Given the EFCA aims at addressing the loopholes created by the National Labor Relations Act, a lot is expected from it. As such, any small indicator that it is not achieving this makes it vulnerable to criticism. As a matter of fact, far many pundits argue that the bill will negatively affect the current ‘fair’ treatment of workers by their employers in respect to their rights to unionization. For instance, though the bill seeks to enhance more freedom on the part of the employees to choose whether to form a bargaining unit or not, to some extent this in not true.
Discouraging the secret ballot and in its place putting the majority card check makes the interests of those who never participated in the sign-up to be ignored (Lehman, 2). Furthermore, the management and the unions will get a clear glimpse of those against unionization leading to loss of employee privacy as guaranteed for by the current law. Ultimately this will make the employees more prone to intimidation and manipulations.
Again, it will be very easy for the unions to coerce employees to subscribe to the formation of bargaining units even when it is oblivious there is no need of such bargaining units (Sherk and Kersey, 2007). Another outstanding weakness in EFCA is the failure to fix a timeframe within which the process of arbitration between the union and employer should be handled by the FMCS. That it allows for both the union and the employer to keep on extending the duration makes the whole process insensible as any party can decide to play delaying tactics by extending the duration.
This argument is based on the state of Michigan case that took more than 15 months to conclude. Worse still arbitrators may fail to understand the weight of the issues presented to them and therefore end up a crafting a feeble deal that may not be practically implementable for both parties. That such decisions are irreversible and unchallengeable makes the whole thing more bleak and unhelpful to the employees’ welfare (Sherk and Kersey, 2007). Again, the EFCA seems to be very strict on employers while living a wide roaming space for unions.
This is despite the conventional wisdom that unions who engage in illegal practices during organizing need to be tamed to fully address the employees’ welfare. For instance, it is known that more and more unions are gaining certification through use of coercive powers to get employees vote for certain decisions which favors them (Forde, 2009). According to a survey carried out by Zogby International and Mackinac Center for Public Policy in July 2004 to collect the views of the union members regarding the efficiency of labor unions, it was found out that 44 percent of members considered their unions to be inefficient (Lehman, 1).