USA Today falsely suggested that current system requires secret ballot election to form union
SUMMARY: USA Today reported that the Employee Free Choice Act "would allow workers to form a union by gathering signed cards from a majority of employees, rather than the current method of winning a secret-ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board." But the suggestion that a NLRB secret ballot election is currently required before obtaining union representation at a workplace is false. Under current law, a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers can represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union.
In a February 25 USA Today article, reporter Matt Kelley wrote that the Employee Free Choice Act "would allow workers to form a union by gathering signed cards from a majority of employees, rather than the current method of winning a secret-ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB]." However, Kelley's suggestion that an NLRB secret ballot election is currently required before obtaining union representation at a workplace is false. Under current law, a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers can represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union.
The NLRB, in its September 2007 Dana Corp. decision, noted the existence and legality of voluntary recognition: "We do not question the legality of voluntary recognition agreements based on a union's showing of majority support. Voluntary recognition itself predates the National Labor Relations Act and is undisputedly lawful under it." In the decision, the board later observed that when an employer voluntarily recognizes a union, "[t]he employer's obligation to bargain with the union attaches immediately. For instance ... the union can begin its representation of employees, its processing of their grievances, and its bargaining with the employer for a first contract." In addition, the dissent in Dana stated that "it is beyond dispute that an employer may voluntarily recognize a union that has demonstrated majority support by means other than an election, including -- as in the present cases -- authorization cards signed by a majority of the unit employees."
Further, Kelley wrote that "[o]pponents of card check such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say it would allow union organizers to coerce or intimidate workers and would lead to higher costs that could drive some companies out of business." Kelley did not note, as Media Matters for America has noted, that supporters of the legislation say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
American Rights at Work notes that under current law, "employers can recognize a union if a majority of employees demonstrates that they wish to be represented by a union" but "employers are under no obligation to recognize a union." Under the Employee Free Choice Act, "the union must be certified when authorization forms have been signed by a majority of employees, whereas under current law the employer can refuse to recognize the union and insist instead on an NLRB election." From American Rights at Work:
Under current law, employers can recognize a union if a majority of employees demonstrates that they wish to be represented by a union -- usually by signing forms designating the union as their collective bargaining representative. It is illegal for employers to recognize a union that does not have majority support. On the other hand, employers are under no obligation to recognize a union even if 100 percent of employees have signed such authorization forms. For this reason, employees in many workplaces ask management to enter into so-called "majority sign-up" agreements, in which management agrees to voluntarily recognize the union if a majority of employees sign authorization forms or "cards." Employers may enter into these agreements to maintain good relations with their employees, to maintain good relations with unions at their other worksites, or to maintain a favorable public image. Respected community leaders or professional arbitrators are typically designated as neutral third parties to monitor the agreement and to verify that authorization forms have been signed by a true majority.
[...]
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, when a majority of employees sign union authorization forms, they can file a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB; and the NLRB must investigate the petition. If the NLRB determines that authorization forms have been signed by a majority of employees, it must certify the union as the employees' collective bargaining representative. The principal difference with current law is that the union must be certified when authorization forms have been signed by a majority of employees, whereas under current law the employer can refuse to recognize the union and insist instead on an NLRB election. Another difference is that the NLRB, rather than another neutral third party, must directly determine whether a majority of employees have designated the union as their collective bargaining representative.
American Rights at Work further noted that Cingular Wireless was one company that agreed to "remain neutral and allow workers to indicate their choice through majority sign-up." From American Rights at Work:
At Cingular Wireless, over 17,000 employees chose to join a union in less than a year when the company and union agreed to remain neutral and allow workers to indicate their choice through majority sign-up. Said Executive VP of Human Resources Rick Bradley, "We believe that employees should have a choice...Making choice available to them results, in part, in employees who are engaged in the business and who have a passion for customers."
From the February 25 USA Today article:
The head of the country's largest labor union says he expects victory by August on one of labor's top priorities in Congress: legislation designed to make union organizing easier.
Andrew Stern, president of the 2 million-member Service Employees International Union, said Wednesday he thinks there are enough votes in the House and Senate to approve the bill known as "card check." The measure would allow workers to form a union by gathering signed cards from a majority of employees, rather than the current method of winning a secret-ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.
Stern, in an interview with USA TODAY, cast the issue as a way to help workers during hard economic times and change the balance "between big business and people who work."
"It's not about unions. It's about how America is going to rebuild the middle class," Stern said.
Opponents of card check such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say it would allow union organizers to coerce or intimidate workers and would lead to higher costs that could drive some companies out of business.















It's not an either/or. Why is it so difficult for the media to figure this out?
They are pushing the conservative's agenda that says it is an either/or situation when they tell us it's one or the other.
It's both.
It is not hard to figure out. what is hard is how to make this non-brainer into a 24/7 news format and fill the time.
Workers may feel intimidated to sign the card because other union supporters and leaders may say, "hey look, John Doe, the guy who did not sign the card".
The intimidated worker(s) can then file a ULP complaint with the NLRB against those union supporters and leaders.
Stop pushing these idiotic talking points that the EFCA will somehow open the door to intimidation or that unions will operate with impunity from the enforcement of the NLRB. Worker intimidation by labor or management is illegal and it will continue to be illegal if the EFCA is enacted.
But, Pete, they may say "hey look, the guy who didn't sign the card".
That's pretty intimidating.
Besides, you have to understand the fear of an open ballot to people who voted for George W. Bush & Grampy McCain. That's pretty embarrassing.
Isn't employer intimidation illegal too, technically?
I think it should remain a secret ballot. It is a right of privacy that the secret ballot holds. Besides you think that to through the union out it should be done without a secret ballot?
Good for you. The rest of us who recognize that companies have a huge amount of unchecked power over the workers will continue to support card check.
I believe the point of this MMFA focus is not to call into question or debate the first part of the sentence, but to point out that the second part of the sentence is factually incorrect.
I would be so bold as to suggest that MMFA hopes that you, after having thoughtfully digested this fact, will then ask yourself this question, "Why is a reporter spreading demonstrable lies?" Ask yourself what kind of reporter reports provable lies? A pretty bad one, I think...
Did you, as I did, send USA Today a message complaining about the lack of talent? If the MMFA article accomplished its goal, the answer is "yes".
Stay on target. Work for change.
yes how dare you say that the door will be opened to intimidation by this! you very well know that the unions have been intimidating workers since before the repeal of prohibition when we still called it the mafia!
The power of the unions is nothing compared to the leverage companies have over their employees. It needs to be balanced out.
i don't disagree with that completely the idea of the union is good, great in fact especially in its inception. problem is that good intentions don't always make good policy. i do agree that some large corps might very well hold to much power but they aren't all bad. but can you honestly say that the unions, not all but most, aren't a touch mob like in there actions.
So, you are all ok with Union Members knowing in the future who voted yes or now. That would be like going into a voting booth and having a printout given to the local Republican and Democratic Reps so they can knock on your door in the future questing you on how you are going to vote next time, again them getting a print out if you did or did not vote the way the wanted you too.
Actually, I want to find out who voted no or later.
"So, you are all ok with Union Members knowing in the future who voted yes or now."
Under the EFCA, it will be entirely up to the employees to make that choice.
Currently, the employees can only use majority sign-up if the employer agrees. The EFCA puts the choice between majority sign-up or secret ballot into the hands of employees where it belongs.
There you go again... ;)
I believe the point of this MMFA focus is not to call into question or debate the first part of the sentence, but to point out that the second part of the sentence is factually incorrect.
I would be so bold as to suggest that MMFA hopes that you, after having thoughtfully digested this fact, will then ask yourself this question, "Why is a reporter spreading demonstrable lies?" Ask yourself what kind of reporter reports provable lies? A pretty bad one, I think...
Did you, as I did, send USA Today a message complaining about the lack of talent? If the MMFA article accomplished its goal, the answer is "yes".
Stay on target. Work for change.
is it really factually wrong, or just open to interpretation? honestly just trying to start a dialogue. i personally only watch tv news so i get all sides of the story, along with print and radio. all sides lib, con, religous and conspiracy.
It's really factually wrong.
but isn't it taking away the secret ballot? employer and union crap aside. isn't that fundamentally what this is about? i gues i'm not seeing the big lie here.
What proof is there that the vote by employees to join the union or not will no longer be secret? What this act will do is allow workers to unionize if they choose so and they don't have to have recognition from an employer. The employer, under current law, is the one who can decide if there will even be an election among workers to unionize or not. This law will put that power in the hands of workers. From American Rights at Work:
"The principal difference with current law is that the union must be certified when authorization forms have been signed by a majority of employees, whereas under current law the employer can refuse to recognize the union and insist instead on an NLRB election. Another difference is that the NLRB, rather than another neutral third party, must directly determine whether a majority of employees have designated the union as their collective bargaining representative."