WSJ falsely suggested a secret ballot is currently required for employees to gain union representation
SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal falsely suggested that a secret ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union, asserting that the Employee Free Choice Act "would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join." In fact, current law already allows a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers to represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union.
In a March 10 article reporting that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was "expected to be introduced" that day, The Wall Street Journal falsely suggested that a secret ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union. The article asserted that the EFCA "would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join." In fact, current law already allows a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers to represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union.
As Media Matters for America documented, in its September 2007 Dana Corp. decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 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."
Media outlets have repeatedly forwarded the same false suggestion in articles about the EFCA.
From the March 10 Wall Street Journal article:
The battle over the "Employee Free Choice Act" -- expected to be introduced Tuesday -- is seen as a power struggle among labor unions and businesses, as well as a test of whether moderate Democrats and Republicans will push back on Democratic congressional leaders and the Obama administration.
[...]
Sen. [Blanche] Lincoln [AR] is one of several moderate Democrats expressing doubts about the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join. A second provision would give federal arbitrators power to impose contract terms on companies that fail to reach negotiated agreements with unions. Both provisions are strongly opposed by business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Why is it it so hard for the media to get this correct? I got into a debate with my brother (a devoted FOX viewer) the other night, who insisted that the Democrats are attempting to take away the secret ballot. My understanding of the legislation is just the opposite...that it takes away the check card method while retaining the secret ballot method as the exclusive option. Am I incorrect?
This is simply a classic power struggle between business and unions. Unions want to continue using the check card option because that is the more successful method. They say that business intimidation occurs more frequently when the secret ballot is used because businesses threaten layoffs and workplant closures before the election. Businessses are more succesful in defeating union organization when the secret ballot is used so that's why they want to make that the exclusive method. The issue sounds pretty clear and simple to me. Why can't the media explain it that way?
Okay, I've got a better understanding now. Union recognition by the employer is presently optional under the check card system. It is mandatory under an election. Among other things, the Employee Free Choice Act would make employer recognition of the union mandatory if a majority of workers wishing to unionize sign check cards indicating so, but still maintaining the secret ballot election as an optional method to gain union recognition. Still, the media have done a poor job explaining the proposed legislation in its basic terms.
you are correct sir!
and if neo cons hate anything, its unions. How dare the working rabble demand good benefits and pay, it cuts into our profits, its uncapitalistic!
Blasphemers!
Seems to me Media Matters isn't doing a good job here either. It may be so, as MM points out, that current law allows a union if the employer recognizes it. But how often does that happen? If it happened to any extent their would be little need for an Employee Free Choice Act. The MM summary is talking to a niddling point.
Presently, it only takes 30% of the work force signing check cards electing union representation to call for an election. However, if a majority of the workers sign check cards in favor of unionization the election may be dispensed with by the employer who may voluntarily recognize the union. How often does that happen? I can't say for certain but if, hypothetically, 75% or 99% of the workers sign check cards choosing unionization what is the point of the employer demanding an election? What the unions are saying is that when employers do force an election that is when intimidation by the employer most frequently occurs, with threats of workplace closure or layoffs. The purpose of the act, according to the unions, is to prevent workplace intimidation. They are saying that if a majority of workers acknowledge by check card their preference for union representation that should be enough for union recognition. If only 30% are willing to sign check cards then an election can be held.
Ed Zachary!
The EFCA is the pro-union alternate to the current situation...instead of the companies having the advantage in the process, the unions will now. Especially since the Fed insists on being involved in this sort of thing, any law that does pass concerning the process should make it both equally easy and equally tough for each party to get their way, instead of totally favoring one side or the other.
NO NO Socialism!!!!
ARg Communisim.
the death of CApitalism......arrrrrrrr nooooooo
if anyone say this past sat. snl skit with "the rock obama" my above was an opposite.
say like john mccain turning into deadeye dick
Limbaugh brought this up today, saying that Tony Soprano will show up and use a baseball bat on anyone that doesn't join the union.
wpitw for el rushbo tonight
Given the opportunity, why would anyone NOT want to join a union? Gee.. I can negotiate my wage and ebenifts on my own, as one, single, unskilled laborer... OR we can negotiate collectively, where we have the power of our own numbers behind us. Who on earth would think they could better a deal on their own? Excepting the corporate climbers, alomsy EVERYONE would be better off in a union.
What's happening to the WSJ? Did they layoff the guy in charge of " all the news that fit to print"?
thats the slogan of the NY Times
WSJ is print what rupert tells you to or your fired.
Its been updated to "All the news that'll give you fits."
That slogan is property of Ruppert Murdoch now.
Ya Glen Beck uses this argument as well. What really cracks me up about this is, if unions were so thuggish and Mafia-connected, wouldn't Beck and Limbaugh suddenly disappear or be found in six months in a meat locker? Because these blowhards tell us over and over how influential they are, and how many listeners/views they have. With all that influence, wouldn't "Tony Soprano" be more likely to take them out than some tool-and-die worker who refuses to sign a union card? Since that doesn't happen, we can only conclude that 1. the "unions are thugs" meme is BS or 2. the influence of Limbaugh and Beck is inconsequential.
steeler.....there is a great book by a guy named Charles Brandt called "i heard you paint houses"
its about a guy named Frank Sheeran, who was best friends with Jimmy Hoffa and his experiences with being a Teamsters organizer. this guy describes in detail what happened to get unions formed up. and also how he himself killed Jimy Hoffa.
he also mentions how in trying to organize unions they didn't really kill people, more just beating the crap out of them to get them out of the way or brandishing a gun to show they meant business.
The EFCA would in many ways too become a way of bringing "true" results to "LIGHT" without the Business Owners being able to "control" Union results in "SECRET".
I bet alot of Business Owners control the "no" Union votes at their facilities by manipulating employees to claim a majority of "no" votes for Unions from the so-called Secret Ballots. But, with the EFCA the number would need to match the Secret Ballot without the "fuzzy" counts from manipulated employees.