June 12, 2017
CONTACT: Ryan Williams


Why Labor Needs Its Own ERA


Heather Greenaway
June 12, 2017
Washington Examiner

The labor landscape has changed a great deal from the days of our parents. Union participation has declined sharply, down to about 10 percent of the workforce.

Yet despite the widespread change in workforce dynamics, there has not been a comprehensive update to American labor laws since 1947, when the U.S. Senate and the House voted to override President Harry Truman’s veto of the Taft-Hartley Act.

There is no question that 1947 is different from 2017. Jackie Robinson debuted with the Brooklyn Dodgers just months prior to Taft-Hartley’s passage. Chuck Yeager did not break the sound barrier for the first time until October of that year.

While wholesale changes to labor law have not taken place, what has changed is that government bureaucrats at the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board have chipped away at the rights of workers and business, handing over more power and influence to union bosses.

Thankfully, there is an opportunity to protect workers against the assault on their rights that has been so pronounced in particular over the last eight years under the previous administration.

Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., has introduced the Employee Rights Act of 2017, which is aimed at giving a say to workers who, through intimidation and abuses of power, have lost their ability to have their voices heard and stand up for themselves.

It is incredibly difficult for union members to vote on whether they want to be represented by an incumbent union at a specific workplace. According to the NLRB, only 7 percent of unionized employees have voted for the union in their workplace. Instead, they were hired into an environment with a well-entrenched collective bargaining unit that has little to no accountability to its members.

Politicians, from the president down to the local dog catcher, all face periodic elections from their constituents. Union bosses, in contrast, do not have to face such scrutiny. The ERA would allow union workplaces to hold periodic secret ballot elections, to ensure voting free from harassment and intimidation, and to confirm members’ support for an incumbent union and any new one that is being organized.

Additionally, large numbers of union members’ voices have been muted during the election season due to the near-monolithic support from union bosses for specific candidates and initiatives. The ERA would simply require that labor bosses obtain approval from their members to spend the money they receive from dues on donations to candidates, parties or advocacy groups.

If Big Labor wants to represent the views of its members, this would allow them to receive input, without forcing anyone to provide monetary contributions to candidates and issues they do not support.

Finally, at the most basic level, union members should be allowed a secret ballot in all elections, particularly when they vote on whether a workplace should be organized. Employees should have the knowledge that they won’t face intimidation or reprisals as they determine the future of their own workplace.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case right now. Union bosses currently can forgo secret ballot elections by “persuading” workers to sign a card indicating that they want to be represented by a union. Then the same bosses pressure companies to accept these agreements in lieu of an actual vote by, for example, threatening a work slowdown.

Instead of a workplace democratically deciding to unionize, the unions use strong-arm tactics to make sure that the workers fall in line. The ERA addresses this by finally requiring a federally supervised, secret ballot election.

In the 21st century, it is clear that the workforce is changing and union representation is dwindling. There needs to be updated legislation for this changing dynamic.

The Employee Rights Act is a common-sense reform to labor laws that will take power away from union bosses and return it to the factory floor. The purpose of labor is to represent the worker, not the boss. And the ERA makes sure that that is the case.

Heather Greenaway is a spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI).

To access the op-ed, click here.

The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace. To learn more, please visit:

To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ryan Williams at (202) 677-7060.


Featured Blog

AZ Daily Sun--Coconino Voices: PRO Act legislation would hurt local businesses

— 05.13.2021 —
By: Julie Pastrik Arizona businesses and workers have had an incredibly challenging year given the economic slowdown that followed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. However, local businesses and industries across the state are resilient and on the road to a strong recovery that will mean more jobs for Arizona workers and increased economic development to strengthen our communities. That is, as long as Congress does not move forward with potentially devastating legislation that would hurt local employers and employees alike while impeding our state’s economic recovery. Unfortunately, some members of Congress seem determined to do just that by pushing through the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. As harmless as the name may sound, the PRO Act would have serious repercussions for local businesses, particularly smaller ones, while undermining long-standing rights for employees and threatening the growing gig economy that has helped provide much-needed income for so many during this time. Arizona is fortunate to have leaders like Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema, who have both refrained from joining the vast majority of their Democratic colleagues in cosponsoring the PRO Act. In a slap in the face to Arizona workers, the PRO Act removes one of the most fundamental rights a worker has when it comes to voting in elections to determine whether to unionize: the secret ballot. Instead, workers could be forced to sign union authorization cards in front of other employees, their employer, or union organizers. This bill would also destroy workers’ right to privacy by allowing unions access to personal information, including their home address and personal phone number. If that doesn’t open the door to union intimidation and harassment, I don’t know what does. As if that was not bad enough, the PRO Act would create major new challenges for Arizona businesses, making it harder for them to create jobs, expand in their communities, and even keep their doors open. It would redefine what it means to be a “joint employer” under national labor law, greatly complicating existing relationships between franchisors and franchisees as well as between business owners, contractors, subcontractors, and vendors and suppliers. At the same time, it would interfere with attorney-client confidentiality and make it much more difficult for small businesses to secure a legal advice on labor issues. Particularly harmful during these times, the PRO Act would apply a failed policy from California to national labor law by using the “ABC” test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. This makes it much harder to qualify as an independent contractor, threatening the freedom and flexibility that tens of thousands of Arizonans find in independent contracting and gig economy work. Ultimately, the PRO Act is bad public policy that only works for union leaders to inflate their falling ranks while threatening workers’ rights, undermining small businesses, and jeopardizing a growing part of our economy. This is not a good solution for Arizona, and Senators Sinema and Kelly should stay firm and not cosponsor this misguided legislation.
Read More