This morning the USA Today came out in strong opposition to Big Labor’s plans to effectively eliminate secret ballots for labor union elections. USA Today described in detail what the Employee Free Choice Act, and explained how this misguided legislation would undermine our country’s democratic principles. This piece provided a comprehensive overview of all aspects of the bill, including how federal bureaucrats could impose binding terms for first labor contracts.

To be fair, they point out that Labor leaders often argue that the card check bill wouldn’t prohibit private balloting. Yes- however accurate this point may be it is misleading. They realize that under a card check system: “union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers.”

As a counter to this opinion piece, the AFL-CIO’s President John Sweeney  was allowed to provide an ‘opposing view’. Sweeney writes that a card check system allows employees to make their choice of union representation without intimidation. Unfortunately, by forcing employees to make their decision known to co-workers, union organizers and even their supervisors they become susceptible to many forms of potential coercion. Surprisingly I agree with John Sweeney when he says “U.S. workers deserve a free, fair choice of whether to improve their lives and futures through unions.” HOWEVER, the only way to secure free and fair choice in deciding whether to join a union, is through private ballot elections.

Last night during the final Presidential debate you may have heard the reference to a little known piece of legislation called the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In responding to a question on abortion issues and judges, Senator Barack Obama briefly discussed the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber and the legislation that was introduced days after the decision.

In the Ledbetter Decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed current law by confirming prior Court decisions to uphold time limits in filing discrimination charges. This timely filing of charges is important to promptly investigate real instances of unlawful discrimination in the workplace.

Senator Obama references efforts to “overturn” the decision in the Senate, referring to the legislation introduced as “an effort to provide better guidance to the courts.”

In reality the scope of bill that was considered in the Senate, commonly referred to as the ‘Ledbetter Bill’, goes far beyond the issues raised in the Ledbetter decision and removes an important incentive to prompt identification and resolution of potential discrimination claims.

Although, Senator McCain didn’t fully respond to Senator Obama’s points on this issue, he was correct when he explained that the Ledbetter Bill was a “trial lawyer’s dream.”

• Jay Ambrose at The Examiner examines how politicians could support something as “despicably foul” as card check legislation that would strip away secret ballot elections for union elections and result in workers being exposed to intimidation. Ambrose asserts that there is no difference in principle between taking away secret ballots for union elections or Congressional elections.

• The final Presidential candidate debate takes place tonight at Hofstra, where the focus is expected to be on the economy. Although card check  as a topic has escaped  the recent debates, it may come up tonight, especially in light of the McCain campaign’s recent efforts to highlight Sen. Obama’s  backing. The NAM’s CEO Gov. John Engler made it clear that card check is a top concern for manufacturers in the Q&A section of his Detroit Economic Club Monday. Talk about it, candidates!

• The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which the NAM is a leader of, has announced the launch of a six state direct mail blitz. This effort seeks to compare the positions of Senate candidates in Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Oregon to highlight where the candidates really stand on protecting worker privacy.

Yesterday, Former Democratic Presidential Candidate, Senator and brave World War II B-24 pilot, George McGovern was interviewed on Fox News to discuss the card check bill. Senator McGovern defended the current secret ballot process for deciding labor union representation, but insisted that doing away with this process (as is the case under a card check scheme) is simply not the American way. An excerpt of the interview is below:

JON SCOTT (Fox News): Barack Obama’s supports this plan. He is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. Have you spoken to him?

 

George McGovern: I support Barack Obama. everybody knows that. I have gone public about it. But when it comes time to vote, I do not want to have to do that by signing a card that someone hands me publicly where everyone would know what I did in terms of my vote. I want that to be in private and I think that workers should hang on to the private secret polling place which they are now guaranteed but would not be guaranteed under this so-called free choice system. It is not a free choice if you have somebody pressing you to sign a card if you do it without the privacy of the polling place.

Full transcript here.

To both their credit, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have both been very clear about their positions on the Employee Free Choice Act, the card-check legislation that would eliminate secret ballots in workplace elections over union representation. But it wasn’t until just this week that we saw much media coverage of their stated views on the issue, stated at public events, that is.

Obama is a cosponsor who voted for cloture on H.R. 800, i.e., to move the bill ahead in the Senate. McCain is an opponent and voted no.

Senator McCain in Virginia Beach, Virginia yesterday highlighted Senator Obama’s position on card check in his speech. McCain said that along with Congressional leadership Senator Obama is planning to “…take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections…” CNN even did a fact check on this sound bite and confirmed what the bill will do, along with the positions and previous votes of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.

In case Senator Obama’s position isn’t clear enough, here is a clip of his comments on the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act last year before the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to meet with manufacturers and other employers in the Philadelphia area at an event co-hosted by the NAM, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association and the Mid-Atlantic Employers’ Association. I went up there to discuss the impact that card check legislation (AKA the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act) would have for employers in the area and give an update how this issue was being received around the country.

The folks that attended this event were concerned that the issue did not come up in Tuesday night’s Presidential debate, but they were even more concerned that their Senior Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) had voted to invoke cloture on the bill when it came before the Senate in 2007. It’s clear that employers in Pennsylvania oppose this bill and hope that the Senator would change his position when presented with a vote on the Bill in the next Congress. As employers, they fear the coercion that their employees would be exposed to if this bill becomes law, and feel their employees deserve to be able to make an educated and unbiased decision when making the important choice to decide to allow a labor union to represent them.

The Rocky Mountain News takes a look today at the increasing prominence the card-check legislation is playing in U.S. Senate campaign in Colorado between Republican Bob Schaffer and Democrat Mark Udall, a story entitled, “Pro-union act becomes issue in Senate race.” Given the public’s overwhelming support for retaining secret ballots in the workplace, backing the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act seems a sure loser for any candidate.Recent polling by McLaughlin & Associates shows that two-thirds of voters in Colorado (68%) oppose the EFCA. And, despite being described as a “pro-union act,” the vast majority of union households implicitly reject the central provision of card check, the destruction of secret-ballot elections. According to the poll, 90 percent of union households agree that “Secret and private ballot elections are the cornerstone of democracy and should be kept for union elections.”

The Rocky Mountain News casts the issue as a partisan one, and it’s true Rep. Udall voted for the bill in the U.S. House. Organized labor placed incredible political pressure on House Democrats, in particular, saying basically, “Vote for it or suffer ignominy.” (A union picket’s standard cry: “Ignominy!”) But to NAM members, other employers and most voters, too, it’s hard to figure out why the issue should be partisan. Secret ballots are supported by good Democrats like George McGovern, right?

The recent survey on the Employee Free Choice Act conducted by the NAM’s affiliate in Lousiana has prompted some useful commentary in the state’s media about the “card check” legislation. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry found that the majority of Louisianans strongly preferred secret ballots as a method for forming a union, rather than being exposed to the union coercion that would result from the collection of signature cards. The Orwellian  Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)  would effectively eliminate secret ballots, and the voters in Louisiana  are telling their members of Congress that’s a bad approach. 

In a column for the Lafourche Parish daily paper, LABI’s President Dan Juneau gives a bit of perspective of how this issue may shape voters’ decisions in November:

“Louisiana voters aren’t buying what Congress is selling. It might be well for our future congressional delegation — Democrats and Republicans alike — to take a close look at what Louisiana voters think.”

Meanwhile, there’s a great  op-ed today from Baton Rouge, LA that responds to an error-laden defense of the card check bill, and sums up the impact of EFCA quite nicely:

“If the Employee Free Choice Act is passed, all of this will change for the worse.

• First, employees will be subjected to intimidation by union workers. Mr. Day should recall the reason for the Labor Relations Act of 1935: union worker intimidation.
• Second, employees will no longer have the time or full knowledge to make an informed and conscious decision.
• Third, employees will no longer have the ability to have a private ballot, making his/her opinion public for not only the union organizers but also the employers.
• Finally, a majority vote would not be needed for employees to become unionized. Union workers would only need 50 percent of employees to sign the authorization cards. Once 50 percent of authorization cards were signed, employees would be represented by a union, even if the other 50 percent of employees opposed being unionized.”

The author, who is a department store employee, realizes that this legislation isn’t designed to help workers, but rather is a tool sought by union organizers.

There is a lot of good news and commentary out there on the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), organized labor’s attempt to eliminate secret ballot elections in the workplace.

• New information from the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry shows that EFCA is a losing issue in Louisiana. The poll, performed by Southern Media & Opinion Research, points out that the majority of likely voters in Louisiana, like other national trends, oppose the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. The results of the poll show voters in the Pelican State strongly reject the EFCA, with 74% of likely voters preferring to maintain the current process for forming a union that uses private ballots, and 65% of likely voters oppose the EFCA which would replace secret ballots with a “card check” system that exposes workers to coercion when making the important decision of whether to form a union. The findings of this poll are consistent with the findings of a similar poll performed by the NAM through the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace by McLaughlin & Associates earlier this year.
• John Motley provides a comprehensive overview of the issues surrounding the EFCA in a piece in the National Review. Motley provides perspective on the unusual nature of the card check issue with one of the most liberal Democratic Presidential candidates George McGovern urging his fellow Democrats to oppose the EFCA. This OpEd further explains some the politics behind the legislation. However, the need to defend workers’ right to a private ballot is a non-partisan issue. All political parties should work to defend this important right.
• The Oregonian’s lone market-minded opinion writer weighs in on the issue with a tough column, that examines what’s at stake in this year’s election by examining card check legislation. The Oregonian’s David Reinhard, points out the bill’s seemingly Orwellian double-speak title. Reinhard sums up the lasting consequences of this proposal:

“And, whether you favor card check or the private ballot, the two presidential candidates’ differences on this one issue could have a profound and tangible impact on American business, labor and politics for years to come.”

Yesterday several leading Senators held a press conference in the Capitol with business leaders to warn about the consequences of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The Senators who participated (including Sens. Hatch, Enzi, Ensign and Senate Republican Leader McConnell) highlighted some of the lesser known provisions in the bill, such as binding arbitration.

Senator Hatch declared the EFCA ,: “… one of the most heinous pieces of legislation in history,” Hatch also pointed out one of the unfortunate realities of card check systems , i.e “These union organizers will keep coming back until you sign the card. Some people just sign the card to get rid of them.”

Senator Enzi explained that EFCA would lead to federally appointed arbitrators actually setting  wages, pension and health care benefits, work hours and other terms. The Senator said:

“If we adopt this bill, labor and management will no longer negotiate most new contracts and third parties will decide all the important issues such as pay, hours, benefits and working conditions.”

Under EFCA,  bureaucrats from Washington would have unchecked power to impose a two-year binding contract, one that would not even allow the employees to ratify it or approve its terms. Government knows best?  Not when it comes to running your own business.