Washington Examiner  home delivery | classifieds | autos | jobs | real estate | home listings | advertise
   
Passport to the Podium
View today's E-Dition

Sunday, August 1, 2010 | Last Update 4:59 EDT
click for forecast
Home News Politics Local Opinion Economy Sports Lifestyle Classified Cars Homes Rentals Remodel
Nation World Beltway Confidential Yeas & Nays Opinion Zone Capital Land Weather Mobile Site RSS Feeds Contact
Nation World Science Education Video Technology
Beltway Confidential Yeas & Nays White House Congress Michael Barone Byron York Chris Stirewalt
Capital Land DC Virginia Maryland Local Opinion Zone Crime Transportation People Education Real Estate
Editorials Beltway Confidential OpinionZone Nate Beeler Columnists Mark Tapscott Dave Freddoso Mark Hemingway
Your Money Real Estate Technology K-Street
Cheers & Jeers Redskins/NFL Wizards/NBA Caps/NHL Nationals/MLB United/MLS Colleges Golf
Yeas & Nays Art Movies Television Health Food Music Scoop Theater Wheels Video Events Calendar
Jobs Buy Stuff Post Free Ad Personals Events
Automotive News New Used Certified Pre-Owned
Real Estate News Rent a Home Buy a Home Home Makeover

Special Editorial Reports
[Print]  [Email]         Share    

Card Check gives unions too much power over workers, critics say

By: Kevin Mooney
Editorial Staff Writer
February 19, 2009

Congressional Democrats are backing a bill to abolish secret ballots in workplace union representation elections in exchange for the heavy financial support they received from labor unions, during the 2008 campaign, according to critics of the bill and business community advocates.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA or Card Check) passed in the House last March but fell short of the 60 votes required for cloture in the Senate. Under current law, workers are guaranteed a federally supervised secret ballot election when formation of a new union is disputed.

Section Two of the Card Check bill declares that if unions obtain signatures from 50 percent plus one of a company’s workers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is required to certify the union without a secret ballot election.

Democratic supporters who claim the proposal permits secret ballots are being disingenuous and hypocritical, according to Card Check opponents, because an election cannot be held once enough cards are signed to mandate recognition of the new union.

Although a secret ballot election would still be technically possible under some circumstances, it would likely be impossible for workers opposed to a union to win it, said Glenn Spencer, executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“To say you can have a secret ballot election under this bill is like saying you could step off an airplane after it takes off. In theory, you could; in practice you won’t,” Spencer said.

Moreover, there is no provision in the bill that would prevent union organizers from gathering additional cards, which means they could continue collecting until they break through the 50 percent threshold making it illegal to have an election, Spencer said.

The debate on the merits of a secret ballot has already been won by Card Check critics, which is why Card Check supporters are using such careful rhetoric, said Jeremy Lott, editor of the Capital Research Center’s Labor Watch newsletter.

“What President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is indefensible and they know it,” he said. “The stimulus bill was used as a test to see if they would have enough raw muscle to force legislation. This will be the key question.”

In a 2001 letter addressed to Mexican officials, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), lead sponsor of the Card Check bill, and nine other Democratic co-sponsors, defended secret ballots as essential to protecting workers from being intimidated into voting for a union.

“They’ve had a tough time explaining that one away because it’s so obviously hypocritical,” Stefan Gleason, a National Right to Work Committee spokesman, said. “For those members of Congress to insist our trading partners respect the secret ballot, while they are trying to shred it in the U.S. puts them in a difficult situation, and they know it.”

So Card Check advocates, particularly signers of the 2001 letter, have fallen back on “red herring arguments” to rationalize their support for EFCA, Gleason said.

“Under card check, the union knows who voted for and who voted against,” he said. “The harassment, intimidation and late night visits begin once someone decides not to sign the card. Unions are not going to seek elections and the reality is workers will not be able to force an election to vote a union down because they will not have access to the cards. At the end of the day, if the card check bill passes there will almost never be a secret ballot election.”

Gleason also expressed concern over the amount of “coercive power” Card Check would give union leaders when the economy is in recession, and he cautioned against handing out additional privileges for organized labor.

He claimed the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 derailed what would have been a recovery and instead prolonged The Great Depression.

For more:

Card Check co-sponsors favor secret ballot for Mexico, but not for U.S. workers

State legislators, workers' rights activists seek new safeguards for secret ballot.

Critics fear Card Check is bait for compulsory arbitration system.


Topics

EFCA , Card Check , Labor Unions , Unions , Labor Bosses , Big Labor , National Right to Work Committee , House Education and Labor Committee , The Washington Examiner , Rep. George Miller



Examiner Opinion Zone
How do bureaucracies work?

One respectable answer is that they don't. Many an op-ed has been written to elaborate the point, but this won't be one of them. Such answer is neither useful nor reassuring...

—Jason Kuznicki

Communist Monarchies

Outside of the Arabian Peninsula, where in the world do you think absolute monarchies still exist? A strong clue is given in this Daily Telegraph story about the fate of the...

—P.J. Gladnick

A different path to regime change in Iran

“The republic has no need of science or of chemistry.” With these words, a French tribunal confirmed its 1794 sentence of death on Antoine Lavoisier, the great...

—Neil Hrab

More Examiner Opinion Zone posts...

To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines
  1. Chris Matthews' daughter tackles the deficit
  2. WaPo buries Dem fundraiser’s fraud, highlights GOP fundraising scandal
  3. To historians, Obama pledged to ’speak less often’ in future
  4. It’s not just Rangel — Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., to be tried on ethics charges
  5. Hapless SEC can now hide its secrets
  6. Obama unemployment news conference featured Va. woman convicted of drug fraud
  7. NYT: ‘No more disputing’ economic recovery has slowed down, jobs outlook ‘discouraging’
  8. Growing ‘independent’ nature of electorate is helping GOP
  9. Top GOP campaign donors charged with $550 million fraud
  10. Obama’s auto policy: All in the Democratic family





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 200 words. Comments that advocate violence, racism, or libel as well as comments written in ALL CAPS are not permitted.


blog comments powered by Disqus

RSS | Twitter | Facebook | Intern | Video | Maps | Mobile | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Rack Locations | Advertise