At a recent speech, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka proclaimed, "We won't quit until the EFCA becomes the law of the land and everyone who wants a union can have a union." But what about employees in a workforce that do not want a union. Shouldn't they have a corresponding right not to have a union affect their employment? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But thats not the way the National Labor Relations Act works. Under the Act, majority rules, and the will of the minority is subject to the wishes of the majority. While it is true in right to work states that employees do not have to join a labor organization, if a union is the collective bargaining agent for a bargaining unit that includes the employee's job classification, the union's negotiations and the union contract affect the employee non-member. Following Trumka's logic, that should not be the case. Those who want union representation should have it, and those that do not should not be forced to endure it. Perhaps its time to experiment by allowing non-majority unions who represent only those employees who voluntarily choose to join. Those who choose not to select union representation would be free to negotiate on their own. There are a lot of reasons this approach was rejected under the Wagner Act, but maybe its time to revisit the concept.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says for the 2010 midterms, he expects unions to be out spent 20-1 by "corporate groups aligned with Republicans."

The Hill reports AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka predicted yesterday that both EFCA and healthcare reform would pass in 2010. Taken at face value, a prediction by a labor leader that card check will pass appears more like whistling past a cemetery than likely to occur. But Trumka's actual remarks did not refer to EFCA, rather he predicted "labor reform" would pass. If labor revises its agenda to push quicker elections,  stiffer penalties for violations and union access to employees at work, Mr. Trumka could be correct.