The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), as Union Corruption Update has noted repeatedly, is a misnamed piece of federal legislation. Its sole ulterior purpose is an expansion of union power at the expense of dissenting employees and employers. And despite the fact that supporters appear willing to strip the measure of its highly controversial "card check" component, the bill (H.R. 1409, S. 560) remains coercive in intent. That's because its less-heralded binding arbitration provision remains. And arbitration, as supporters envision things, would authorize the federal government to write (or rewrite) employment contracts from scratch.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), as Union Corruption Update has argued on several occasions, is a misnamed piece of federal legislation. Under the guise of expanding a worker's choice of whether or not to join a union, it would remove that choice, intimidating employers in the process. The proposal is based on unsound economics. But it's likely also based on unsound constitutional law. That's the view expressed in a new report authored by a major legal observer in public policy issues, the University of Chicago's Richard Epstein. As congressional Democrats, with the full support of the Obama administration, are poised to repeal existing safeguards against unchecked union power, Epstein's analysis is indispensable reading.