The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has published a helpful primer
on the Card Check bill. The report, written by Thomas Gies, an
attorney at Crowell & Moring LLP, addresses many of the key
issues. The following passage addresses the critical question of
whether voting is really an option under the Employee Free Choice Act
(EFCA):
“The current political debate over card check has been marked by
significant exaggerations and misstatements about the current process.
One of the most serious is the notion, commonly advanced by card check
proponents, that the EFCA would not prohibit secret ballot elections
but would merely provide employees with another option: certification
by “majority sign-up” or card check. The argument is disingenuous.
Under the EFCA, employees would have no meaningful choice between a
secret ballot election and recognition by card check. That choice would
be left to union organizers who will never opt for a secret ballot
election if they can get authorization cards signed by a majority of
the affected employees. The only scenario in which a secret ballot
election would take place under EFCA would be the relatively rare
situation in which a union organizer has gotten authorization cards
signed by a minority of workers–that is, more than the 30 percent
required for an election but less than the majority needed for
automatic certification. Union organizers almost never file an election
petition in these circumstances because they know that some of the
employees who signed cards will not vote for the union after hearing
the other side of the story. There is no reason to believe the union
organizers would change their approach under a card check regime.”
Actually,
I’d describe it more directly: Under current law, there is a secret
ballot. If the EFCA passes, most if not all of the time,
employees won’t have a secret ballot–regardless of whether they want a
secret ballot or not.
The argument that employees will have another option is not
disingenuous–it is a flat-out lie. The EFCA replaces a vote with
a card check process.
Under current law, when employees sign-up for union authorization they
know it is simply to support a secret ballot vote. Now imagine
this new law where employees are not asked to support a secret ballot
vote, but to prove their support for unionization (their signatures
will be used as an alternative to a vote). The pressure on
employees to sign will be far more intense.
The arguments about the pros and cons of unions to me are completely
pointless in this “debate.” The question is whether employees
should be able to freely choose whether they want to be in a
union. Proponents of the EFCA don’t want there to be free choice
(regardless of the bill’s name) and opponents do want free
choice. Simple as that.
