I have previously written on this blog that (for me) one of the most important reasons to vote for Barack Obama was his support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a piece of legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize, and prevent corporations (like Wal-Mart) from calling sudden secret ballot elections they (effectively) know in advance the outcome of.
As the inevitable legislative fight over the EFCA heats up next year we will hear all sorts of myths and distortions about what the EFCA proposes to do. The most common myth I’ve encountered is that the EFCA will “eliminate” the right of workers to form unions by secret ballot.
In fact, as Dean Baker points out, the opposite is true. It will give workers the right to choose to form unions by secret ballot for the first time:
Workers do not currently have the right to a secret ballot in elections deciding whether or not they will have a union. The employer has the option to recognize a union based on card check (a majority of workers sign a card indicating their desire to join a union) or to demand an election certified by the National Labor Relations Board. The Employee Free Choice Act that will be considered by Congress in the next session gives this choice to workers.
Under the legislation, workers could organize by card check, but they can also petition to have an election overseen by the NLRB. Therefore it is incorrect for the Post to assert that the bill’s “intent [is] to eliminate secret ballots in union elections.”
In short, the EFCA takes away an option from employers (which form of union certification they wish to recognize) and gives new options to workers interested in forming unions (which form of organizing they wish to pursue).
What I would ask the author is how is it fair if either side (the union or employer) gets to act as the referee in choosing to unionize or not. To me the fairest compromise would be a secret ballot but the election is always run by the NLRB or equivalent state authority. Unless an election is always required to prevent peer pressure (which can be just as destructive as employer pressure) from unduly influencing an election.
Comment by John — December 11, 2008 @ 9:46 am
It’s a good question, but one that isn’t necessarily related to the EFCA as such. The check-card system exists already and will continue to exist.
The secret ballot would be added to the list of ways workers seeking to unionize can pursue. In fact, if Baker’s description is correct, the NLRB will continue to oversee such secret ballot elections, as you say you’d prefer.
As for fairness, it’s probably worth noting that the NLRB has to validate any method of unionization. So unless you think the NLRB is compromised or can’t be trusted to respond to abuse, I can’t think of a more fair way to arbitrate these claims.
Illegal levels of pressure may happen, but the onus on ensuring the fairness of the process lies with the NLRB and (presumably) law enforcement. In practice, there are far far more complaints of illegal firings of union-organizing employees on the part of employers, and complaints that the present system of secret ballot is subverted by employers — who use work-hours to spead anti-union messages, force employees to listen to anti-union talks by supervisors, etc.
Comment by Lee — December 11, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Fair enough but employer pressure is more enforceable than union pressure and employee peer pressure. There are a whole framework of laws for the former but very few specifically for the later.
I think card check should only allow the NLRB to run an election independent of what the employer thinks or what stunts a Walmart like company might try.
That way an employee not wishing to unionize could sign to card to avoid the ostracism while still voting his desire in private. Thus moving the ball not from the employer’s goal line like today or the union’s goal line as the EFCA would do but instead on the 50 yard line.
Comment by John — December 12, 2008 @ 9:22 am