The Greenville News has this opinion, which we find it hard to imagine would have very many detractors:

Workers in South Carolina — and around the country, for that matter — deserve the right to decide these important issues behind the protective cloak of the secret ballot. Although all American workers should have the ability to form a labor union, no worker should feel intimidated when making this decision. And the federal government should not strip away workers’ rights to a secret ballot.

That seems pretty fundamental to us, but then again a lot of things seem to have gone haywire lately.

Good to keep this material on peoples’ minds.

Given the above, one would think that a union boss would behappy thrilled to hear that his own union’s  workers signed union authorization cards and want to unionize…right? Further, one would think that said union boss would readily recognize his workers’ union using the card check method…right? After all, the ends do justify the means and with all the money that has been spent, the politicians that have been bought, the lies that have been told, card-check is good…right?

… and then points to this story …

In about a month, 20 secretaries, clerks, and administrators – all employees of one of the city’s most storied unions – will participate in a National Labor Relations Board election to decide whether they want to be represented by a union themselves.

Ironically, their employer, longtime labor leader Henry Nicholas, declined to recognize the bargaining unit when he was presented with signed petition cards from a majority of the workers.

Nicholas is a staunch supporter of a proposed federal law known as “card check,” which would allow unions to organize workplaces without a separate election if a majority of workers sign cards requesting representation.

The Labor Relations Board has scheduled an April 2 election for the employees of District 1199C of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

First, in Nevada, “Group plans petitions on secret ballots, paycheck deductions.”

Meanwhile, “Fearing lack of support, communications union bosses are attempting to rig election employees initiated to throw out unwanted union.”

It never ends, does it?

Meanwhile, some are still fighting absurd battles. Media Matters for America is still claiming EFCA wouldn’t strip the right to a secret ballot for working Americans. We’ve explained that canard again and again, but Media Matters either chooses to mislead readers or simply can’t read themselves.

We had hoped that our response would have helped correct the matter, though it seems our faith was misplaced. Media Matters is back to its old tricks, leaving readers with the false impression that card check would simply be an option under EFCA — which is not true.

Sing along, class: EFCA effectively eliminates secret ballots.

Can Media Matters read? Or does it fail to read about the subject before it writes? Or does it knowingly mislead readers?

Indeed, media does matter for America — but only when it’s honest and informed. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter much at all.

The setting for the question came at a House hearing at which Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis testified about her ongoing work. The Wall Street Journal had the Kline recap:

Meanwhile, Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.), the senior Republican on the House Education Committee, applauded the Obama administration for taking action to ease unemployment numbers, but criticized the controversial Employee Free Choice Act, which could make it easier for workers to join unions.

“I cannot help but question many of [the president's] proposed policies that seem to run contrary to the goal of job creation and economic certainty,” Mr. Kline said. He later added, “The question remains: how will ‘card check’ create and sustain jobs?”

Those who oppose EFCA have said the legislation could likely stump job growth, business activity and investments.

The truth, of course, is that EFCA will kill jobs and once again assault the free enterprise system. So long as jobs remain high on the administration’s agenda, EFCA should be at the bottom.

Come to think of it, EFCA should always be at the bottom of the agenda. That should simplify things nicely.

American workers should not be denied the right to organize, and the current system really is the best environment for unionization elections. The card check system opens the door to intimidation by union organizers. What worker wouldn’t feel pressured to sign a card when being asked face-to-face whether he supports a union? Especially when he knows that every employee who supports unionization will know exactly which workers have signed pledge cards.

That about sums up the problem with the Employee Free ]]> http://thetruthaboutefca.com/2010/01/19/editorial-let-voters-decide-card-check/feed/ 0 http://thetruthaboutefca.com/2009/12/18/nevadans-in-no-rush-to-gamle-on-card-check/ http://thetruthaboutefca.com/2009/12/18/nevadans-in-no-rush-to-gamle-on-card-check/#comments Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:11:01 +0000 admin http://thetruthaboutefca.com/?p=1206 Interesting news out of our friends at the Workforce Fairness Institute, which has released a new poll examining attitudes of Nevadans about card check and the tragically misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. The poll is of sufficient interest to garner the attention of the Las Vegas Sun, which reports:

The poll showed 57 percent of respondents oppose changing the way unions are organized and 64 percent oppose allowing mandatory arbitration to settle organizational disputes between workers and managers, as is proposed under the bill.

The poll also showed more voters would be less likely to support political candidates who support such changes.

The second figure — the one showing opposition to allowing the government to impose labor contracts on small business — is important because it shows that even if card check were dropped from EFCA, the bill would still be disastrous and unpopular.

Nevadans — well, most of them — know that EFCA is the wrong way to go. Check out this video from the state’s own Sen. John Ensign on why he opposes the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Valley Advocate writes of Mike Capuano:

“I think that actually one of the problems in this country right now is that too few people are organized,” said Capuano, noting that the rise in union membership in the U.S. corresponded with the rise of the middle class—and the decline of unions with the decline of the middle class.

“I’m for whatever it takes to allow people their own choice whether to organize or not,” he said. In recent decades, labor laws have tilted too far in the direction of anti-union employers. “I’m just trying to level the playing field again.”

Well, we’ll gloss over most of that since it’s boilerplate talking points for organized labor’s head honchos. What we’re amazed by is the willingness to say one is “for whatever it takes to allow people in their own choice whether to organize or not.”

Certainly the Employee Free Choice Act’s two killer provisions — card check that takes away an employee’s ability to vote on whether or not to join the union and government-imposed contract arbitration which can take away the right to vote on a contract — actively work against allowing people their own choice of organizing and working conditions.

To take the claim a step further, if Capuano were really concerned whether people had the choice to not organize, wouldn’t he support a “right to work” law which would ensure that no employee were forced to pay a union for representation?

We certainly hope that is what Capuano means, but we certainly doubt it.

Unions participated in fewer resolved representation elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board during the first half of 2009 than the same period in 2008, but the percentage of elections won by unions increased substantially, according to NLRB data analyzed by BNA PLUS, BNA’s research division.

Unions won 73.1 percent of 588 private sector elections held during the first half of 2009, up from 66.5 percent of 813 elections held during the same period in 2008. The BNA PLUS survey only tracks elections conducted by NLRB, not organizing outside of NLRB processes.

Wow, 73 percent is a serious winning percentage. To put that in perspective, consider that in the most recently completed season:

• Only 4 NFL teams won that often
• Only 3 NBA teams won that much
• 0 baseball teams won that much … in fact, no team has ever won 118 games (the toll needed to hit the 73 percent threshold for a 162-game season) in the nation’s pastime

And union officials still want to rig the rules to avoid letting employees vote in elections that Big Labor won 73 percent of the time?