Is the election a secret ballot and the card check open? If that is the case then whatever the intent, it would seem that this legislation would give the workers the option of not using a secret ballot. They may choose to do this so they could pressure people into voting pro-union.

Erik,

As opposed to the current system where the employer can demand an election so they can pressure people into voting anti-union? What is it about the current system that you find fair? It is a farce.

The employer currently has few constraints should it choose to join an association or organization that it deems necessary to represent their interests. There is no secret ballot or card check requirement for a construction contractor or restaurant owner to join the local Chamber of Commerce or the National Federation of Independent Business that represents their best interests. One must ask why such extreme requirements exist for the employee when it does not exist for the employer.

The US Chamber of Commerce has come out, probably for the first time ever, in support of worker's rights so they can have their secret ballot on this issue of union organizing. If it were true that would be a welcome change, but the real issue is they once again are trying to limit the ability of workers to collectively bargain by continuing the status quo system of hurdles.

Remember the US Chamber of Commerce is against the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, against the raising of the minimum wage, against living wage ordinances, and against using unemployment insurance to fund paid family leave (I am a bit iffy on that one personally) which all point to anti-worker positions. That is unless you buy into the garbage that this is to protect worker's jobs.

Stagnant wages (which most of their positions would be in support of) has contributed with our economic downturn.

MarkJ,

Apples to Oranges? Your comment makes no sense.

One employer, one business can choose to associate with CoC or NFIB or not associate. They are speaking for themselves only.

But a majority of workers, so 6 of 11, or 2 of 3, or 3 of 5, or pick your own numbers, but more than one, more than the only, can seek unionization, and under EFCA that majority can forgo the forced upon secret ballot if they sign the card check.

So once again, what is your point?? Like that old tv show In Search Of.

In a perfect world you may be correct. A union could in theory ask for a secret ballot election. Will that ever happen? NO! This is a ruse by union leaders to dissuade the public by saying that there is still the possibility of a secret ballot election.
If they have the cards signed tell me why a union would ever submit to a secret ballot election?

Don’t take away my right to a secret ballot free of intimidation from either the employer or the union.

Roger: and where do YOU have a right to a secret ballot in the workplace? You are seriously confused.

I'd be a lot more impressed by the arguments against card check if we had an NLRB official at every worksite where a union election was to be held, busily insuring that workers were not being intimidated, fired, harassed, or otherwise denied their right to join a union during the pre-election period.

Roger,

You are seriously confused. Under current law, the union is recognized as the sole bargaining agent UNLESS the employer requests a certification election. Also, under current law, the union can be DECERTIFIED by card check. Where is your concern for the sacred secret ballot in that instance? Gone missing, no doubt?

Your concern is touching.

Section 2(a) of the Card Check legislation states that once union authorization cards are signed by more than 50% of workers in a bargaining unit, the National Labor Relations Board:

"shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative."

In other words, it would be illegal to have a secret ballot election once the union gathers the necessary signature cards.

"Workers do not currently have the right to a secret ballot in elections deciding whether or not they will have a union."

This is just obfuscation by Dean and won't meet the impending employer anti-EFCA campaign. The point is that the EFCA means union will be certified through card check and not through secret ballot election. Rather than pretend that is not the case (as Dean is apparently attempting to do), EFCA advocates should argue their real case, that during the union certification election 'campaign' period union organizers get fired and workers get harassed and propagandized by the company, with virtually no worker access provided to the union.

The poison pill in the Employee Free Choice Act is that once workers use the mechanism to unionize and negotiate their first contract, they're prohibited from striking for two years. How are you supposed to negotiate a contract if your ultimate weapon is denied?

To Brad Peck,

Thanks for the link to who you represent. Do you get paid for your posts? I don't. I haven't even been represented by a union.

The big question to you, as your last sentence seems to be a scare tactic,In other words, it would be illegal to have a secret ballot election once the union gathers the necessary signature cards.

If a majority, you know more than 50%, have signed a card check that they want a union, why do you need a secret ballot? The majority has spoken!

To Fairleft--great points about the real case.

End The Echo - I am the editor of the blog I linked to, that is part of my job, so I suppose I get paid for my posts. Regarding the last sentence it is not a scare tactic, it is a fact, 50% + 1 card = union, no election.

Regarding your other question we agree with Rep. George Miller (D-CA):

"we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might otherwise not choose."

Private vote = no intimidation.

Two points employers don't want to mention:

1. Employers enjoy card check rights when they want to decertify a union. EFCA would even the playing field.

2. Union intimidation is hardly even possible, and much less likely than intimidation by the employer, who has the power to hire, fire & discipline.