Employee Free Choice Act

The Employee Free Choice Act is an Act currently being put into consideration by the American congress. The most recent was brought into the picture on 10^th March, 2009 (Frederic, 2010). Its aim was basically to come up with a network to enable workers and unions dealing with labor to address unlawful methods which are related to the constitution. Initially, it would allow an organization to haggle with an employer if the organization manages to gather approvals of many employees. It would do away with the current privilege of asking for extra votes, where over fifty percent of workers have shown interest in backing up the organization. Upon its inception, the act would demand employers and organizations to understand each other and to enter into a covenant four months after which the organizations would come into being. Lastly, the Act would stipulate the repercussions to be faced by employers who despise against employees in the organization.

The Universal declaration of human rights asserts that, every person has a right to take part in business unions in order to safeguard their vested interests. In the same manner, the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, echoes that all have the right to associate, besides having organizations to cater for their vested interests. Although America has taken upon herself to safeguard employee's right to associate freely under international law, she has failed. The system is bogus and characterized with simplicity. The Employee Free Act Choice, brought into effect two years ago and later given consideration early last year, would rectify many legal drawbacks (Employee Free Choice Act).

Repercussions for bending US labor requirements are so weak that the bosses regularly break them and get away with it without a pinch. Going by law, the boss goes unpunished and only a handful effects economically for bending employees' freedom of association. Under this arrangement, besides giving notice, a boss who dismisses an employee for taking part in the union, must bring back the employee to his earlier position and compensate him. This, to many bosses is something small compared to what they have done (Frederic, 2010).

The little repercussions are further hit by delayments. The union entrusted with bringing laws into effect requires employees to hold up for almost a year between the time they move to court and final judgment made and additional three years to appeal. Such have seen it hard and not possible. An employee sacked, would rarely like to retain their jobs. These delays work to the benefit of the bosses (Minnesota Continuing legal Education, 2009). They appeal with personal interests, instead of agreeing with rules to bring back sacked employees or haggle on the same. This eventually leads to more time being added, causing further delay.

The little repercussions faced for not observing employees' rights in addition to delays in their implementation and inequality that exists between the boss and the organization ruins US responsibility of safeguarding employees and haggle together. The leniency of the law is equally to blame for deteriorating International Labor Organization on haggling together. The US laws give right to bosses to shun an organization basing its approval on voluntary going by those workers who are many but it should do so through election. The time frame to voting day taking place a few weeks but a little bit longer presents a forum for bosses to make their campaigns against the unions. In the current laws, if the boss is said to have taken part in unlawful haggling with no such desire of getting to the bottom line, the boss must promise to refrain and go back to the drawing board and this will eventually take time because there is nothing which can be done and this would lead to employees leaving it altogether.

By use of small and big groups, employers would hold rallies explaining to captive employees why they were not for the formation and existence of unions. This would be done by either the bosses or some external speakers. They surely would use all means in ensuring they convince them on the negative effects caused on them. They even would tell them that the contributions end up in pockets of the union leaders. This is in a bid to have them change their mind. They would argue that the organizations affected the firm's output and this may cause an indefinite closure of the same (Frederic, 2010). They perceived the haggling as a way of attaining more money being deducted from the employee's salary. This gave unions a hard time in ensuring they face those opposed to the unions and give positive information that it can only lead to salary increase and not deduction of the same.

To resolve all these, Employee Free Choice Act would strengthen repercussions for campaigns against unions and implement fines on the same. It would not shun bosses but allow them an equal opportunity to reciprocate on the same. The same employees can vote as they so wish and bosses will see no point in arguing over the same. Once it's confirmed that majority employees have approved, the bosses would definitely haggle with the organization. The Employee Choice Act would makes no attempt to declare US laws on workers as haggling in good-heart but would prevent exploitation of workers (Minnesota Continuing legal Education, 2009). This would allow employees to look for alternative in three months if nothing is looking up. If that does not work after a month, the case would lead to a contract being reached upon. In a case where US employees manage to mobilize their rights and freedom of association they still are doomed due to drawbacks in the existing legal system.