Can someone explain to me how anyone can justify the bill to replace the secret ballot with signed cards for workers deciding on whether or not to join a union?
The proposed Employee Free Choice Act passed the House, but it hasn’t even come to a vote in the Senate. Yet many union leaders and anti-union groups say it likely will become federal law next year.
“Sen. (Barack) Obama was one of the co-sponsors,” said Damian Hill, director of industry relations for the Associated General Contractors of Michigan. “He indicated during the campaign he would sign if it got passed. I think that’s the reason for the current interest.”
It isn’t new legislation, union leaders said. It’s been proposed at least twice during the current administration, but President George W. Bush promised to veto it.
Now the group Change to Win, composed of seven major unions, is calling for passage within President-elect Obama’s first 100 days in office.
“I call it the Employee No-Choice Act,” said attorney Peter Kok, chairman of the Employment and Labor section of Miller Johnson in Grand Rapids.
The legislation would enable unions to fast-track unionization votes and contract negotiations, Kok explained. Employees would not have to vote in secret-ballot elections to determine if a union would represent them. If half of employees plus one of a qualified group signs cards for a union, that union would become their representative.
What possible argument is there for this bill? What principles justify it?
Is the argument merely pragmatic, that unions and their supporters believe that it would increase union membership? Well, if unions find it necessary, that must mean that many workers are using the secret ballot to vote against joining unions. Which means they must think this bill will change unwilling voters into willing voters. Which means they believe that forcing workers to publicly expose how they voted will cause them to vote pro-union. Which means that they favor intimidation and coercion.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In