NY Times report on EFCA ignored supporters' point that bill would eliminate only employers' right to demand secret ballot

A January 8 New York Times article quoted multiple opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) claiming that the bill would "eliminate ... the right" to a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers wish to unionize, but did not mention that supporters of EFCA counter by pointing out, as the Times itself has previously reported, that the bill would only "take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election" [emphasis added].

In the January 8 article, labor and workplace reporter Steven Greenhouse quoted Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) claiming of EFCA, "It is a total game changer for the next 40 to 50 years if the Democrats are able to get this legislation that eliminates the right to a secret ballot." Greenhouse later reported:

"We are against any bill that would effectively eliminate freedom of choice and the right to a secret ballot election," said a Wal-Mart spokesman, David Tovar. "We believe every associate" -- Wal-Mart's term for employees -- "should have the right to make a private and informed decision regarding union representation."

But Greenhouse cited no proponent of the bill explaining that it would abolish only the employer's ability to force a secret-ballot election. Indeed, as Greenhouse himself reported in a November 8, 2008, Times article, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added].

As Media Matters for America documented, the House Committee on Education and Labor describes the claim that "[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth" and states on its website: "The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer."

From Greenhouse's January 8 New York Times article:

Intent on blocking organized labor's top legislative goal, corporations are quietly contributing to lobbying groups with appealing names like the Workforce Fairness Institute and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

These groups are planning a multimillion-dollar campaign in the hope of killing legislation that would give unions the right to win recognition at a workplace once a majority of employees sign cards saying they want a union. Business groups fear the bill will enable unions to quickly add millions of workers and drive up labor costs.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a federation of 500 business groups, ran a full-page advertisement on Wednesday that sought to discredit the legislation, called the Employee Free Choice Act. The advertisement said that if secret ballots were good enough to elect Barack Obama then they should be good enough for union members, too.

Richard Berman, a Washington lobbyist, has created a business-backed group, the Center for Union Facts, that is planning to run millions of dollars' worth of television spots over the next few months to pressure moderate Democrats to oppose the bill.

During last fall's presidential campaign, groups opposing the legislation spent more than $20 million on television commercials in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and other states in an effort to defeat Democratic Senate candidates who backed the bill.

At a confirmation hearing set for Friday, Republican senators are expected to challenge Representative Hilda L. Solis of California, President-elect Obama's choice for labor secretary, over her support for the legislation.

Business leaders denounce the bill because it would largely eliminate secret-ballot elections to determine whether workers want a union. (The union win rate has traditionally been far higher through majority signups than elections.)

"If you know anything about politics, it is a game changer," said Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada. "It is a total game changer for the next 40 to 50 years if the Democrats are able to get this legislation that eliminates the right to a secret ballot. We are fighting it hard."

[...]

Opponents fear that the legislation will enable labor to become a wealthier and more powerful political force. Union leaders see the bill as crucial for reversing labor's long decline -- unions represent just 7.5 percent of private-sector workers, down from nearly 40 percent a half-century ago.

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said that if Wal-Mart's United States work force of 1.4 million were unionized, that could mean $500 million in additional union dues collected each year -- tens of millions of which might be used to support Democratic causes and candidates.

Acknowledging that Wal-Mart presents a formidable challenge, labor leaders say they hope to unionize up to 100 of Wal-Mart's more than 4,000 United States stores for starters, which might add 30,000 members.

"We are against any bill that would effectively eliminate freedom of choice and the right to a secret ballot election," said a Wal-Mart spokesman, David Tovar. "We believe every associate" -- Wal-Mart's term for employees -- "should have the right to make a private and informed decision regarding union representation."

Labor leaders say they do not oppose secret-ballot elections, but rather the bitter two-month management-versus-union campaigns that often precede elections. Union leaders say those campaigns are usually unfair because corporations often fire union supporters and press their anti-union views day and night in one-on-one sessions and large meetings while union organizers are prohibited from company property.

Labor leaders said that last month they won one of the biggest unionization victories in years for the nearly 5,000 workers at the Smithfield pork processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C., by insisting on what they said were fairer rules.

If the bill is enacted, unions say they will try to organize workers by quietly getting a majority to sign pro-union cards before companies can begin an anti-union campaign. In theory, a union organizer or pro-union employee would have an easy time signing up a majority of, say, the 25 workers at a McDonald's, the 15 baristas at a Starbucks or the 50 aides at a nursing home.

Corporations also oppose a provision of the bill that would allow government arbitrators to determine the terms of a contract when no agreement has been reached within 120 days of a union's winning recognition. Defending that provision, labor leaders say companies often undermine newly formed unions by dragging out contract talks for months, even years.

"The idea of negotiating a contract and turning it over to an arbitrator who has no interest in the company or the workers' future and then can dictate the terms of a contract, that's a pretty reckless way to go," said Mr. Engler of the manufacturers' association. "This is the one issue that everybody who's an employer agrees is a bad idea."