Politico falsely suggested that a secret-ballot election is currently required to form a union
SUMMARY: A Politico article reported that the Employee Free Choice Act "would allow workers to organize a union by signing a card instead of holding secret-ballot elections." However, the suggestion that a 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, without holding such an election.
In a February 25 Politico article, Lisa Lerer reported that the Employee Free Choice Act "would allow workers to organize a union by signing a card instead of holding secret-ballot elections." However, Lerer's suggestion that a 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, without holding such an election.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the National Labor Relations Board, 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."
According to 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" but "employers are under no obligation to recognize a union" established under such majority sign-up procedures. 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 the February 25 Politico article, headlined "Unions not discouraged by card check":
Business lobbyists are cheering signs that progress may have slowed on passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.
A top priority of organized labor and its Democratic allies, the controversial legislation has yet to be reintroduced this year in either the House or the Senate.
"This definitely represents a major loss of momentum in this legislation," said Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "This delay is helpful."
The legislation -- well known by the moniker "card check" -- is vehemently opposed by business. The bill would allow workers to organize a union by signing a card instead of holding secret-ballot elections.
Union lobbyists say they are not bothered by the delay, which they blame on an already packed congressional agenda being overtaken by the current economic crisis.
How is signing a card any different from a secret election ? I sign a card everytime i vote by mail . the actual ballot inside does not contain any link to my name.....or does it ?
I vote by mail as well, in Oregon. The outer envelope contains personal information. The inner secrecy envelope and the ballot itself does not.
I can readily see a obvious failure should my mail in ballot end up in a box somewhere and never counted after being opened. I don't actually get to see the ballot run thru the machine and rely on a consciention person to do so.
Election monitors from both parties can help to alleviate such concerns about transport, storage, and counting.
In my state, if we don't want to trust our ballot to the postal service, or we'd rather save the postage, we can deliver it ourselves to a drop box at the local library, or directly to the county elections office.
The outer envelope contains personal information. The inner secrecy envelope and the ballot itself does not.
Ha ha ha. The what envelope?
Did I say something funny?
A secrecy envelope is one that has a printed pattern throughout its interior surface, which obscures the contents of whatever document is contained. They are also referred to as security envelopes <picture>. The purpose is to keep the ballot secret during the mailing process, if the voter chooses to mail it.
You must have. Over my head also.
I sign a card everytime i vote by mail . the actual ballot inside does not contain any link to my name.....or does it ?
Sure it does-- your validating signature on the envelope. That's one of the many problems with all-mail ballots.
Another is that they favor incumbents or the most popular candidates. And mail elections are not secret, either-- who knows how much grandma was pressured to vote for her son-in-law's choice, especially when he mailed the ballot for her.
This is a classic bit of hypocrisy for righties who clamor for all-mail ballots, but scream about the need for "secret ballots" at union elections.
I have some questions, since you seem pretty sure of what you're talking about...
What problems have the signatures caused? We've been voting by mail in Oregon for 15 years and I haven't heard of such problems. Where have these problems been prevalent?
Why do mail-in ballots favor incumbents and the most popular candidates?
Mail-in elections are as secret as the individual voter chooses to make them. How widespread is the "grandma pressure" epidemic? Oh, that's right, you already asked, "who knows?" I guess it would start with how many grandma's there are in a given electorate, then perhaps you can somehow root out which ones have a son-in-law that's prone to voter fraud.
I do wonder how easy it would be for Mr. Son-in-law to commit fraud by simply mailing the ballot for grandma if grandma has already sealed the ballot. If it shows signs of tampering, chances are pretty good that it will be tossed from the vote count.
How is signing a card any different from a secret election
In this case, the card you'd be signing is a union authorization card; by signing it, you're saying you want the union to be your collective bargaining agent. That information is not supposed to be available to the employer but it is available to the union (of course) and to the National Labor Relations Board (and I have been directly involved in cases where the employer somehow wound up knowing exactly who signed cards). So signing the card is different from a secret ballot because the act of signing demonstrates a preference of which third parties will be aware.
In a nutshell and somewhat oversimplified, if 30% of employees in a bargaining unit sign such cards, the union can petition for a unionization election. Alternately, if more than 50% of those employees do so, the union can file for a "card check" election, which in essence has the NLRB check to make sure the signatures are valid, i.e., that a majority wants that union.
The issue arises because in the latter case, a card check election only happens if the employer agrees. Otherwise, it must be by secret ballot. What the Employee Free Choice Act would do is eliminate the requirement for the employer's agreement and return to the status that existed before 1966, under which an employer could refuse a card check method only on the basis of a "good faith belief" that enough cards were invalid.
Employers prefer secret ballot elections because it gives them the greatest opportunity for spin and pressure - and just as importantly, experience has shown that the longer a campaign goes on, the more union supporters among the employees just get discouraged and give up. Unlike the union-busting law firms hired by employers, whose full-time job it is to fight unions, most of the work of unionization at a given workplace falls on the workers there, who must undertake the effort in addition to their regular work.
Look at the forces lined up to fight this bill.
Wal-Mart, Republicans, conservatives and talk radio and media nutbags.
Groups who've worked against any kind of rights for workers throughout history.
Now all of a sudden they say they're lookin' out for the workin' stiff".
Do they think we're stupid?
Yes. Yes they do.
And they've got enough Hannity listeners to make a very persuasive argument that they're right.
absolutely they do. in front of a camera on a pr blitz, of course they say they are for the worker. Never ming warren Buffet , on channel 9, while flying to China said he sup[ports China to off load work to viet Nam if it saves costs ( money ).
You forgot one major one the US Chamber of Commerace. They not only are against this bill but they are trying to make every state a right to work state. That would kill unions all together.
The key here is "if the employer voluntarily agrees", not only do they not agree
they discourage and threaten anyone who may want a union. My question is how many ceo's accept a position without a contract guaranteeing them millions in bonuses, even if they send their company to bankruptcy court.
It seems to me that union bosses have come up with this undemocratic law with the Orwellian name in order to intimidate workers into joining unions. How sad that Democrats are willing to deny workers a basic right. Why not try to figure out why workers are choosing not to join? Maybe the unions should change. Give workers a reason to join and they will do so without having to be bullied.
-- Give workers a reason to join and they will do so without having to be bullied. -- cajungirl
Nicely said...
The Employee Free Choice Act does not permit bullying by union bosses. That would be illegal. This would give all the power to workers instead of business to unionize.
Gee, so the official site of the beltway establishment doesn't know a damned thing about organized labor.
I'm shocked.
Here's an article might have been a harbinger of the current woes by the auto industry written nearly three years ago.
It's title is "Where Would GM Be Without The United Automobile Workers Union"....and relax...it's just an informational read for those unafraid to to test their premise on labor relations.
A neocon rant that all things bad with detroit can be placed at the door of the UAW. What a surprise.
Supporters of the legislation say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
Isn't the above also illegal? Why then is this legislation necessary?
How can you be intimidated if you're voting in secret?
You say that the choice is taken away from the employer. Is it then given to the workers? How do they signal whether they want card check or a secret ballot?
Thanks.