thetruthaboutefca.com | The Truth About The Employee Free Choice Act & Card Check

Over at the National Journal, Stuart Taylor Jr. makes a calm, rational case against the Employee Free Choice Act and its negative effects on employees and businesses alike:

More broadly, while employees’ rights to unionize are an essential source of leverage to extract a fair share of the fruits of their labor from profit-maximizing employers, it does not follow that the more unions, the better. Even the best unions often introduce inefficiencies such as the thousands of pages of work rules imposed by the United Auto Workers during its heyday.

The most enlightened employers are those that fend off unionization by giving their employees everything that they could get through a union without raising labor costs so high as to lose the competitive edge and profitability on which their employees’ long-run job security depends.

And the worst economic crisis since the 1930s would be an odd time to shift the balance of power so far in favor of unions as to risk sending such employers the way of General Motors.

This morning, Representatives John Kline and Tom Price had an op-ed in the Washington Times to defend the private ballot, which is under assault via the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Reps write:

During congressional testimony on the issue, one former union organizer described aggressive, often misleading, tactics employed in such a process. Workers were rarely shown an actual union contract, denied information about strikes and other controversial union practices, and pressured to sign the cards quickly without the opportunity to deliberate. If workers later changed their minds, organizers often refused to return the card or allow the worker to withdraw support.

While EFCA threatens the private ballot, the gentlemen highlight the Secret Ballot Protection Act, which would guarantee that right for employees. The Congressmen conclude:

If unions and employers are sincere in their missions of protecting and serving workers, the real question should be how all sides can work together to defend workers’ interests – and protect the rights of millions of Americans whose privacy and freedom are at stake. The Secret Ballot Protection Act is the first step in the right direction.

This morning’s Orlando Sentinel takes up the issue of the Employee Free Choice Act this morning, including its provisions that would effectively eliminate secret ballot elections and impose government arbitrators on private enterprise.

The editors highlight the positions of a couple leaders from the state:

Backers in Congress of the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” re-introduced that legislation this month. And the list of sponsors in the House and Senate calls into question the centrist credentials of at least a couple of Democrats from Central Florida

“Do You Favor/Oppose Making It Easier For People To Form Labor Unions By Allowing Them To Publicly Sign A Card, Even If That Might Eliminate A Secret Ballot Vote?” That’s the question from a newly released CBS News poll. The answer: 45 percent say they oppose, 38 percent would favor.

Another question: “Do You Think Labor Unions Have Too Much/Too Little Influence On U.S. Life And Politics Today?” 47 percent say too much. Only 18 percent say too little.

Just another reminder: Americans may not be anti-union, but they are against efforts to eliminate the secret ballot.

On this blog, as in so many other places, a heated debate is taking place over whether the Employee Free Choice Act ends secret ballots. Groups like the Associated Builders and Contractors tries to be careful about explaining that the bill would, indeed, effectively eliminate secret ballots.

Of course, EFCA proponents just keep churning out the talking points that “employees get to decide how they form a union.” Unfortunately, that’s not the case in practical terms. Either:

1. Employees gather between 30 and 49 percent of cards, in which case there’s an election (because there’s not really evidence that a majority of employees want to join the union) or
2. Unions have gathered more than 50 percent of cards (through whatever means available) and EFCA says there will be no election”the Board shall not direct an election…”

As a columnist for the Arizona Republic notes:

Advocates of the pro-union “card check” legislation claim that opponents are distorting what the Employee Free Choice Act does. Opponents, they claim, are spreading the lie that card check bans secret ballots in union elections. I haven’t seen anyone make that claim. But, in fact, card check does not ban secret elections. It merely makes them pointless.

And that’s the point.

We’re still searching for the proper metaphor/analogy/simile to explain why secret ballots would be effectively kaput while still technically on the books. Your suggestions for pithy ways to explain the issue are welcome!

This morning, the editor of the Fredericksburg Freelance-Star in Virginia ran a great letter from Carrie Lukas, the director of the Independent Women’s Forumn. Responding to a community member’s article supporting EFCA based on the need for unions, Lukas responds:

No one is disputing the right of workers to create a union, but workers should also be free not to unionize.

And what Mr. Gimbell avoids revealing is that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act would deny workers the right to a legitimate, free, and fair election on this question.

It’s an important distinction, especially in light of yesterday’s Gallup polling that showed that about half of people support making it easier to unionize — in theory — while there is little evidence they support taking away the secret ballot during union organizing drives.