Mr. Scarvo is wrong on EFCA

An article in yesterday's Scranton Times Tribune gives us the perspectives of Mr. Frank Scarvo, a manager for Keystone Automotive.

In Mr. Scarvo's opinion, the binding arbitration provision of the Employee Free Choice Act would harm employees. He also says that the current workplace regulatory agencies are sufficient. It is easy enough to discover with some research or, as many workers have found out through first hand experience, that this is untrue.

Mr. Scavo should know that there are many dirty tricks that employers use when they don't want to deal with the union that their employees worked hard to form and win. Most commonly, they draw out the collective bargaining process with excessive appeals. This unfair practice of forestalling process is hardly uncommon.

In fact, I came across a study on the American Rights at Work website conducted for the U.S Trade Deficit Review Commission. This 2000 study found that 32% of workers who have chosen to from or join a union remain without a union contract a year after having won their election.

Most of all, however, Mr Scavo gives too much credit to the current government regulatory agencies. Also in 2000, my father was refused the right to take lunch at the gold mine where we worked in Juneau, Alaska. He was fired - illegally - for the unspeakable act of taking his lunch in dignity. He used every legal remedy given to a worker with no income. Still, it took the Mine Safety and Health Administration nearly three years to recognize my father's right to take a lunch break in a clean and safe environment.

To deal with the indignities and abuses that innumerable workers face on a daily basis, the most effective means of self-empowerment is a union. The Employee Free Choice Act would give those workers who need change a reasonable option for remedy, a union of their choosing.