Fox's Chris Wallace claims "card check" bill "would do away with the secret ballot for unionization"

This particular legislation has me puzzled and left to wonder. 

At present, once any labor union or organizer has collected signatures on cards from 50% or more of the employees being organized, and once the application is made to the NLRB (I believe) for those organizers to be recognized as the exclusive representative of those employees that signed cards (in a 'first come first served' sense, so that no other labor union may come along and 'jump the claim" of the organizers who did all the organizing), and upon what amounts to the beginning of collective bargaining, the employer in question then has a right to require a secret ballot in the matter, over and above the simple presentation of signed cards by 50% or more of the employees in question...

And I believe I just stated it all clearly, or as best as I presently understand it...

Here's my question: What's wrong with the process just described? 

I mean, what if any problem or difficulty is found, in the employer's right to require a secret ballot, in the process described above (and accurately I hope), what's the problem? 

And if I could ask any informed or expert labor people in this particular matter (and I believe the AFL-CIO is greatly behind this legislation, but there are many others I'm sure), I'd ask them: Could you please cite to me a single past instance, but as many as three would be better, of where the employer's right to require a secret ballot in these matters, was some kind of injustice or other problem that required a statutory solution...

I mean, in what instance would the submission of the cards be followed by a "no union" secret ballot result (as that's about the only thing I can see here at issue), and how exactly was that an injustice or a problem requiring a legal solution? 

And again, I'd prefer to hear one real world factual instance of this at least, and three at best, and a description of the problem or injustice in those instances, to be convinced that the problem or injustice exists... even a good but merely abstract and hypothetical example would suffice I guess.

There's a good reason why this particular legislation is having problems I believe, and the simple argument of higher wages and better benefits and workplace rights, are in fact just an argument for Unions (of which I do not need to be sold, as I already am), and are not in truth particular arguments for the EFCA, or any description of the problems and injustices it supposedly addresses. 

 

If FOX is so worried about "secret ballots," why don't they campaign against all-mail ballots, or the overuse of absentees?

Nope. Not true. Next ...

"Here's my question: What's wrong with the process just described? ...

 Could you please cite to me a single past instance, but as many as three would be better, of where the employer's right to require a secret ballot in these matters, was some kind of injustice or other problem that required a statutory solution..."

I can give you a good one.

About 25 years ago I was working for a major national employer who suddenly fired me for no reason. They also fired a few other older employees for the same 'no reason' given.

We all got unemployment, but we were baffled. Then we found out a few weeks later: the Retail Clerks union was organizing the employer. The company was flying planeloads of executives out to fight the action, and the order was to get rid of any employees-- no review-- who might be prone to help organize or be pro union. 

That's why you don't want to let employers have time for "votes." Besides-- if they want a vote-- OK, let's have a vote. We'll have it tomorrow, and not in the employee cafeteria, either-- let's have it in the church hall down the street.

Think they'd go for that? No way. These proactive harassments still happen.