“Protect secret ballots”

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009 by Admin

Writing for the editorial board of the Daily Camera in Colorado, Erika Stutzman argues:

If a union collects signed cards from more than 50 percent of workers, there can be a forced unionization without the use of secret ballots. That could put undue pressure on workers to vote a certain way. Secret ballots should be protected, and even treasured, by those who want individuals to retain their right to make their own choices.

Tags: ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 14th, 2009 at 7:20 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

5 Responses to ““Protect secret ballots””

  1. October 14th, 2009 at 8:16 am

    AK says:

    Someone is out of their minds here. If more than 50% of people sign the petition to unionize, then how could that be called “forced unionization.”

    God, oppose unions, but don’t oppose it on flimsy grounds.

    Thanks.

  2. October 14th, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Randall says:

    After the election I just went through? You damn right I want EFCA to pass!
    Our Employer and the law firm they hired to harass and persuade us not to vote union, They violated so many of our federal rights, Threatened our jobs etc.
    The secret ballot is in name only, by the time we went to the polls they figured out how everyone was going to voted us for more intimidation.Tell the truth! If 30% of the workers want to have an election they can still have it. You guys are lying, The majority of the working class I know want EFCA to pass. It sure would have protected us at were I work at!

  3. October 14th, 2009 at 8:26 am

    Randall says:

    Go to NLRB.gov and look at the violations in the last few years!
    Thousands of them!

  4. October 14th, 2009 at 8:33 am

    Randall says:

    Take a look at this video!
    Tell the truth! It’s not a secret ballot under current laws, we need change!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiBleUu-vJw

  5. October 14th, 2009 at 8:52 am

    admin says:

    Randall, it sounds like you may have a case against a bad employer under current laws — which would mean that EFCA is not needed.

    As for the ugly use of “lying”, we’ve addressed that too many times to count. Unions will almost never go to elections under EFCA, which means that in practice the ballots will be effectively eliminated.

    As for complaints, thousands have been lodged against unions over the last several years as well. Meanwhile, the current system actually provides an incentive for unions to file as many charges as possible to pressure employers through the legal process.