by Mike Eastman

The campaign to enact the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is based on two principal arguments: the first being that the National Labor Relations Board is biased against unions and the second being that employers are inherently evil.

We aren’t hearing so much of the first argument these days. In fact, after the President appoints new Members to the National Labor Relations Board and the Board starts issuing decisions, we expect organized labor will be singing an entirely different tune on this point.

Instead, supporters of EFCA continue to demonize employers.

Their latest salvo is a report by Kate Bronfenbrenner for the Economic Policy Institute that alleges a high number of employers use illegal action when faced with a union campaign, including threatening plant closure, firing workers, and threatening to cut wages and benefits.

Bronfenbrenner has issued similar reports in the past that supporters of EFCA have relied on, such as a September 2000 report with similar conclusions.

While we have not finished digesting the latest report, and will surely have more to say about it later, one thing is crystal clear from reading the report’s methodology. The data that Bronfenbrenner relies on to show employer misdeeds comes not from some unbiased source, but from surveys of union organizers.

Not surprisingly, the surveys of union organizers yield a much higher rate of alleged illegal conduct than NLRB data suggest. Perhaps this is why Bronfenbrenner spends considerable time discussing NLRB charge data and positing reasons why unions might not file charges.

What is missing from this discussion is the simple fact that NLRB “charges” are simply allegations, nothing more. Unions routinely file frivolous charges as part of the organizing process and especially as part of corporate campaigns designed to force the employer to capitulate to union demands (for more on corporate campaigns, see Trends in Union Corporate campaigns: A Briefing Book). In fact, as NLRB data show, the NLRB does not issue complaints in most cases as most charges are found to not have merit or are otherwise disposed of.

One other point worth noting is that the report is not only critical of illegal tactics allegedly used by employers, but also legal tactics, especially those related to employer free speech. It’s no secret that organized labor would repeal employer free speech rights if they could, but that would be at least as controversial as proposing to eliminate the secret ballot.

For a more balanced view of the NLRB organizing process, please visit our Responding to the Union Rhetoric web site at: www.uschamber.com/unionrhetoric