Turning again to the compactly presented distortions of the column “Why workers need the Employee Free Choice Act” in Thursday’s San Francisco Chronicle, the author David Bacon makes these claims:

With the Employee Free Choice Act, after 120 days of fruitless bargaining on a first-time contract, an arbitrator can resolve the issues still in dispute. Companies say they fear an outsider imposing unrealistic conditions. But with no mechanism to force agreement, companies know it’s lots cheaper to wait out the year than to raise wages and provide better benefits.

Can resolve the issues still in dispute: That’s not what the legislation says. Here’s the language in S. 560 and H.R. 1409:

`(3) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under paragraph (2), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.’

There’s no can there. There’s a shall. Neither is there any mention in the legislation of Bacon’s “the issues still in dispute.” There’s just the phrase that “the arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute.”

Given the tremendous discretion and authority held by the arbitrator, companies are well justified in fearing that an outsider might impose unrealistic conditions.

How does Bacon respond to that fear? By just ignoring it, by changing the subject: “But with no mechanism to force agreement, companies know it’s lots cheaper to wait out the year than to raise wages and provide better benefits.” That’s just an assertion, assuming bad faith on the part of companies.

Turning against to J. Justin Wilson’s study of National Labor Relations Board data, here’s the reality about delayed elections: “[The] NLRB reports that the median length of time between employees submitting an election petition and voting is 39 days, and 93 percent of elections are held within 56 days.”

A small percentage of first-contract negotiations do extend past 120 days, that’s true. But given the stakes — the contract will set the foundation for all further management-labor negotiations — taking the time may be reasonable.

Bacon’s column flows pretty well, the sign of a good writer. The distortions, misstatements of facts, and ad hominem arguments also flow, the sign of a writer trying to make the case for legislation that cannot stand on its own merits.

In addition to shouting “LIAR” everytime someone asserts, quite reasonably, that the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates secret-ballot organizing elections in the workplace, advocates of the “card check” legislation make all sorts of poisonous claims about business nefariousness. Employers abuse employees, therefore card check is needed, or so the argument goes.

For example, in an op-ed Thursday in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Why workers need the Employee Free Choice Act“:

It is illegal to fire a worker for union activity, but pro-union workers were fired in 30 percent of union-representation elections in 2007, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Our emphasis.

J. Justin Wilson of the Center for Union Facts looked at the available data from the National Labor Relations Board and disproved labor’s claim. From “An Analysis of Current NLRB Data on Unlawful Terminations During Union Organization Campaigns, 2007 to 2008“:

The facts do not support labor leadersʼ claims regarding employer misconduct during union organizing campaigns. The National Labor Relations Boardʼs data incontrovertibly demonstrates that very few employees are terminated during union organization campaigns due to employers firing pro-union employees.

A similar study of NLRB data, often cited by union advocates, largely confirms these findings. MIT graduate student John-Paul Ferguson examined the CATS database to determine the impact of ULP Charges during organizing campaigns. Ferguson found that between 1999 and 2003, unions filed just 914 meritorious ULPs in conjunction with more than 22,000 organizing campaigns, and only a fraction of those of those ULP Charges contained allegations of unlawful termination.

More than 96 percent of union organizing campaigns occur without an unlawfully terminated employee.

Read the whole thing.

There are studies and studies, and advocates of both sides of hotly fought issues will frame facts to suit their arguments. Comes with the territory.

But organized labor’s promoters of the Employee Free Choice Act routinely distort the facts in order to paint businesses as evil exploiters out to screw the worker. It’s tiresome, it poisons the public debate, and it’s not true.

WCSH-TV in Maine has a story on the Center for Union Facts running anti-card check ads in the state. Not a bad piece, with a serious effort at balance, “Labor Officials Denounce Union Attack Ads.” Denunciation is, of course, SOP from organized labor when they are called on to defend eliminating secret ballots in the workplace. So this kind of misdirection is typical:

Jack McKay, the President of the Eastern Maine Labor Council, says the center is nothing but a front organization for lobbyists who are pro-big business and anti-union interests. McKay says the organization is run by Richard Berman, a notorious lobbyist for the Alcohol, tobacco, and fast food industries.

“What the ads play on is a sense that, ‘I’m not gonna win, I should keep my head down and I can’t make a difference, because somebody out there is going to beat me down,” McKay said. “That’s exactly the problem unions see.”

Notorious? What does that mean? The fast-food industry is in disrepute? If you drink or produce alcohol, you lose your right to petition the government?

And what exactly does card-check do, Mr. McKay?

Anyway, here are the ads. Judge for yourself. And consider that some Maine labor leaders are so threatened by the arguments that they demand the stations pull the spots. Perhaps because card check cannot be defended on the substance.

The more the public gets to know about the Employee Free Choice Act, the better. As we argued before, most Americans will reject the idea that workers should be deprived of a secret ballot when voting on whether to join a union.

It will take the educational efforts of political campaigns to spread that knowledge, no doubt. So we note that the Republican-endorsed candidate in Minnesota’s First Congressional District is already raising the issue. He’s Dr. Brian Davis, a Mayo Clinic physician, running against U.S. Rep. Tim Walz:

[Davis] also chides Walz for supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would make it easier for workers to join unions, but which Davis calls “simply un-American,” because it would deprive workers of a secret ballot.

No matter who the candidate, not matter the race, it serves the public well to have the Employee Free Choice Act debated more fully.

Elsewhere, we note the Center for Union Facts is running an ad campaign in Maine to educate the public on card check. As is typical, the response from labor and the self-styled progressives ignores the substance of the criticism and instead attacks the messenger, in this case the founder of Union Facts, Rick Berman. Some of the charges are scurrilous!

Berman has a long history with the Chamber of Commerce; in the 1970s, he was their labor law director.

How dare he.