[Peace-discuss] Liberal opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act

[C. G. Estabrook]

"Democracy in Illinois"? The state with the most restrictive ballot-access laws 
in the country (with the possible exception of Georgia), owning to sweetheart 
gerrymandering by the Republicans and Democrats? (And the state that may even 
have stolen the 1960 election?) A state in which organized labor is as 
influential as any other?

Has anyone noticed any big expansion of independent unions in Illinois as a 
result of that change in Illinois labor law taking place?

[The following is from Michael J. Lotito, Martin F. Payson and James J. LaRocca, 
"The Right to Vote Under Attack -- Again," Employment Law 360, Aug. 13, 2008
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/pdf/081308_The_Right_to_Vote_Under_Attack_Law360.pdf]

...Until recently, this proposed law seeking to abridge a worker’s right to vote 
has drawn little attention outside the ranks of organized labor, its primary 
sponsor. General publicity about EFCA has generated confusion as to whether the 
Act totally disenfranchises workers in the union organizing context.

Labor claims that EFCA does not eliminate the secret-ballot union certification 
election, a process where employees can decide whether to select a union by a 
private, secret-ballot vote.

Proponents of employee rights have challenged organized labor’s contentions. 
They believe that the bill effectively eliminates a worker’s right to a secret 
vote.

Technically, both sides are correct. Practically, however, labor is completely 
in error and its arguments are misleading and duplicitous.

Under existing law, the National Labor Relations Board can hold a secret-ballot 
election where 30% or more of workers in an appropriate bargaining unit sign 
union “authorization” cards.

However, if a majority of employees in a unit signs authorization cards, the 
union may ask the employer for voluntary recognition, without a vote.

Employers seldom voluntarily accept the cards as an accurate reflection of 
employee sentiment about union representation because they are unaware of the 
circumstances under which workers may have signed the cards. This forces the 
union to petition the Board to give employees a secret-ballot vote.

EFCA would amend the law by forbidding the NLRB from holding a secret-ballot 
election where more than 50% of employees in a unit sign union authorization 
cards. The bill states that if a majority of workers sign union recognition 
cards, the NLRB “shall not direct an election but shall certify the” union as 
the exclusive bargaining representative for the appropriate unit of employees.

In other words, once a majority of employees (“fifty percent-plus-one”) sign 
union authorization cards, the bill eliminates an employee’s right to a 
secret-ballot election. It is only where less than 50% of employees in a unit 
have signed cards that labor is correct in saying that employees would preserve 
their right to a secret ballot.

In reality, unions rarely seek an election where they have less than a majority 
of the employees signed up. As candidly stated by Vicki Saporta, former National 
Organizing Director for the Teamsters, unless a union has at least 60% of the 
workers signed up, its ability to win an NLRB election is less than 50%.

Thus, unions almost always seek to get a strong majority of cards signed by 
whatever means possible before requesting a vote. This begs the question: “why 
request a vote with the possibility of losing?”

Labor’s solution is do away with the secret-ballot vote once it has obtained a 
card majority (no matter what employees may have been told to get them to sign), 
which translates to automatic EFCA certification. This vote-free process, which 
labor disingenuously calls a “card check election,” is what [organized] labor 
means when it refers to “employee free choice”...


Robert Naiman wrote:
> Under existing law, 30% of workers can request a secret ballot
> election. The EFCA does nothing to change that. If the EFCA becomes
> law, 30% of the workers can still request a secret ballot election, so
> in fact the law will still be tilted toward a secret ballot election.
> 
> The EFCA would give _workers_ the ability to determine by what process
> they shall make the collective decision whether or not to have union
> representation. Right now that decision is made in the private sector
> by the employer.
> 
> It's worth noting that in Illinois today, in the public sector, we now
> have card check. If someone works for the state of Illinois - for
> example, for the University of Illinois - and would be eligible to
> join a union (for example, not management), then the labor law now
> governing that person would allow people in that unit to file for
> union recognition on the basis of union authorization cards signed by
> a majority.
> 
> Has anyone noticed any big crisis about the destruction of democracy
> in Illinois as a result of that change in Illinois labor law taking
> place? I haven't.
>