Friend of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

The Employee Freedom of Choice Act (EFCA), or card-check organizing, passed the House last year but died in the Senate after a Republican filibuster.
 
Supporters say the proposal would allow more workers to unionize without pressure from their employers to not unionize. Critics say the bill is not about freedom at all, but would eliminate the secret ballot for union organization and allow intimidation by union organizers.
 
Under federal law, it takes one-third of employees to call an election to unionize. Then a majority of workers vote in an election by secret ballot whether to establish a union. The election is supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
 
The proposed EFCA would shorten that process by allowing a majority of workers to sign authorization cards ? in the presence of other employees ? saying they support unionizing. Upon a majority signing the card, the company would be required by law to immediately recognize the union after the NLRB certifies the cards.
 
Putting a signature on the card allows union organizers to know who supported unionization and who did not, unlike a secret ballot.
 
?This exposes employees to coercion, harassment, and denies them the right to vote on a union contract,? Glenn Spencer, director of research at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business advocacy group, said during a conference call held Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation.
 
?These decisions should be made in the voting booth surrounded by a curtain, not in a parking lot surrounded by union bosses,? Spencer said.
 
Supporters of the bill say there is too much pressure on workers leading up to a union election. Spencer said he agreed that both employers and colleagues lean on workers to vote one way or another during a union election. But ?this would add another pressure point when you have to sign a card in front of a union organizer,? he said.
 
The problem with elections is that management controls the process and can intimidate or fire people that initiate the process, according to the AFL-CIO, a labor advocacy group that lists the EFCA on its Web site as a top priority.
 
Further, a workplace could still hold an election, while the EFCA would just provide a second option for union organizers, according to the AFL-CIO.
 
The AFL-CIO says majority card check is nothing new and ?responsible? companies such as Cingular have allowed it voluntarily.
 
However, a Heritage Foundation study cited evidence of coercion at workplaces where card check was used. During a card check campaign at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, union organizers said that workers who did not sign union cards would lose their jobs, according to the study.
 
In another case, a United Steel Workers of America official threatened to report migrant workers to federal officials if they did not sign the cards.
 
Last week, George McGovern, the Democratic Party?s presidential nominee in 1972 ? considered by many the most liberal nominee in U.S. presidential election history ? announced his opposition to card check, agreeing with Republicans who said it ends the secret ballot.
 
?We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election,? McGovern wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
 
?We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed,? McGovern added.
 
McGovern?s commentary further stated, ?The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.?