One thing that Tuesday’s elections proved is that union money is not going to win elections this year. In 2008, the Service Employees International Union spent $60-million to help elect President Obama and Democratic candidates to both houses of congress. Altogether, organized labor gave Democratic candidates $400-million in 2008. That money may have been well spent then, but look at the outcome in 2009!
Governor John Corzine’s various and well-publicized relationships with unions hurt both him and the unions in New Jersey. In Virginia, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell won by large margin after vigorously campaigning against the Employee Free Choice Act. In both states, conservative Republicans triumphed over union supported candidates.
And now many Democrats, having analyzed the election results, are against the so-called “card check” provision of the Employee Free Choice Act. Unions have invested their members’ money with, what some would consider, Quixotic abandon. And what has been the return on that investment? The defeat of two pro-union candidates and the likely demise of “card checks.” Union members should demand refunds!
Showing posts with label employee free choice act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employee free choice act. Show all posts
Friday, November 6, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
GALLUP SURVEY FINDS UNION SUPPORT DROPPING
According to Gallup’s 2009 Work and Education Survey, more than half of all U.S. citizens disapprove of the role of unions. The percentage of those who do approve of unions has dropped from 59% a year ago to 48% now, “an all time low,” according to Gallup which started asking if people approved of disapproved of unions in 1936. That year, 72% of citizens approved of unions and 20% disapproved. The tables have dramatically turned against unions.
Gallup also noted that the perception that unions hurt companies has risen form 39% in 2006 to 46% in 2009. In addition, more than half of all citizens now agree that unions hurt the entire U. S. economy. That’s a jump from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2009.
Such a low opinion of unions should give Congress pause before voting to pass the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which should be renamed the Freedom to Hurt America Act!
Gallup also noted that the perception that unions hurt companies has risen form 39% in 2006 to 46% in 2009. In addition, more than half of all citizens now agree that unions hurt the entire U. S. economy. That’s a jump from 36% in 2006 to 51% in 2009.
Such a low opinion of unions should give Congress pause before voting to pass the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which should be renamed the Freedom to Hurt America Act!
Friday, August 7, 2009
The Ongoing Saga of Union Corruption
The New York District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America has had a sordid history. In 1990, federal officials attempted to remove mob influence within the union. In 1994, their efforts resulted in a consent decree that was followed by a court appointed corruption monitor. The New York Times has now reported that “federal authorities…announced new corruption charges on Wednesday against the union’s leader and nine other union officials and contractors. The charges include racketeering, bribery, fraud and perjury.”
A twenty-nine count indictment was issued, following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, the Department of Labor, and Manhattan prosecutors. It alleges that union officials accepted $1 million in bribes to permit contractors to pay below union scale benefits and hire non-union and illegal alien workers, and to forego payments to union benefit funds.
We were further reminded of union corruption this week when we learned of the death of Budd Schulberg, who wrote one of the greatest screenplays ever filmed about union corruption, On The Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden, who also recently died.
With a pro-union administration in Washington and with the likely passage of the Employee Free Choice Act on the horizon, unions will again be in a position where they can take advantage of workers and corporations. It will be a lose-lose situation for everyone, except - of course - for the unions and their political enablers.
A twenty-nine count indictment was issued, following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, the Department of Labor, and Manhattan prosecutors. It alleges that union officials accepted $1 million in bribes to permit contractors to pay below union scale benefits and hire non-union and illegal alien workers, and to forego payments to union benefit funds.
We were further reminded of union corruption this week when we learned of the death of Budd Schulberg, who wrote one of the greatest screenplays ever filmed about union corruption, On The Waterfront, starring Marlon Brando and Karl Malden, who also recently died.
With a pro-union administration in Washington and with the likely passage of the Employee Free Choice Act on the horizon, unions will again be in a position where they can take advantage of workers and corporations. It will be a lose-lose situation for everyone, except - of course - for the unions and their political enablers.
Friday, July 31, 2009
EFCA's Binding Arbitration: Down the Road to Ruin
As we recently reported, the congress may remove card check from the Employee Free Choice Act, but it will still keep binding arbitration. With pro-union arbitrators making final decisions on union contracts, Corporate America will be facing one the most destructive challenges to collective bargaining.
If a company and union cannot come to an agreement, then a government appointed arbitrator will step in and make a decision for a first contract. In effect, someone who has little or no knowledge or experience about how a particular company is run will make a decision that will have far reaching financial consequences. This may have been exactly what organized labor wanted all along; in other words, card checks was a red herring, for binding arbitration will deliver precisely the results that unions want to obtain.
Binding arbitration may be used by a company and a union to settle a specific individual dispute, but when it is used to determine an entire contract, the effects can be devastating. Salaries, wage and hour issues, medical insurance, length of paid vacations, seniority, could all be decided by a single arbitrator!
If Corporate America hopes to defeat the provision for binding arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, it must continue lobbying congress. If the unions succeed in making binding arbitration the focal point of the ACT, they will have set many companies on a fast-paced trip down a road to ruination.
If a company and union cannot come to an agreement, then a government appointed arbitrator will step in and make a decision for a first contract. In effect, someone who has little or no knowledge or experience about how a particular company is run will make a decision that will have far reaching financial consequences. This may have been exactly what organized labor wanted all along; in other words, card checks was a red herring, for binding arbitration will deliver precisely the results that unions want to obtain.
Binding arbitration may be used by a company and a union to settle a specific individual dispute, but when it is used to determine an entire contract, the effects can be devastating. Salaries, wage and hour issues, medical insurance, length of paid vacations, seniority, could all be decided by a single arbitrator!
If Corporate America hopes to defeat the provision for binding arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, it must continue lobbying congress. If the unions succeed in making binding arbitration the focal point of the ACT, they will have set many companies on a fast-paced trip down a road to ruination.
Friday, July 17, 2009
One Down, Four to Go: EFCA
This week, the U. S. Senate decided to eliminate card checks from its proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Unions will not be able to represent employees simply by getting them to sign cards expressing a desire to be represented by a union. This victory was won by the concerted efforts of Corporate America and all those who believe in the democratic principle of secret ballot elections.
The bad news is that a revised EFCA bill will call for a rapid time frame for new elections. Union elections would have to take place within a five to ten day period after 30% of workers had signed cards indicating that they want to be represented by a union. Current campaigns often run more than a month and often up to two months.
In addition, the revised bill would require that union organizers be permitted on company property.
As if that were not bad enough, the revised bill would also prevent management from requiring that workers attend anti-union, pro-management educational sessions.
Finally, the bill would contain a demand that employers, who fail to reach agreement on a contract with a new union, submit to binding arbitration. This, in effect, means that government agents will impose an agreement on managment, one which may be one sided and financially unsound.
The bad news is that a revised EFCA bill will call for a rapid time frame for new elections. Union elections would have to take place within a five to ten day period after 30% of workers had signed cards indicating that they want to be represented by a union. Current campaigns often run more than a month and often up to two months.
In addition, the revised bill would require that union organizers be permitted on company property.
As if that were not bad enough, the revised bill would also prevent management from requiring that workers attend anti-union, pro-management educational sessions.
Finally, the bill would contain a demand that employers, who fail to reach agreement on a contract with a new union, submit to binding arbitration. This, in effect, means that government agents will impose an agreement on managment, one which may be one sided and financially unsound.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Bad News for Corporate America
Have you heard of Craig Becker? He is a recently named appointment of President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). While awaiting senate confirmation to take his new position, Mr. Becker is serving as Associate General Counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is run by one of the most aggressive union leaders in North America, Andy Stern.
Mr. Becker, like most members of organized labor, is not an advocate of secret ballot elections. While Corporate America has been gritting its teeth awaiting the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), it may have even more to worry about. Craig Becker wrote that employers should be not be permitted to attend NLRB elections and should not be permitted to challenge election results. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Craig wrote that “Employers should also be barred from ‘placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots.’ ”
The editorial continued: “Mr. Becker advocated a new ‘body of campaign rules’ that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a ‘captive audience’ ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example, Mr. Becker said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same.”
With its majority in both houses of Congress, the Democrats will no doubt confirm Mr. Becker as a member of the NLRB. No one likes to play cards with a dealer using a stacked deck; and under the Obama selected NLRB, the deck will be decidedly stacked against Corporate America. And that’s bad for economy, bad for America, and bad news for democratic traditions.
Mr. Becker, like most members of organized labor, is not an advocate of secret ballot elections. While Corporate America has been gritting its teeth awaiting the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), it may have even more to worry about. Craig Becker wrote that employers should be not be permitted to attend NLRB elections and should not be permitted to challenge election results. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Craig wrote that “Employers should also be barred from ‘placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots.’ ”
The editorial continued: “Mr. Becker advocated a new ‘body of campaign rules’ that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a ‘captive audience’ ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example, Mr. Becker said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same.”
With its majority in both houses of Congress, the Democrats will no doubt confirm Mr. Becker as a member of the NLRB. No one likes to play cards with a dealer using a stacked deck; and under the Obama selected NLRB, the deck will be decidedly stacked against Corporate America. And that’s bad for economy, bad for America, and bad news for democratic traditions.
Friday, May 8, 2009
George McGovern Blasts The Employee Free Choice Act - AGAIN!
GEORGE MCGOVERN BLASTS
THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT – AGAIN!
George McGovern, former senator and presidential candidate known for his liberal viewpoints, has once again blasted the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) for its proposed debasement of democratic practices. His criticism appears on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
He was particularly irked by the fact that if employers and unions cannot reach agreements then the government will step in and impose, in each case, binding arbitration.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, which has been in place since 1935, employers are free to reject union demands, and unions can strike if they are dissatisfied with employer proposals. If, however, the EFCA becomes law, then government bureaucrats with little understanding of the unique subtleties of various positions will impose their own solutions. Such a process is hardly in keeping with the principles of collective bargaining.
Former Senator McGovern wrote: “A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case…. Compulsory arbitration is, in one sense, government dictating to employees what they will win or lose in the deal with no opportunity to approve the agreement.”
Such an outcome would be disastrous for Corporate America. Even George Meany, while head of the AFL-CIO, stated that “mandatory arbitration is an abrogation of freedom.”
Should Congress pass the EFCA (which seems more likely now that Senator Specter has switched parties) and should President Obama sign the bill into law, then America will be taking a major step away from the free market principles which have been the basis for the country’s remarkable record of commercial achievements, industrial innovations, and the creation of one of the most affluent societies in the history of the world.
THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT – AGAIN!
George McGovern, former senator and presidential candidate known for his liberal viewpoints, has once again blasted the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) for its proposed debasement of democratic practices. His criticism appears on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
He was particularly irked by the fact that if employers and unions cannot reach agreements then the government will step in and impose, in each case, binding arbitration.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, which has been in place since 1935, employers are free to reject union demands, and unions can strike if they are dissatisfied with employer proposals. If, however, the EFCA becomes law, then government bureaucrats with little understanding of the unique subtleties of various positions will impose their own solutions. Such a process is hardly in keeping with the principles of collective bargaining.
Former Senator McGovern wrote: “A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case…. Compulsory arbitration is, in one sense, government dictating to employees what they will win or lose in the deal with no opportunity to approve the agreement.”
Such an outcome would be disastrous for Corporate America. Even George Meany, while head of the AFL-CIO, stated that “mandatory arbitration is an abrogation of freedom.”
Should Congress pass the EFCA (which seems more likely now that Senator Specter has switched parties) and should President Obama sign the bill into law, then America will be taking a major step away from the free market principles which have been the basis for the country’s remarkable record of commercial achievements, industrial innovations, and the creation of one of the most affluent societies in the history of the world.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Specter Switch & The Employee Free Choice Act
Now that Senator Arlen Specter has switched his membership from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, one may ask “will he fall in line with the rest of his party and support the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)?”
A spokesman for the Teamsters Union stated that “this certainly gives us more opportunity to talk to [Specter] and address our concerns about his position on the Employee Free Choice Act.” Such a nuanced statement certainly portends a likelihood that Senator Specter may go along with his new party, especially if it adopts certain modifications that make the EFCA more palatable to the senator.
Labor leaders and their congressional supporters need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster on EFCA. With Specter in the fold, they’ll have 59 votes. All they will need is for Al Franken to be officially seated as the new senator from Minnesota.
Though Specter has said that his party switch does not mean that he will vote in favor of the EFCA, he has indicated that he would like to see changes in the language of the bill. If such changes are forthcoming, one may logically assume that Senator Specter will give his assent to the passage of the bill. To help engineer Senator Specter’s support, Teamsters’ President James P. Hoffa recently met with the senator so that they could discuss the EFCA. Hoffa need not have reminded Specter that Pennsylvania has 80,000 Teamster members as well as thousands of members of other unions, the vast majority of whom will vote next year for their senator.
Does anyone doubt that with a few cosmetic face-saving changes to the EFCA bill that Senator Specter will not vote for the bill? One doesn’t switch parties to become a pariah in one’s new party.
A spokesman for the Teamsters Union stated that “this certainly gives us more opportunity to talk to [Specter] and address our concerns about his position on the Employee Free Choice Act.” Such a nuanced statement certainly portends a likelihood that Senator Specter may go along with his new party, especially if it adopts certain modifications that make the EFCA more palatable to the senator.
Labor leaders and their congressional supporters need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster on EFCA. With Specter in the fold, they’ll have 59 votes. All they will need is for Al Franken to be officially seated as the new senator from Minnesota.
Though Specter has said that his party switch does not mean that he will vote in favor of the EFCA, he has indicated that he would like to see changes in the language of the bill. If such changes are forthcoming, one may logically assume that Senator Specter will give his assent to the passage of the bill. To help engineer Senator Specter’s support, Teamsters’ President James P. Hoffa recently met with the senator so that they could discuss the EFCA. Hoffa need not have reminded Specter that Pennsylvania has 80,000 Teamster members as well as thousands of members of other unions, the vast majority of whom will vote next year for their senator.
Does anyone doubt that with a few cosmetic face-saving changes to the EFCA bill that Senator Specter will not vote for the bill? One doesn’t switch parties to become a pariah in one’s new party.
Friday, April 24, 2009
CITIZENS OPT FOR SECRET BALLOT UNION ELECTIONS
CITIZENS OPT FOR SECRET BALLOT UNION ELECTIONS
According to a survey by the National Retail Federation (NRF) conducted from March 31 to April 7, 81% of US citizens support the use of secret ballots for employees when it comes to accepting or rejecting union representation. When the survey was conducted solely amongst union members, the number choosing secret ballot elections rather than card checks was even higher! It was 84%.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which Congress will soon begin debating, is designed to do away with secret ballot elections in union organizing elections. Secret ballot elections have been integral to all organizing efforts since 1935 when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. If the EFCA becomes law, the NLRB would then have to recognize a new union if a majority of workers sign cards authorizing union representation.
Replacing secret ballot elections with card check will certainly open the door for union organizers to intimidate and coerce reluctant employees to join unions.
We hope that President Obama and the U.S. Congress are listening to the voices of citizens, for it is those citizens that the government represents.
According to a survey by the National Retail Federation (NRF) conducted from March 31 to April 7, 81% of US citizens support the use of secret ballots for employees when it comes to accepting or rejecting union representation. When the survey was conducted solely amongst union members, the number choosing secret ballot elections rather than card checks was even higher! It was 84%.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which Congress will soon begin debating, is designed to do away with secret ballot elections in union organizing elections. Secret ballot elections have been integral to all organizing efforts since 1935 when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. If the EFCA becomes law, the NLRB would then have to recognize a new union if a majority of workers sign cards authorizing union representation.
Replacing secret ballot elections with card check will certainly open the door for union organizers to intimidate and coerce reluctant employees to join unions.
We hope that President Obama and the U.S. Congress are listening to the voices of citizens, for it is those citizens that the government represents.
Friday, April 17, 2009
IT WILL GET WORSE WHEN THE EFCA BECOMES LAW
IT WILL GET WORSE WHEN THE EFCA BECOMES LAW
In Grantie City, Illinois, an employee at AT&T filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The employee has claimed that the Communications Workers of America, Local 6300, that represents him made threatened legal action when he refused to go on strike.
The employee, David McBride, filed an unfair labor practices charge against the CWA because McBride and other union members refused to support a national strike. He is being represented by the National Right to Work Foundation.
If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law, more and more employees will be subjected to union coercion not only when it comes to strikes, but also when it comes to organizing efforts. Corporate America must press for the defeat of the EFCA to ensure that American industries will be able to be competitive with industries throughout the world.
In Grantie City, Illinois, an employee at AT&T filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The employee has claimed that the Communications Workers of America, Local 6300, that represents him made threatened legal action when he refused to go on strike.
The employee, David McBride, filed an unfair labor practices charge against the CWA because McBride and other union members refused to support a national strike. He is being represented by the National Right to Work Foundation.
If the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law, more and more employees will be subjected to union coercion not only when it comes to strikes, but also when it comes to organizing efforts. Corporate America must press for the defeat of the EFCA to ensure that American industries will be able to be competitive with industries throughout the world.
Friday, April 10, 2009
OBAMA'S PRO-LABOR ADMINISTRATION
OBAMA’S PRO-LABOR ADMINISTRATION
In addition to Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, who comes from a strongly pro-union family, the Obama administration is full of many pro-labor advocates who will do what is necessary to consummate the successful passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The list of pro-labor members of the current administration includes the following:
Parrick Gaspard, a political director in the White House, had been executive VP for legislation for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Ronald W. Bloom, who had been an assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers of America, is a member of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry.
J. Randolph Babbitt, who had been president of the Air Line Pilots Association, is now an FAA Administrator.
T. Michael Kerr, an Assistant Labor Secretary, has worked for AFSCME and the SEIU.
Wilma Liebman, who will serve as chair of the NLRB, had previously served as counsel to the Bricklayers and Teamsters Unions.
Joseph C. Szabo, Federal Railroad Administrator, had been the Illinois legislative director of the United Transportation Union.
Helen Kanovsky, general counsel at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, had previously worked for the AFL-CIO.
The list goes on and on, and it is apparent that the Obama Administration will be profoundly pro-labor. It is, therefore, essential that Corporate America develop effective and innovative techniques for dealing effectively with aggressive new union organizing and bargaining policies.
I have recently written an article entitled How Corporate America Can Deal with the Proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which appears on the website of Industry Week magazine and can be found at http://www.industryweek.com/articles/viewpoint_--_how_corporate_america_can_deal_with_the_proposed_employee_free_choice_act_18884.aspx
In addition to Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, who comes from a strongly pro-union family, the Obama administration is full of many pro-labor advocates who will do what is necessary to consummate the successful passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The list of pro-labor members of the current administration includes the following:
Parrick Gaspard, a political director in the White House, had been executive VP for legislation for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Ronald W. Bloom, who had been an assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers of America, is a member of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry.
J. Randolph Babbitt, who had been president of the Air Line Pilots Association, is now an FAA Administrator.
T. Michael Kerr, an Assistant Labor Secretary, has worked for AFSCME and the SEIU.
Wilma Liebman, who will serve as chair of the NLRB, had previously served as counsel to the Bricklayers and Teamsters Unions.
Joseph C. Szabo, Federal Railroad Administrator, had been the Illinois legislative director of the United Transportation Union.
Helen Kanovsky, general counsel at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, had previously worked for the AFL-CIO.
The list goes on and on, and it is apparent that the Obama Administration will be profoundly pro-labor. It is, therefore, essential that Corporate America develop effective and innovative techniques for dealing effectively with aggressive new union organizing and bargaining policies.
I have recently written an article entitled How Corporate America Can Deal with the Proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which appears on the website of Industry Week magazine and can be found at http://www.industryweek.com/articles/viewpoint_--_how_corporate_america_can_deal_with_the_proposed_employee_free_choice_act_18884.aspx
Friday, March 27, 2009
SENATOR SPECTER & THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT
Senator Arlen Specter (R- Pennsylvania) has ostensibly spoken out against the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA); yet, one can infer from his words, that a compromise might be acceptable.
Senator Specter started out by saying that “the bill’s requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot live with. Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for collective bargaining, which makes the employer liable only for a deal he or she agrees to.” He added that “the problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact [the] Employees’ Free Choice legislation. If [however] efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider [the] Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.”
The Senator emphasized that his decision was “a close call” and that “labor has a valid point that they have suffered greatly from outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and losses in pension and health benefits.” Again, he suggested revisions to the National Labor Relations Act, which further indicates that a compromise may be in the offing
The make-up of the Senate, which would be 59 to 40 if Al Franken is seated, would make Senator Specter’s vote the one that could deicide passage of the EFCA, which at this point will sail through a Democratically controlled House of Representatives.
At this time, Corporate America must not only keep up the pressure on its elected representatives to defeat the probable passage of even a watered-down EFCA, but it must also prepare for its possible passage by initiating effective pro-management strategies.
Senator Specter started out by saying that “the bill’s requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot live with. Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for collective bargaining, which makes the employer liable only for a deal he or she agrees to.” He added that “the problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact [the] Employees’ Free Choice legislation. If [however] efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider [the] Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.”
The Senator emphasized that his decision was “a close call” and that “labor has a valid point that they have suffered greatly from outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and losses in pension and health benefits.” Again, he suggested revisions to the National Labor Relations Act, which further indicates that a compromise may be in the offing
The make-up of the Senate, which would be 59 to 40 if Al Franken is seated, would make Senator Specter’s vote the one that could deicide passage of the EFCA, which at this point will sail through a Democratically controlled House of Representatives.
At this time, Corporate America must not only keep up the pressure on its elected representatives to defeat the probable passage of even a watered-down EFCA, but it must also prepare for its possible passage by initiating effective pro-management strategies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)