WSJ: "The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option

What labor activists are unwilling to acknowledge is that membership might be falling because workers are less interested in joining unions. Some employees may view labor unions as corrupt or overly politicized, and not without justification. ...Others may be scared off by the precarious condition of heavily unionized industries such as autos and airlines. And many workers might plausibly conclude that one-size-fits-all labor contracts hold back the best and brightest in our modern economy.

This is Big Labor's fourth attempt to pass card check since 2003, and with mostly sympathetic Democrats now running Congress and the White House, they're getting mean. But it's encouraging to see responsible Democrats like Mr. Boren question the wisdom of a measure that will discourage hiring and make businesses less competitive. We hope Democrats who are currently on the fence stand by him, even if it means they could also soon be on the receiving end of a nasty attack.

Gerald, if I read it right it says it is a dead issue, another words it is just smoke and mirrors and in fact will hold no water. Lets just have the secret ballot first and skip the union thuggery. What is the union afraid of with a secret ballot? Most people do not want to pay someone just to work. What would you do as a business owner if you were forced to unionize (I don't expect you to answer this)?

Islander:

The only way to read it is if you hear someone say that the EFCA eliminates a workers right to a secret-ballot vote they are either lying or ignorant. That is the only way.

Now, let's hear the real arguments against the bill: that it forces ownership to bargain in good faith or face arbitration, and that the increased penalties are too high.

Gerald -

To write "...clearly states that "the bill [EFCA] doesn't remove the secret-ballot option" gives a whole new meaning to the word "clearly."

edited for typo....

Gerald,

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of card check, just the opposite and you know it.

In an editorial about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) today, the Wall Street Journal clearly states that "the bill [EFCA] doesn't remove the secret-ballot option."

Apparently you failed to read the rest of the sentence. Hope your silly, out of context quote goes better at Turn Maine Blue than it will here.

Gerald -

Is your understanding of "in good faith" as flexible as your understanding of "clearly?"

The only way to read it is if you hear someone say that the EFCA eliminates a workers right to a secret-ballot vote they are either lying or ignorant. That is the only way.

Now, let's hear the real arguments against the bill: that it forces ownership to bargain in good faith or face arbitration, and that the increased penalties are too high.

The EFCA effectively eliminates the workers' right to a secret ballot. A right constructed so that no one dares to exercise it is not a right. Anyone who contends that someone who's too much of a weenie to refuse to sign the card will dare to request a secret ballot is either lying or ignorant.

OK, let's hear some:.

Mike Travers:

It does nothing of the sort. Sec. 9(e) is what guarantees the workers' right to a secret-ballot vote - the EFCA does not amend that section, but instead Sec. 9(c)(B). I'll mention again that if 50% plus one members of an existing union sign cards stating that they wish to decertify the union, card check in reverse if you will, this is also allowed under the NLRA. I don't recall anyone complaining about the lack of secrecy there.

Perhaps you should read the bill.

Let me get this straight, Gerald. You hang your hat on the WSJ editorial -

but you claim that this is false -

Yes Mike, to say that the EFCA changes the current law regarding a worker's right to a secret-ballot vote is false. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and as you refuse to apply the EFCA to the NLRA and learn for yourself, I'll not waste more time on it with you. Cheers.

It's not just about me, Gerald.

I'm just there are others who are anxious to hear your explanation how a procedure that's a "dead letter" is not "effectively" extinguished.

Gerald, I've read it, and I'll put my reading comprehension up against yours any day you wish. I'm not an attorney, but I'm comfortable with labor law, having been a hardworking IAMAW steward with a history of picking contract language apart and winning grievances. This attempt to disenfranchise Americans of their right to a secret ballot is a shameful detour in the labor movement, and will come back to bite them.

Hey Gerald, in case you haven't heard the news, there are a lot of labor unions which like to use a variety of strong intimidation and scare tactics. Were you already aware of this fact, or was that the first time you've ever heard about it?

Mike Travers:

Does the EFCA amend Sec. 9(e) of the NLRA?

Gerald Weinand:

Have you ever been victimized by nasty union scare tactics?
Do you even know any victims of nasty union scare tactics?

Is that the long-lost statute that authorizes the IRS to collect income tax or it is a coincidence that one thread is starting to resemble another?

Gerald
If you had been brave enough to stay with the previous card check thread, you would have learned that you are dead wrong about your "card check in reverse" scenario. The law changed that eight or nine years ago.
Under current law, the process for decertifying a union is to gather signatures from at least 30% of workers, submit them to NLRB, which then schedules a secret ballot election usually some 60 days out. During the intervening time, both sides are allowed to campaign (my word) for their point of view.

Here's one source:

Union Facts

There are many others.

If you are a capable reader, and you must be if you are an architect as I recall you said you are, you know we have always maintained that EFCA will have the EFFECT of eliminating the secret ballot in union organizing. That's pretty much what the editorial you cite says, too.

Describe a scenario where workers will be collecting signatures for a secret ballot before the union has been certified.
Then I'll judge whether you really know what you're talking about.

mainemom:

I was not aware that Sec. 9(c)(A) of the NLRA had changed 8 or 9 years ago. I just copied this from the NLRB website, which I assume is fairly up-to-date - please tell me if I'm wrong:

(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section], or (ii) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section]; or

This is the subsection that establishes both card check and "card check in reverse." I look forward to your explanation.

I'll add (once again) that workers can demand a secret-ballot vote as you describe under Sec. 9(e) of the NLRA (30% signatures), which the EFCA does NOT change.

And I'll add [once again] that taking away the employer's right to demand a secret ballot effectively takes away the workers' right to a secret ballot, because by requesting a secret ballot they make obvious their desire to vote against unionization. If this didn't radically change the process the companies wouldn't be spending multiple millions against it, and unions wouldn't be spending multiple millions in favor of it. There's a career for you selling snake oil, but don't try selling it to people who can read the label.

Mike Travers:

I asked if the EFCA amended Sec. 9(e) of the NLRA - a simple yes or no will suffice. You claim that you are "comfortable with labor law" so surely this simple question regarding THE labor law should be an easy at bat for you.

Hey Gerald a couple of simple questions for you to answer. Would you pay a company to work for them? And if you can, I know it must be a tough question for you, Unionman and Democrat since none of you will answer it. As a business owner how would you handle the increased cost of being unionized? Lets try this one, if in your business there was a client looking for someone to design a house but he only had X numbers of dollars to spend and he was trying to decide between your union company and a non-union company. Now both companies are equally qualified except that your company has higher costs due to being a union company (so you will have to charge more than the customer can afford)compared to the non-union company (who because they are non-union has lower costs which the customer can afford), who do you think they are going to pick? And finally why are Unions so afraid of a secret ballot, why do they need this card check, don't they trust the workers to make the right decision?

Happy to oblige, Gerald.
You stopped after reading or citing a dependent clause and did not read (or cite) the rest of the provision, which says what happens if such a showing has been made, so I will cite it for you:

Source: NLRA Section 9 c.

To recap -

The thread began with a triumphal assertion that it's a "lie" that EFCA removes "the secret-ballot option."

We subsequently seem to have established, based on the same cited source, that EFCA renders "the secret-ballot option" a "dead letter."

Yes?

We still seem not to have established making the secret-ballot option a "dead letter" is equivalent to "effectively" removing it. Regardless of which section of statute is changed, wouldn't a denial of this simple proposition equate to dithering over the plain meaning of words?

Gerald repeatedly asserts that section 9(e) is what guarantees the employees a right to a secret ballot.

The actual text of 9(e)

Yes, it guarantees a right to a secret ballot, but only after "an agreement between their employer and labor organization" is in place.

Please show me under EFCA where an employee can demand a secret ballot before the agreement made pursuant to 8(a)(3) is in place. I can't find it in 9(e).

Under current law, 9 (c) establishes conditions that when met will result in a secret ballot election. Both employees and employers can move the question.
Under EFCA, a provision 6 is added to 9 (c), which says notwithstanding any other provision of section 9 (c), if a majority of workers are shown to wish to be represented by a bargaining unit, "the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative."

This is the part that does away with elections in the initial organizing of a workplace.
9 (e) kicks in only after the agreement is in place.

Thank you for that clarification, mainemom.

Naive "progressives" - leftists, generally - believe that firms have surplus profits just lying around, to be "shared" without adverse consequence. Foolish, of course.

On the other hand, I find it fascinating that although apparently well-informed "progressives" recognize that unions increase the cost base of firms without a corresponding increase in productivity - that is, unions raise costs without adding value - they nevertheless assume that the benefit of unions to society - whatever that might be - outweighs their cost.

Since there's little or no empirical evidence for any general benefits (except, of course, the "benefit" of rent-seeking), the fall-back argument seems to be that unions make workers happy, enhance their dignity, "help" them negotiate a "fair share" of profits, and so on.

The pro-union myth is that employers won't "bargain" to reduce their profit margin "in good faith" unless under government coercion to do so. In my plodding, practical way of thinking, this impresses me as more doublethink - a complaint that a victim won't hand over his wallet "in good faith" to a mugger.

I don't get it.

The democrats seem to be taking 'Card Check' into the state levels as a backup, as explained in this other thread:
L.D. 934 looks like 'Card Check' for Maine
Click Here

If this passes, our business environment will go from bad to worse very quickly.

Mainemom, you rock girl!

Gerald, you have continously had your head served to you through 3 of these threads. What is it about a standing 10 count when your face down on the mat that you don't understand? In addition, I went back and including several of mine, counted over 20 questions neither you nor your sandbox buddy, unionman chose or even tried to answer.

Mainemom just handled your simplistic question like the top chef at benihana...CHOP

Well I'm not trying to rub anyone's nose in it, I'm just aiming for a meeting of the minds, using fact, logic, and an above average aptitude for reading comprehension.

But true believers (a club to which I do not belong, unless it's true belief in our founding documents) are not amenable to the above.

Why do we allow unions at all?

It is illegal for employers to band together to try to control wages. Why should employees be allowed to do so?