I have always been pretty wishy-washy about unions. That is to say, I don’t have a strong opinion about them one way or the other.

Today I received an email from the ACPA that was urging its members to come out against the Employee Free Choice Act. It is usually easy to tell what a government is really thinking by the way they name their laws. The name is usually 180 degrees off of the true intent. So when I see Employee Free Choice, I naturally think it means No Free Choice. The simple fact that the ACPA is against it made me want to do some digging to find out what is really going on here. After spending some time reading the act itself, some pro material and some con material I am more lost than usual. Since this has a direct effect on the membership of ConcretePumping.com I think a little study on the matter is in order.

The governing body of the ACPA is made up of pump company owners for the most part. If they are against this legislation it obviously has the potential of raising wages for the operators and giving a certain amount of power to the representing union and away from the employers. This might be a good idea – IF a proper amount of thought is given to the idea that if company “A” has higher paid union operators than company “B” and they are both competing for the same pool of work, well the higher paid union operator’s company would soon have very little, if any, work. $45.00 per hour times no hours is $00.00 anyway you cut it. But if all of the companies in a given work pool were to become unionized the operators would make more money and the playing field would be level once again. This may also have the added bonus of forcing the pump company owners into looking at their price structure as it relates to the work they perform. Since, Lord knows they can’t seem to get the prices up by themselves maybe they need some help from the operators. I just don’t know.

I do know that that this is a big enough deal that the ACPA has decided to come out against it as is evidenced in the email I received. So I have a suggestion………

All of you that will be caught up in this need to do your own research. Read all sides of this deal. Don’t make it an emotional issue, make your decision based on facts. I hear a lot of HALF TRUTH BULLSHIT from both sides of the issue.

Informed, intelligent people make informed intelligent choices. Everyone else just goes along for the emotional ride.

Read, think, decide for yourself.

if you try and inject any political stuff here I WILL DELETE YOUR POST.

Bob, on one hand I think unions are good on the other not so much.  I read alot and some of this legislation is being used to get rid of the so called secret ballot at election time.  For this reason I'm strongly against the union vote.  However having worked for both union and non-union I think you are right on the money on your statement.  Its really good for employees and pump owners would all charge basically the same rates.  Also cuts down on inexperienced operators  I know I made alot more money working union than not.

I personally don’t think the ACPA serves the whole Concrete Pumping industry well in taking a side in this issue.

Here is what happened. The ACPA sent out an email asking us to oppose Employee Free Choice Act.

I guess the ACPA got an email from National Ready Mixed Concrete Association regarding the re-introduction of the Employee Free Choice Act and the NRMCA was opposing this legislatioion.

I personally will not post my thoughts on this legislation and I dont think the NRMCA or the ACPA should have a position on this issue.

Here is the problem as I see it. If you oppose this legislation than you look pro owner and you look as if you do not support the operators. If you are for this legislation than you look pro labor and look as if you do not support the Pump owner. I feel that the ACPA will alienate support from operators in doing this. This is just going to be one more hard issue to befall our industry and taking sides pulls us apart.

Just my two cents.

The way I see it,  some companies out there belive they can pay good quality pump operators rates that mixer drivers make.  I have worked union and non-union also and I belive the one thing that unions and some good non-union pump companies do is pay operators by experience and not pump size.  For me, that gives me a feeling of worth.  It's a cut throat market out there and I think the worst thing companies can do is play cut throat to there own operators.  I'm pro-company owner and pro-labor.  It's a give/give.  Respect me and I will surely respect you and your equipment.  This is my passion and whats happening in some markets is really scarry from an operators stand point.  $17.10 an hour is not what you should make to run a 47meter.

That is why I don't want to land on either side right now. I know companies who's operators would fight to keep a union out. That is because they are treated as professionals and do not need any exterior forces acting within the company structure. At the same time there are outfits that are the polar opposite. The troops are treated like farm animals without the help of the ASPCA on their side.

What is a brother to do? Do what is best for you long term. Don't get caught up in the 'getting even' business.

The "Employee Free Choice Act" is not what it sounds like. Bigstick is right, part of the "Act" eliminates the secret ballot. Beware, this legislation will only further "Big Brother". I for one am tired of having the government become so influential in private business.

That is one of the half truths I was talking about: be cautious when the opposition says that they are trying to watch out for you.

Does the Employee Free Choice Act take away so-called secret ballot elections?

No. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government to hold an election. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives them another option—majority sign-up.

“Elections” may sound like the most democratic approach, but the NLRB process is nothing like democratic elections in our society—presidential elections, for example—because one side has all the power. The employer controls the voters’ paychecks and livelihood, has unlimited access to speak against the union in the workplace while restricting pro-union speech and has the freedom to intimidate and coerce the voters.

Look I don’t want anyone to think ConcretePumping.com is for or against this, the whole point is should the ACPA take a side?

How does the ACPA make the decision to be for this and not against it?

Is there a vote?

 Is this a decision based on the executive board meeting?

Do the members vote on it?

I kind of have high hopes for the ACPA and I would love to see the ACPA represent everyone in the industry.

I don't think that the ACPA has any business telling us operators what to do whether it being in a union or not.

I asked the ACPA if I could post their email and they gave me permission. Here is the email I got from the ACPA.

To give fair and equal showing to the other side of this issue, here is a bit by the proponent group.

Why do we need new federal legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act?

America’s working people are struggling to make ends meet, CEOs have all the power and our middle class is disappearing. The best opportunity for working men and women to get ahead is by uniting with co-workers to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits.

But the current labor law system is broken. Corporations routinely intimidate, harass, coerce and fire people who try to organize unions—and today’s labor law is powerless to stop them. Every day, corporations deny working people the freedom to make their own choice about whether to have a union:

• Employees are fired in one-quarter of private-sector union organizing campaigns;

• 78 percent of companies require supervisors to deliver anti-union messages to the workers whose jobs and pay they control;

• And even after workers successfully form a union, one-third of the time they are not able to get a contract.

What does the Employee Free Choice Act do?

It does three things to level the playing field for employees and employers:

1.     Strengthens penalties against companies that illegally coerce or intimidate employees in an effort to prevent them from forming a union;

2.     Brings in a neutral third party to settle a contract when a company and a newly certified union cannot agree on a contract after three months;

3.     Lets employees decide how to express their choice to organize, either by balloting or by majority sign-up, meaning that if a majority of the employees sign union-authorization cards, validated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a company must recognize the union.

What’s wrong with the current law?

The National Labor Relations Act states: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations….” It was designed to protect employee choice on whether to form unions, but it has been turned upside down.

The current system is not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. Employers have turned the NLRB election process into management-controlled balloting—the employer has all the power, controls the information workers can receive and routinely poisons the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and firing people who try to organize unions. On top of that, the law’s penalties are so insignificant that many companies treat them as just another cost of doing business. By the time employees vote in an NLRB election, if they can get to that point, a free and fair choice isn’t an option. Even in the voting location, workers do not have a free choice after being browbeaten by supervisors to oppose the union or being told they may lose their jobs and livelihoods if they vote for the union.

What is majority sign-up, and how does it work?

When a majority of employees votes to form a union by signing authorization cards, and those authorization cards are validated by the federal government, the employer will be legally required to recognize and bargain with the workers’ union.

Majority sign-up is not a new approach. For years, some responsible employers such as Cingular Wireless have taken a position of allowing employees to choose, by majority decision, whether to have a union. Those companies have found that majority sign-up is an effective way to allow workers the freedom to make their own decision—and it results in less hostility and polarization in the workplace than the failed NLRB process. But currently, the choice of whether to allow majority sign-up belongs to the company, not the workers. And most companies reject that method, forcing employees to use the failed election process.

Does the Employee Free Choice Act take away so-called secret ballot elections?

No. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government to hold an election. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives them another option—majority sign-up.

“Elections” may sound like the most democratic approach, but the NLRB process is nothing like democratic elections in our society—presidential elections, for example—because one side has all the power. The employer controls the voters’ paychecks and livelihood, has unlimited access to speak against the union in the workplace while restricting pro-union speech and has the freedom to intimidate and coerce the voters.

Does the Employee Free Choice Act silence employers or require that they remain neutral about the union?

No. Employers are still free to express their opinion about the union as long as they do not threaten or intimidate workers.

Will employees be pressured into signing union authorization cards?

No. In fact, academic studies show that workers who organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-workers to support the union than workers who organize under the NLRB election process. Workers who vote by majority sign-up also report far less pressure or coercion from management to oppose the union than workers who go through NLRB elections.

In addition, it is illegal for anyone to coerce employees to sign a union-authorization card. Any person who breaks the law will be subject to penalties under the Employee Free Choice Act.

Isn’t this law really about unions wanting to increase their membership?

This law is about restoring to working people the freedom to improve their lives through unions. More than half of people who don’t have a union say they would join one tomorrow if given the chance. After all, people who have unions earn 30 percent more than people without unions and are much more likely to have health care and pensions. With a free choice to join unions, working people can bargain for better wages, health care and pensions to build a better life for their families. With the economic pressures on working people today, the freedom to pursue their dreams is crucially important.

Who supports the Employee Free Choice Act?

The Employee Free Choice Act has the support  of hundreds of members of Congress of both parties, academics and historians, civil and human rights organizations such as the NAACP and Human Rights Watch, most major faith denominations and 73 percent of the American public.

Who opposes the Employee Free Choice Act?

Corporate front groups are waging a major campaign to stop the Employee Free Choice Act. They do not want workers to have the freedom to choose for themselves whether to bargain through unions for better wages, benefits and working conditions. The anti-union network includes discredited groups such as the Center for Union Facts, led by lobbyist Richard Berman, who is infamous for fighting against drunk driving laws and consumer and health protections, and the National Right to Work Committee and Foundation, the country’s oldest organization dedicated exclusively to destroying unions.

All of you need to read and understand both sides of this issue so that YOU can make up YOUR own mind as to what to do. As with all things, there is no 'one size fits all.'

Honestly the ACPA really doesn't care on the whole but the big wigs who throw money at the ACPA care because they will not have as much leverage as they would like.The ACPA needs to get out of the political arena and stick to their safety seminars and luncheons.This site is much more valuable to the average operator for safety and general knowledge by far.I took my first ACPA test in 1985 and have been a "member" since.Any organization that promotes safe work practice is a good thing,but an organization that tries to persuade their active members in a political agenda is acting in a way that may discourage future membership.

More unions? More employees who rely on "length of employment (seniority only)" to keep their job. Since only new hires end up being layed off...all the old timers get to hang out with no worries. Look to the california teachers union...they were told they could keep all their teachers working if they all accepted a pay cut...but the majority voted against it. Why? Because when the layoffs happen...only the new teachers will be layed off, those with seniority never have to worry. What ever happened to keeping the "best" workers? Unions never allow companies to keep the best...they are forced to maintain mediocrity in their workforce, never being able to pay for performance instead of just seniority. How do unions make money? By growing the workforce, growing their administrative bureacracy just like "big brother government" does.