Today?s Wall Street Journal has a letter that argues strenuously on behalf of the ?Employee Free Choice Act.? Here?s the letter:

Weak Labor Law Makes Unions Hard to Organize
Elaine L. Chao’s “Defining Democracy Down” (editorial page, June 20) grossly misrepresents the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The EFCA would not prevent secret ballot union elections; it would give workers a choice to form a union either through an election or “card check.” That is a much-needed fix for weak U.S. labor law under which it is very difficult for workers to organize. Unlike the democratic political elections contemplated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.S. union elections are rarely free and fair.
Employers can bombard workers with an anti-union message and deny union representatives a meaningful opportunity to respond. Illegally retaliating against union supporters carries no fines or punitive consequences. Many employers take advantage and create a pre-election climate so tainted with fear and intimidation that workers cannot decide freely whether to organize. Under EFCA, workers could bypass this often coercive campaign period.
EFCA’s provision for first-contract arbitration would help ensure that, once organized, workers can exercise their right to bargain collectively. Secretary of Labor Chao calls this provision “pernicious” and claims it would “undermine” this basic right. But U.S. employers often regularly flout collective negotiations, dragging talks on for years with no intention of reaching an agreement. Such bad-faith bargaining is illegal, but current penalties are too weak to deter this practice.
EFCA would bring U.S. labor law closer to upholding the right, recognized in the Universal Declaration, of each worker “to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”
Carol Pier?Senior labor rights and trade researcher?Human Rights Watch?New York

What Ms. Pier means by ?weak labor law? is that it?s insufficiently authoritarian for her taste. Here is the letter I just sent to the Journal. (Sadly, it didn?t run the letter I submitted with reference to the article Pier is complaining about.)

In her June 26 letter regarding the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, Carol Pier contends that the bill?s provision for first-contract arbitration would make it easier for unions to exercise collective bargaining rights on behalf of workers.

Let?s bear in mind exactly what this means: government officials would have the power to dictate terms if the union and company management didn?t arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. The result shouldn?t be called a contract since it would not be a matter of mutual consent.

There are many, many authoritarian things government could do to help private parties achieve their objectives. (It?s risible that Ms. Pier talks about the ?coercion? of communications designed to persuade workers that unionization would not be in their interests, but then applauds the provision of the bill that allows government officials to impose terms on the employer.) It would help new businesses, for example, if government could order people to buy from them during a startup period. But if we are to retain any semblance of a free society, we have to say that it?s inappropriate for the state to exercise its power to coerce on behalf of individuals or groups.

If we don?t, freedom dies the death of a thousand cuts.

George C. Leef
Raleigh, NC