We always appreciate when Members of Congress stand up to defend secret ballots, and we’ve seen more and more expressions of support for the democratic institution on Capitol Hill.

• Just today Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said that if the Senate took a secret ballot vote on Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sotomayor it might be unanimous.
• Last week the legislative manager of EFCA in the Senate, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), said that secret ballots should be used to determine Senate Committee Chairmen.
• Earlier this year Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) expressed appreciation for secret ballots after the vote to determine the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
• Also Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) was quick to instruct his colleagues to vote with their secret ballots for that same Chairmanship election.
• Who could forget when Rep. George Miller (D-CA) wrote to Mexican officials requesting secret ballot union elections?

Unfortunately all of these Members of Congress support the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act which would effectively eliminate secret ballots for American workers. I guess this is just another case of something being “good enough for me, but not for thee.”

The LA Times opined yesterday its support for certain aspects of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). While we appreciate that the LA Times is troubled  with the EFCA’s effective elimination of secret ballot union elections (as they should be) we are troubled that they feel that there may be ways to improve this section of the bill. We feel that secret ballots are the best way to protect workers from intimidation and coercion in the workplace.

The piece claims that the bill’s binding arbitration  provisions are an “appropriate” aspect of the bill. They further claim that this aspect simply would “ fine-tune the arbitrator’s role” and that “rule makers ought to consider imposing either side’s last, best offer as a way to encourage both sides to be more realistic in their offers and make negotiations more productive.” In practice this provision would fundamentally alter the collective bargaining process, as both parties would prepare for this inevitability by effectively positioning themselves rather than negotiating in good faith.

This part of the bill is backdoor to government wage mandates,  that remove the ability of employers to make key economic decisions that are in the best interest of his business and employees. Proponents often underestimate the impact of this part of the bill, but in reality if the parties engage in collective bargaining can’t reach agreement by unusual fast 120 day period, they’d be forced to have a Federal arbitrator set the binding terms of wages, benefits and work rules.

Under this provision, arbitrators wouldn’t be simply working out the details of the agreement between the parties, they’d be actually writing the terms themselves. The bill doesn’t make it clear how appeals could be made under this language so it could create an environment where businesses would like become less competitive. So what’s the impact? Jobs. Hundreds of thousands of them.

Despite the Times’ proposal to change this legislation, we remain firmly committed to defeating this bill – or any related legislation in any form. Passing the EFCA at any time would be grossly irresponsible.

A former NLRB member and now labor lawyer, Peter Kirsanow blogs over at NRO’s The Corner , noting the NAACP’s endorsement of the Employee Free Choice Act and pointing out some of the consequences of a card check system that its proponents  might not have considered.

Joe is one of 7 blacks out of 38 workers at a casting plant. He doesn’t have much seniority because he just came to the plant after working for the last 12 years at a bearings manufacturer that recently closed.

 Joe suspects most of his co-workers don’t want a union because they’ve seen other plants in the area shut down operations and move to states with lower average labor costs. Joe’s in favor of the union because he thinks it will mean higher wages for someone like him.

 Joe’s the only black employee on second shift. At lunch one day, a co-worker approaches him and in front of everyone in the break room asks Joe to sign an authorization card. Joe begins to reach for a pen but hesitates when he senses his co-workers watching him. He declines to sign.

 EFCA could put any employee in the uncomfortable position of making a public declaration that might be opposed by his employer, co-workers, or union organizers. The fact that the employee is new or a minority in the workplace doesn’t do much to lessen that discomfort. You’d think that if any organization would recognize that fact it would be one that purports to advance the interests of minorities.

It’s unfortunate that groups like the NAACP who have been such adamant champions of protecting voting rights would now wish to  abandon the secret ballot, in the process exposing workers to intimidation in the workplace.