP, seeks to extend the rights of agency workers towards equality with those of permanent employees.  

This appears to be a significant turn around by the Labour government that had blocked the Temporary Agency Work Directive which has been stalled in the EU Parliament since 2002, largely due to the actions of Britain and Ireland. The Directive’s future now looks much rosier thanks to the fact that France takes over the presidency of the EU later this year.  

The TUC has championed the opinion that the labour force should be de-casualised and that all workers should have equal employment rights. The CBI has argued that the blocking of the Directive in the EU was a cause for celebration and that millions of jobs in the UK would have been lost if the Directive had been ‘bullied through Brussels’.  

The step by Brown is said to represent a move away from the ‘Blairite’ policies of the Labour party, and a return to their core values, which include equal treatment. The commission is set to establish a process to identify comparable full time workers and therefore determine what equal pay and conditions would look like for agency workers, and how this might work under any future EU directives. 

However, some MPs and unionists have condemned the move, arguing that it is yet another stalling tactic on the part of the government. They argue that the commission will appear to support the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, but will actually prevent it becoming law, and will waste time on assessing the current rights of such workers, which have long been known to be inadequate and open to exploitation. Today’s Guardian reports that union leaders fear that the formation of the commission is being pushed forward in order to prevent a likely backbench rebellion on the Bill.  

Impactt has promoted the rights of all workers, including agency and temporary workers, through our work conducting assessments and training.  Much of our work on this issue has focused on mediating towards the provision of permanent jobs for long term agency workers, and ensuring that the reliance on agency labour is kept to a minimum, covering seasonal peaks in production, holidays and sick absences. This practice allows long term agency workers to move into permanent positions with full employment rights, and allows companies to utilise a relatively casual workforce whilst increasing their permanent capacity.   

By adopting a proactive approach to the use of agency labour, workplaces can ensure that they minimise the likelihood of exposure to media campaigns and negative coverage as a result of differential treatment of staff on their site.  Once the commission is established, Impactt encourages all interested parties to submit responses in order to ensure a fully effective process.  We also keenly await reports on the upcoming second reading of the Bill on Friday and believe that the increased attention that the two Parliamentary measures, and the EU Directive, are bringing to the debate will only reinforce the message to employers; and thereby benefit a section of the labour force that has been largely invisible for some time.