Should Workers Have Secret Ballots in Union Elections?

We say "yes", but many labor unions are anxious to change the rules to say "no." In the past two decades, unions in private companies have seen their numbers dwindle under current rules for unionizing. Given this fact, unions are pushing for rules that will make it easier for them to work their way into a business.

In the next Congress, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" will be a central issue. The bill would make a number of changes, including the elimination of secret ballot elections in union campaigns. Instead of having the privacy of a ballot box, workers will have to make those decisions in such a way that allows union organizers to know how they feel about a union coming into their workplace. Not only that, but the bill (which was passed in this last session of the U.S. House, but stopped in the U.S. Senate) would also force stricter timelines on employers for negotiating contracts, place new provisions favoring unions in the arbitration of contracts, and enact large fines on employers (but not union organizers) who exercise their own free speech rights in the union campaign.

I know what you're saying - how un-American can you get? I guess the ends justify the means if you're interested in getting more workers unionized, even if it means taking away the right to a secret ballot election.

I've watched some videos in favor of the EFCA and read some of the pro-EFCA opinions, and they all talk about workers facing employer retribution in unionizing efforts, and how the EFCA will allow workers to organize more freely. Under the current law, it is illegal for employers to fire, threaten to fire, or harass workers during a union campaign. Employers who use such tactics can and should be penalized. But the remedy should not be a system that totally leaves workers vulnerable to increased harassment and threats from union organizers. There are millions of workers who don't want to join a union, and their rights to a secret ballot election should not be taken away for the sole purpose of getting more people into unions.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been trying to shed some light on this issue, especially since it looks like the bill may have legs after this election. To view a video they have produced on the issue, and to sign their petition on this subject, click here. The Montana Chamber has been and will continue to be involved in this important issue by talking to our federal delegation and educating Montanans about the un-American consequences of this Employee [Forced] Choice Act.

Comments

[Matt Singer]

The penalties for firing workers for organizing are pretty minimal and the NLRB can take years to handle those cases. Would the Montana Chamber support making those penalties more realistic?

Research right now shows that employer intimidation of workers during union organizing drives is far more common than union intimidation of workers.

I'd be fine mandating elections (although I think evidence of massive intimidation in other countries that use card check is non-existent) if workers had real protections against abusive employers.

So what's the Chamber's proposal?

[montanamainstreetblog]

Well, I can't speak for the U.S. Chamber. As you probably know by now, we are all governed independently. That doesn't mean we don't work closely on some issues (trade, card check, tax relief, etc...) I know that we will be involved in educating the public and our federal delegation about the impacts of EFCA to Montana businesses and workers. They will likely be more involved in the actual negotiating.

I think both sides can show some concrete examples of intimidation. The studies you mention, most of which come from union sources or union sources incorrectly interpreting NLRB statistics, have been debunked by sources I would probably find more persuasive than you (this Heritage Foundation article for example: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm1393.cfm).

I think that if unions are anxious to increase their numbers and actually represent the American worker, they should not use a tactic that infringes on one of those worker's rights. I think we can both agree the concept of secret ballot elections is something that most Americans see as an essential part of free and fair elections. Bottom line is that whether there is employer or union intimidation, workers at the very least have that one protection of keeping their ultimate decision private in the ballot box. Neither the employer or the union have to know how they voted in the end.

If unions are concerned about employer intimidation, the EFCA is like using a grenade to kill a fly. It will only increase the amount of union intimidation workers see in organizing campaigns.

Thanks for your comments, Matt.