The Truth About Card Check (And The Country Club Elitists Who Oppose It)
Today in Chillicothe, the Chillicothe Ross Chamber of Commerce is holding an event to try and rally opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (you’ve probably heard it referred to as “card check”).
During this, event they’ll gather a bunch of area business men and women together in a country club (I kid you not) and probably tell them that card check is bad and must be defeated at all costs. They’ll probably even keep a straight face while they’re doing it.
But while they’re secluded away from the average folks that don’t frequent country clubs, they probably won’t tell the real truth about card check.
So I will.
For those who don't know, card check is a process of forming a union by having a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign authorization forms (cards).
You’re going to hear a lot about how how card check “denies” workers their privacy in choosing to form a union. The people who tell you this won’t, however, mention that card check already exists.
Under the current system, employees have the choice of using either the card check option or a secret ballot. The problem is that currently the employer can force a secret ballot election when confronted with a successful card check movement.
All the Employee Free Choice Act does is allow workers to decide which method they want to use, and then requires employers to accept the results. If workers want a provide ballot election, there's nothing stopping them.
Don’t believe me? Go read the bill yourself. I’m not the one that’s trying to hide something.
In a secret ballot election, the company can exert a lot of pressure on the result.
For example: During the run up to such an election, a lot of companies (the AFL-CIO claims somewhere around 90%) require employees to attend closed door or one-on-one sessions where the employer pressures them against joining a union. A lot of companies (and I've seen this happen a few times) also threaten to close a plant down or if the workers unionize, but few ever follow through. Often the most vocal people behind a unionization effort are threatened with being fired.
In card check the employer has significantly less influence, as the employees organize and conduct the process themselves.
Also keep in mind that forming a union is the workers choice, not the companies. All this does is make a company accept the results if a majority of workers sign on to a card check movement.
you're right, i don't believe you because i'm not seeing it... in all 4 versions of this bill (including the one that passed the House already) on the page you link to it says (emphasis added by me in CAPS):
"If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board SHALL NOT DIRECT AN ELECTION BUT SHALL CERTIFY the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)."
SHALL means the Board will certify and its a done deal. All the organizers have to do it present cards to the Board from a majority of employees and its over...no election, no choice for an election...all the organizers have to do is get a majority to sign (any way they can which is scary given the way some unions work) and the company must unionize just like that... this bill clearly cuts off any chance of open, honest, and fair debate because, by its nature, the card-check process is covert...and what's worse, the other 49.9% of employees might not even have a chance to voice their opinion before it happens...not even employers should be allowed to elect to forego a secret ballot...a secret ballot should be required every time...
Under the current form,an employer can choose to ignore card check and force an election. This bill removes that and forces an employer to abide by a card check majority. If there's a majority reached in card check, the decision has already been made to forgo an election.
If you've ever watched a unionization election in the current system, you know it's hardly fair. Companies browbeat, threaten, and extort workers into voting against unions.
But you strike me as the type that hates all unions anyways, so I don't really expect you to approach this with an open mind.
It’s interesting that just because I disagree with you on this, you think I am anti-union. People's feelings on unions are truly irrelevant in this because EFCA is about the process, not unions themselves. I’m all for a group of employees who freely want to form a union be able to do so. The problem with EFCA is that it WILL take away a secret ballot election – quite the Orwellian name too.
Even under the current law, employees do not have the right to request a secret ballot election. Once 30% of the employees have signed an authorization card, the UNION makes the decision on whether to take it to the NLRB to request a secret ballot election (SBE) or not. Employees are never asked if they want a secret ballot election or not. The employees and the union during an organizing drive are not one and the same. It’s the union organizers that determine if they want to go for a SBE or not with the 30% authorization cards, or go for card-check majority. Under current law, the employer can request a secret ballot election if the union goes for the card-check majority.
Regardless, under both the current law and EFCA, the employees themselves never get the opportunity to request an SBE. You said that with EFCA: “If there's a majority reached in card check, the decision has already been made to forgo an election.” This is false in the sense that the employees have “already” made the decision. One, because its not an election at all and second because its the UNION making this decision. And under EFCA, if all the union has to do is get to 50% of the employees, there is zero incentive for them to request an SBE. You yourself said that “If you've ever watched a unionization election in the current system, you know it's hardly fair. Companies browbeat, threaten, and extort workers into voting against unions.” If this is the case, the entity that would get to request a SBE, the union, WILL NOT DO IT because it would risk losing! And with the employer stripped of their right to request one under EFCA, an SBE will never happen and the employees will suffer because they will not be able to make a free choice. EFCA simply eliminates the employer’s ability to ask for an SBE; BUT it does NOT then give that right to employees, it eliminates it altogether.
It is plainly and completely unrealistic to assume that when confronted in the open with a choice, when an employee is put on the spot (i.e, potentially intimidated) by union organizers and other employees, that they are truly expressing their free will and voting their conscience in signing an authorization card.
Which is the greater evil here: the potential employer “intimidation” of employees who then get to cast a secret ballot where no one knows how they really voted in the end, OR union organizers and/or other employees forcing employees to openly declare a yes or no by signing or not signing a card? Obvious answer.
The EFCA is a step back and would make likelihood and impact of intimidation of employees worse, not better. Its only intent is to put in place a covert process which stifles debate and ignores that, whether you agree or not, employers have an interest in a union organizing effort also and should be included in the process. There are already laws on the books to address unfair labor practices by both employers and unions. If there is truly a problem of employer intimidation in union elections (which there is scant evidence of), then work on a law to enhance these protections. But don’t take away a SBE.
As I wrote already, what’s worse with EFCA is that if 50%+1 sign card check, there will be no election at all. Because the process, by its nature, is carried out covertly by union organizers, the other 49.9% may not even have a clue its occurring, let alone have a choice to participate in a debate and cast a vote – this serves union interests, not employees. ANd what about after a union is certified by card-check? Hmm...how about those employees who refused or were relectuant to sign cards? How will they be treated when its openly known they weren't in favor the union? Retaliation by the employer? I'd be more worried about retaliation by the union...
The best answer would be to always require an SBE. It would reduce likelihood and impact of potential intimidation from employers, union organizers, and other employees; card check by its nature requires someone to sign a card with one’s name thereby forcing an open decision; this opens up individual employees to intimidation much more so than a SBE.
Come on here, let’s be honest about EFCA, its about squashing debate and an open process where all viewpoints are provided to employees. Even liberal/labor icon George McGovern opposes it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries