Despite pressure from student and union activists and a report that says a Penn State lobbyist contacted a member of Congress about the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a Penn State spokesman said the university is not taking a position on the legislation.
The EFCA, which is pending in Congress, would change federal labor laws to make it easier for workers to form a union by forcing employers to recognize a union when a majority of workers sign cards saying they would like to join one. Under current law, employers can ask that a secret ballot election be held to confirm a majority of workers want to be union members.
The act would also create stricter penalties for employers that violate labor laws and would create a binding arbitration process for unions and employers who fail to agree on a contract after a set amount of time.
On March 27, about 50 people delivered petitions to Penn State President Graham Spanier asking Penn State to "proactively show its support of the Employee Free Choice Act and its desire to see reform in labor law."
Also, according to a lobbying report filed by Penn State that covers activities from October to December of 2008, Penn State lobbied against the EFCA in the U.S. House of Representatives. The university "urged members to oppose this measure as it would change the current union election system by leaving workers unprotected from outside influences," according to the report.
The report lists four Penn State employees who "acted as a lobbyist in this issue area": Sheilah Borne, Zachery Moore, Richard DiEugenio and Margaret Sheely.
However, Penn State spokesman Geoff Rushton said the university is not taking an official position on the EFCA and said no money had been spent on lobbying about the issue. He said a lobbyist, whom he would not identify, did make an "inquiry" about a congressman's position on the EFCA, but did not attempt to influence the congressman's position.
"There was no urging on Penn State's part to take a position either way on the bill," he said.
Rushton said the inquiry was prompted by a message from the American Hospital Association, which asked members to gauge political support for the bill. Penn State's Milton S. Hershey Medical Center is a member of the American Hospital Association, Rushton said.
The association opposes the EFCA and believes the binding arbitration process it creates could have a "far-reaching, adverse impact on patient care," according to an American Hospital Association press release.
"Workers, as well as employers, are required to accept for two years whatever a federal arbitrator -- who may not understand patients' health care needs -- decides is an appropriate agreement," according to the release.
However, Rushton said that the medical center, like the rest of Penn State, is remaining neutral on the act.
Staff members at Penn State's governmental affairs offices referred questions to the public information office.
Paul Clark, head of Penn State's department of labor studies and employment relations, said Penn State employees are considered government employees, so labor rules for them are governed under Pennsylvania's Act 195. Because the EFCA would only change labor rules for private employers, the university would not be affected by it, he said.
However, employees at the medical center are considered private employees and therefore would be affected by the EFCA, Rushton said.
Dan Virtue, president of Teamsters Local 776 in Harrisburg, said the Teamsters have about 850 members at the medical center who "handle everything from laundry on up to the pharmacy." Registered nurses at the center are also unionized, he said.
Virtue said passage of the EFCA would make it easier to organize other groups of employees at the medical center, including doctors, billing employees and licensed practical nurses.
