Muslims and the Employee Free Choice Act

By Affad Shaikh

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greater Los Angeles Area, Executive Director Hussam Ayloush and the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, Imam Mahdi Bray, jointly authored a statement on the significance of Muslims seeking justice in relationship to employment, to endorse the Employee Free Choice Act, dubbed the “Union Bill” by the media and opponent.

They state that the “major premise of the Employee Free Choice act is to safeguard the right of working people to receive that timely pay, as well as other rights and benefits that have come from the struggle of organized labor to represent the interest of the working class of the United States.”

Having management and employers address issues on a case by case basis, unfortunately, does not resolve all employment matters; resolution of issues around working conditions, wage and benefits are best leveraged when there is an ability to collectively bargain. Unions are formed on this very basis, after a long and protracted history of incidents between management and workers at a particular site, workers bring a vote on establishing a union. Which is a significant democratic undertaking; however, there are issues in the current process that need to be addressed.

The Employee Free Choice Act bridges the divide created between workers wishing to unionize, changing their relationship dynamic, and the employer that might feel threatened by the union presence. By closing loopholes, instituting financial penalties on management practices and bringing employers to resolve contract battles, the Act levels the playing fields between workers and management. In case after case, employers have controlled the election process that establishes a union at the site. It is important to point out that there are many examples of business working with unions, this standard is a small exception, and the Act ensures that it becomes the norm.

Opponents frame it as a “demise of a civilization”, “undemocratic” and “government intrusion” into private business. They push forward three myths- that it takes away the employee’s right to vote; that it will encourage unions to intimidate employees against their free will; and that business would suffer in a globally competitive economy.

Employees right to vote- The current rules of union organizing require that once a petition forming a union is publicized, the employer verifies each name on the petition; the employer can recognize the Union or call for an election based on secret ballot (a built in veto for employers). By law, the employer has full access to workers while union organizers are barred from setting foot on employer property and pro-union workers can only distribute literature on break time in break rooms.

In numerous cases the employer opts for secret ballot and through the petition verification process begins a campaign of worker intimidation, browbeating, harassment, demotions and firings of pro-union workers, leading up to a government run election; employers only face what amounts to a slap on the wrist for its anti-union practices. The Employee Free Choice Act would simply take out the veto power from the employer by forcing management to recognize the union and not use the election to mold employee behavior.

Intimidate workers free will- Opponents suggest that unions intimidate workers into unionizing, and that the Act will only further curtail individual free will. Jeff Medrick, editor of the economics journal Challenge, said that “some 50 million non-unionized workers, say that they definitely or probably would join one (a union) if given an option”, however only 15.7 million are in a union today. Further, studies by Professor Thomas A. Kochan and John Paul Ferguson, from MIT Sloan School of Management, used federal data to track 22,000 union organizing drives from 1999 to 2005 where the majority of workers choose to unionize. They found that “only one in five cases (out of the 22,000 attempts) that filed an election petition ultimately reached a first contract between management and workers”.

This means that even though the majority of employees wanted union representation, they have a 1-in-5 chance of succeeding with management. It is not surprising, as 92% of employers force employees to attend a mandatory anti-union training during the election process, amongst the various other tactics employed to intimidate and create a sense of fear amongst workers trying to unionize. Given these conditions, one sees that the Employee Free Choice Act is a necessary piece of legislation to protecting individual free will, workers freedom of association and to allow all to successfully seek just working conditions, wages, and benefits.

Business would suffer- The Employee Free Choice Act also forces penalties and mandatory arbitration between the newly established union and management, according to opponents, this is an “improper intrusion into private business affairs” and would impact the ability of business. Under the current framework, employers not only use fear and intimidation tactics toward employees, but employers also utilize protracted and costly legal actions that create barriers to establish and sign the first contract. Management uses attrition to wear down union support, and tactics toward workers to set examples of acceptable “employee behavior”. The Employee Free Choice Act allows for a smoother transitioning of management-employee relations, specifically by penalizing tactics that intimidate workers through fines and penalties; it sets strict time lines for contract negotiation between the union and management in order to implement the workers democratic choice; and, finally, it forces federal arbitration for those limited situations of irreconcilable differences between the union and management.

As American Muslims, there is not only a religious obligation, but also a historical precedence for to support worker rights. Naji Daifullah, a 29 year old Yemeni migrant worker in California’s central valley was a key organizer in the struggle for farm worker rights, along with Ceaser Chavez and Dolores Huerta. In the summer of 1973, thousands of grape workers struck for just wages and working conditions in the farm fields. Daifullah, among others, organized the strike and picket lines where some 3,500 workers including men, women and children were beaten by local sheriffs. Daifullah is a forgotten hero because he was killed by a sheriff who struck him on the head with a metal flashlight, but none the less a central figure to bringing a diverse group of people together for farm workers struggle.

As our economy falters, all Americans are concerned, as we see the gulf between economic classes widen with the disappearance of the middle class. Unions have historically brought more Americans into the middle class and provided opportunities for union children to climb the economic ladder. The Employee Free Choice Act is necessary to establishing a strong and vibrant American economy.

In this spirit, American Muslims should not just symbolically endorse the Employee Free Choice Act, in fact, the current Congressional recess and the campaign against the Act; require that we all take an individual invested interest. Justice for all employees requires our conscience to take extra step. You can call your Congressional Representative and Senator; tell them as an American Muslim and constituent, you expect nothing but full support of the Employee Free Choice Act when it comes to a vote.