Are you in a union, Ezra? Are your fellow The American Prospect co-workers?
Have you considered starting a union? If not, you should go to your boss right now, and tell him you're going to unionize.
I don't want to make the assumption that you aren't in a union, because you never really say. I do, however, find it really interesting when people who aren't interested in being in a union write so much about how important it is to unionize.

Can someone please explain to me why this act that does away with the secret ballot is called a "free choice act"?

The secret ballot is what we use in national elections so that voters are free from retaliation and yet liberals think taking this important tool away from workers is a good thing.

What am I missing here?

And then there's Ezra who think McGovern must have a deep seated need to get even with labor. Is it possible McGovern believes the movement is simply a bad idea for democracy?

kaybeel--
The media is a heavily unionized industry. Even if Ezra isn't in a union he benefits greatly from unionization.

If the employer wants to fire anyone who supports unionization, isn't that an argument IN FAVOR of a secret ballot? I honestly don't understand this logic at all.

Ezra,

you seem to be pursuing a 'counterveiling intimidation theory' here. Like most theories of the 2nd best, it could be true that allowing more union intimidation to offset employer intimidation might make people better off. Or not. It depends. Just the fact that it COULD make people better off isn't a strong argument.

Thanks for putting your argument on the table though. I'd like to see it developed further: i.e. when is it okay to intimidate people for their own good? Does other people also trying to intimidate them suffice to make it okay?

kaybeel-- The media is a heavily unionized industry. Even if Ezra isn't in a union he benefits greatly from unionization.

But hasn't he written against 'right to work' states? Maybe he hasn't, but the argument against them is generally that people benefit from unionization without paying into it. If Ezra is pro-union, yet not in a union while benefiting from the union, he is the kind of free rider many pro-union people despise.
Not everyone that is outside a union benefits from unionization. In my state, people who aren't in the creative unions have trouble getting jobs, yet the unions aren't open to people until they get a union-qualified job. So they end up in lower-paying, non-union jobs.

Surely, there is good and bad to being in a union. Ezra writes this blog from a personal perspective, but never tells us about his personal relationship with unions.

Of course, the opponents of card check always ignore the fact that if a union is somehow foisted on an unwilling majority, that unwilling majority can vote in local leadership ... in secret ballots ... that will be a royal pain in the backside to the union that pushed themselves in where they were not wanted.

Card check is simply not equivalent to the vote for elected Representatives on Nov. 4th ... the equivalent to that is the vote on Union representatives.

If the employer wants to fire anyone who supports unionization, isn't that an argument IN FAVOR of a secret ballot? I honestly don't understand this logic at all.

The employer isn't necessarily threatening to fire just those employees who vote yes. Doing so would be illegal (not to say it doesn't happen a lot). What they are threatening is that if the plant or whatever overall votes to unionize, they will close the plant and everyone will lose their jobs. They aren't allowed to fire in retaliation for unionizing, but they are allowed to make a "business decision" to close a plant if the costs go too high.

The employers spend the run-up to the election "predicting" (i.e. threatening) that if the union wins everybody will lose their jobs. EFCA would just allow the union to gain membership one employee at a time. People would still be free to refuse to sign up. They would be subject to peer pressure, perhaps, but that's nothing compared to what the employers pull.

"I think the worst example of union intimidation I ever heard was the allegation of a slashed tire."

Don't get out much?

They would be subject to peer pressure, perhaps, but that's nothing compared to what the employers pull.

If this is so great, then perhaps you would also like to push for non-secret ballots in the national election.

Two unclear points:

1) can you say something about this world of options between card check and the current system? I don't see so many.

2) What do you mean $6M for a "neutrality violation"? There is no such thing in labor law as a neutrality violation. (Employers do not have to stay neutral) Do you mean an "unfair labor practice"?

"If the employer wants to fire anyone who supports unionization, isn't that an argument IN FAVOR of a secret ballot? I honestly don't understand this logic at all."

No its not, its not even close. Card check basically forces recognition the moment 50% + 1 bargaining unit employees sign cards in favor of a union. So it doesn't give the company the opportunity to intimidate, harass and fire workers in the long interim period between. Once the company knows who has signed the cards, the workers are already protected by a union and the company won't engage in retribution because there are REAL consequences (as opposed to the bullshit consequences for harassment during an organizing drive) for employers.

In the current system, you first have to have 1/3rd of the workers sign union cards (where they could easily face the same supposed "pressure" that people are up in arms about with EFCA) just to force an election. If the election happened IMMEDIATELY then there wouldn't be a problem, but thats not at all what happens and I'm not sure there's a way to create legislation that would mandate immediate elections because of logistical problems - if there is such a way, I'm perfectly open to this as an alternative to EFCA, but I don't think its realistic.

The reality of the current system is one in which employers have months and often YEARS before the election to do all sorts of illegal things (and things that should be illegal) that make the workers petrified of advocating for a union to their coworkers and eventually petrified to even vote for the union.

Thats a REALITY. This is something that plays out thousands of times over every year. This horseshit about workers being intimidated by union organizers is grounded in absolutely no reality whatsoever. The only tools with which a worker can be pressured into voting FOR a union is peer pressure and thats hardly an issue given that any union organizer would tell you that a much more effective method than pressure is persuasion - making a convincing argument that a union is in their best interest - which is a perfectly reasonable tactic in a democracy. By contrast the tools by which a worker can be pressured into voting AGAINST a union are plentiful and extremely harsh.

As someone who has worked as a union organizer its absolutely sickening to hear these arguments. Intimidation from the union is extremely rare and always ineffective. Intimidation from the company is constant, vicious and destroys people's lives. Anyone who believes that passing EFCA would be a step away from work place democracy given our current system is either ignorant of the realities of the current system or willfully ignoring those realities because its not democracy they really care about, its union-busting they're after.

"If this is so great, then perhaps you would also like to push for non-secret ballots in the national election."

El V, you seem terribly upset about the fact that workers might be pressured by union organizers with no real weapons to pressure them. So I can only assume that if you are truly committed to democracy that you are livid about the FACT (as opposed to your baseless claims about union intimidation) that employers threaten to fire, fire, and punish workers for union activity - after all workers who want a union (which study after study shows is a majority of workers) deserve the same protection as workers who don't want a union.

So given that, please suggest an option that allows workers who don't want to join the union to avoid the dirty looks and mean words they'll get from scary union organizers AND allows workers who DO want to join the union to avoid having their livelihood taken from them for making a peep in favor of the union.

perhaps you would also like to push for non-secret ballots in the national election.

You've got a lot of work to do before you can make this analogy. Unionization drives and political elections are very dissimilar. Mostly in that the former is not even an election!

Not all votes have to be by secret ballot. When senators and representatives vote on a bill, it's not secret. When jurors vote on a verdict, it's not secret. At presidential caucuses, there are no secret ballots.

The only reason political elections are held by secret ballot is because the states have chosen to do it that way. Different circumstances call for different rules. If you can make the positive case for why unionization drives should be done by secret ballot, fine. But you can't just point to presidential elections and say "that's how they do it there."

Hearing the status quo defended as free and fair is like imagining a presidential election where you can vote however you'd like, but anyone who votes against the incumbent party is informed they will lose all access to Social Security, Medicare, and the protection of their local police and fire departments. Also, they'll be audited. But nevertheless: Folks can vote however they want.

That's a terrible analogy. It's more like "you can vote however you want, but if the incumbent partly loses, everyone will lose their social security. Or we'll get attacked by terrorists." Or whatever. These types of things are said all the time in elections. But as long as it's a secret ballot, individuals can't be singled out for punishment.

It's unbelievable that so-called liberals can support such an ugly and unjust process, just to achieve the outcome they want.

Ezra, I don't understand how card elections (which I favor) will solve the problems you mention. Won't employers continue to use the same tactics of intimidation in either case? If anything, I think workers might feel a little bit protected by a secret ballot.

Let's face it.

The only reason why anyone would want a non-secret ballot opening up the voter to intimidation and retribution is that they see advantage in it.

It's the only reason why anyone would choose this option. "Fairness" doesn't enter into the picture. It's all political.

"And then there's Ezra who think McGovern must have a deep seated need to get even with labor. Is it possible McGovern believes the movement is simply a bad idea for democracy?"

Congrats, Ezra, on getting El V to express his sincere and steadfast support for McGovern. Will you be baiting him into defending Chomsky from scurrilous attacks for your next trick? Looking forward to it!

It's more like "you can vote however you want, but if the incumbent partly loses, everyone will lose their social security. Or we'll get attacked by terrorists." Or whatever. These types of things are said all the time in elections. But as long as it's a secret ballot, individuals can't be singled out for punishment.

It's more like, if the incumbent party loses, it has the power to revoke everyone's citizenship (the equivalent of shuttering the plant). You don't need to single out everyone for punishment if you're going to close the plant. And, unlike in your example, the company has the power to make it happens.

Oh, we might add that during the course of the election, the incumbent party may jail the opposing party candidates (fire union organizers). It's illegal, but they'll probably get away with it. It happens, it's singling people out, and the "secret ballot" doesn't stop it from happening.

And it's amazing that card check opponents can see these statistics about how many union organizers are illegally fired and keep blathering on about how the secret ballot prevents intimidation. As Ezra said, intimidation comes from the person who can fire you, not from some union organizer. Anyone who's got a documented anecdote about union organizers intimidating people in the course of a unionization drive (not during a strike or anything like that), please tell.

When I was sixteen I had a summer job at a supermarket. I wore black clip-on tie and spent five hours most days bagging groceries and one hour collecting carts in the parking lot. It was hot during the day, and dark at night. I got one fifteen minute break during each six-hour shift.

One night I was out gathering carts on the far edges of the lot. I was getting one that was particularly far away when a guy in a pickup truck asked me if I wanted to sign a card that said I wanted to join a union. I looked back towards the store, which looked to be a mile way. I was scared.

When I got hired I had to watch videos as part of my training. Most of them were innocuous: One was a music video about treating customers respectfully; another showed the tellers how to avoid getting scammed by quick-change artists. But one video stood out: The one about unions.

You see, Shaw's couldn't legally tell you not to join a union. They just didn't know why you'd want to! Outside agitators would show up and try to strong-arm you into joining. One scene in the movie even purported to be "actual footage" of a union organizer running a defenseless woman off the road while waving a union card (I never did find out how they got the camera shot from inside the union guy's car).

Luckily for me, I'm from a union household. My dad's a carpenter, my mom (and many other family members) were in teachers' unions, my grandfather was a union painter. I knew that I didn't have to be worried about the guy at the edge of the parking lot.

What I was worried about was losing my job. I was sixteen and not in the job long. I needed money to keep buying Beastie Boys and Rage Against the Machine cd's. I wasn't making much money, but I was making enough for my purposes and I didn't see the usefulness of signing onto anything at a part-time high school job (I wasn't aware of how the law worked at that point). That's the stereotype of supermarket workers, but I knew a lot of people--single mothers, especially--who did it full-time as a career. I can't imagine what someone whose whole life depended on that job felt when talking to the guy in the parking lot.

My point, I guess, is that employer intimidation and propaganda is real. It doesn't always start only when they get a whiff of union activity; some workplaces instill antiunionism as a company ethos starting in orientation.

The "free elections" and "secret ballots" that George McGovern is defending aren't free or secret at all. What card check and EFCA will do is enable workers to organize in secret. The company doesn't get the chance to threaten and bribe and break the law to break the union. And it takes away the high-stakes, pressure-filled one-off that's created by the current system.

"Let's face it.

The only reason why anyone would want a non-secret ballot opening up the voter to intimidation and retribution is that they see advantage in it.

It's the only reason why anyone would choose this option. "Fairness" doesn't enter into the picture. It's all political."

This is absolute horseshit and I suspect you know it, otherwise you really are a fucking moron...and yes I'm angry and using insults because I have seen with my own eyes, the current "democratic" process RUIN peoples lives because they bravely fight for the union only to get fired and in some cases de facto blacklisted (employers in low wage industries talk, particularly in industries where most employers are local.) I have never seen a worker more than slightly annoyed during a card check (via bilateral agreement between a company and union) campaign, and that annoyance is incredibly rare because the overwhelming majority of times workers are THRILLED to be able to openly talk about a union.

So I have an idea, why don't you stop posting talking points from unionfacts.com and answer some of the direct questions posed to you. Show me concrete (not theoretical) evidence of a worker being harassed in a card check campaign; then show me some statistics that demonstrate that there is anything even remotely resembling the trend there that there is with employers harassing workers; and if you can do that, then please propose some legislation that you feel adequately addresses the concerns of both workers who do and don't wish to join a union.

...otherwise shut the fuck up and stop writing stupid shit.

(I'm really not trying to bully people out of expressing their opinions, but I politely asked for a direct response to a question from El V and all he has is talking points...and thats useless.)

"I think the worst example of union intimidation I ever heard was the allegation of a slashed tire."

Hey, I'm pro-union, but this is touching in its naivety.

I realize Ezra's very young and from the West Coast, but, my god, this betrays a glaring ignorance for a political writer.

Life's not all listening to Rage Against The Machine and experimenting with new tofu recipes, you know.

Hey one amused adult,

do enlighten us naive youth with other examples of union intimidation in coercing workers to join a union. And remember, we're talking about coercing workers to join a union, not what they might have done to scare bosses or other stuff.

There seem to be a lot of people in this discussion ready to point out all the potential misdeeds of labor unions, but when it comes to providing any concrete examples, facts, or statistics while looking through this thread I find...exactly...zero.

But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Matt,

Please. Spare me your indignation. I dealt with the Javits Center in New York in the 1990s. (Do some research on that, kid. Pure class.) I now reside in a city (Pittsburgh) where a few winters ago non-union snowplowers were threatened with being shot if they plowed the snow.

Look, I know plenty of Teamsters and members of USWA. I'm pro-union. I see what the loss of union jobs has done to the Rust Belt. I would support the unionization of various service worker jobs in America.

But, all that said, I'm, also, an adult. And both Ezra's sentence and his evocation of 'The Office' were beyond amusing. It was outright comic.

You write "There seem to be a lot of people in this discussion ready to point out all the potential misdeeds of labor unions, but when it comes to providing any concrete examples . . ." Do some research on the Teamsters, buddy. (Take it from me: if Wall Street had handled its finances as well as La Cosa Nostra did their pension fund we wouldn't be looking at a recession today.) Talk to anyone about what it's still like. Then we could go into how blacks were treated by the USWA before the 1970s. And the USWA (along with the UAW) were one of the more racially enlightened unions in America. The black community still bears these effects in cities across America. Not recent enough? Go to New York today and see how many people in the city are black or Latino -- then check out how many Con Ed workers are. Talk to someone about what it's like to be, say, a beer distributor in a Northern city. What's involved with that. You might then want to check out what's happening with the Long Island Railroad and the 97 percent of retirees on disability. It's quite a news story.

Alas, I regret there are no articles from 'The Nation' I can refer you to (or sitcoms for Ezra) so you can learn a little about the country you live in or the tumultuous history of the labor movement.

You either know all this and are feigning denial or are incredibly naive on an Ezra ("Everything I know about labor I read in progressive magazines, heard it songs or got from sitcoms!") scale. I don't know which, frankly. But, man, it's just dumb. You're not going to win any arguments with any grown-up who isn't already on your side. And, frankly, that's not enough.

The loss of union jobs and the benefits they provide have been devastated for this country. The failure of our nation to provide health care has helped to cripple the auto industry. There are real arguments to be made -- and that need be made -- for organized labor. But you have to, at least, pretend to acknowledge the complexities (especially as many have entered American lore -- see Hoffa, Jimmy) and sometimes ambivalent personal experiences of people who aren't just three months out of college. You know actual workers and people who've dealt with this.

Trust me: you can pro-labor without being a child. You and Ezra should give it a go.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to wade into this ever important debate more properly. I am currently tired and about to go to sleep as morning greets me at 5 AM EST tomorrow. As someone who works in labor I cannot, in good conscience, be entirely quiet.

It must be reiterated: a union "election" bears no resemblance to the electoral world. When you vote, you are given the free (mostly) choice to cast your ballot on election day for whomever; even Bob Bahr if you like. You are at liberty to make the choice.

Not so in a union "election." You see, not only are you threatened and so forth, but their is no real election day--at least not for a long time. First, a union petitions for a certification, not a union. A precursory step before even being considered a legitimate bargaining unit. So, the union vote is not to form a union. It is for the right to even consider a union. During the certification vote, the company is given every opportunity to delay, deny, and contest. And many certifications fail as a result. It is sort of like saying, we are going to have a vote to decide if we can vote on Nov. 4th. In the meantime, the more powerful body--say the Republican party--works to disenfranchise you the voter. And in the case of labor, they can very easily disenfranchise you.

Keep in mind this is just a precursory step to creating a legitimate collective bargaining unit. Once a certification is granted, you now have to ask the company to recognize your status, which they will not.

Often it will be referred to the NLRB, a further delay in which you are subject to greater mistreatment. There is another vote, often tainted. If you prevail, then you will go through a similar process as before, petition, conference, hearings, and appeals.

Then after all those hoops, you get your "secret ballot," for which you are likely risking your livelihood.

That is not an election, folks. Sorry.

The most critical element of EFCA is that provides first contract mediation and arbitration, allowing employees that want to form a union to do so, and be recognized.

The current structure is byzantine at best and in no way reflects a true election.

I think a lot of the pushback here is reflective of both bias, but also wholesale ignorance. Most people do not know what union elections are. And it is really not their fault. There is little coverage of these issues.

But please spare me the nonsense about fair elections. You have no idea. And now I have to go to sleep angry.

And to the "amused adult:"

Suck a dick. You speak in pure platitudes and clipped sound bites ("La Costra Nostra..."ever hear of the teamsters"...)But you profess little knowledge of a labor election outside of folk lore, but lay out the "adult" accusations on Office Space.

But what is this, you live in Pittsburgh, eh. And what is that, "you are an actual worker and dealt with this." Hmmm. Well, my family is from Duquesne...

But yeah,you were at the Javits Center. That is some wild experience, my man.

I suggest you take a stroll around Duquesne and see the bogeyman of "big labor."

One amused adult:

"Talk to anyone about what it's still like"

Ok. Lets. Come on down to Duquesne. It's a mere hop, skip and jump away.

I know plenty of people with much to say...

[9]HCF, Inc. d/b/a Shawnee Manor, 321 NLRB 1320 (1996).

In one card-check campaign investigated by the NLRB, a pro-union employee threatened a co-worker by saying that if she refused to sign the union card, "the union would come and get her children and that it would also slash her tires."

In another case, Thomas Built Buses agreed to recognize a United Auto Workers (UAW) card-check drive in exchange for significant advance wage concessions from the union. Employee Jeff Ward successfully challenged the sweetheart deal before the NLRB and forced the company to allow its workers to vote.[10] In response, the UAW posted flyers around the plant with Mr. Ward's home address, home phone number, and a map to his house. The flyers stated, "Jeff Ward lives here. Go tell him how you really feel about the union."[11]

That took 30 seconds on google

Moreover, some organizers go beyond pressure to outright harassment. Hotel workers in Los Ange­les, for example, had to seek an injunction against union organizers after groups of eight to ten orga­nizers harassed employees on their homes' porches late at night.[14] A labor lawyer explained what hap­pened to Trico Marine employees during a card-check drive:

Some employees, when solicited at their homes by union representatives, said, "No," to signing a card; yet, they reported repeated, frequent home visits by union representa­tives continuing to try to secure their signa­tures, and they complained to the company of this harassment. After 8 visits, one vessel officer in southern Louisiana had an arrest warrant issued against a union organizer.... Employees volunteered that they signed cards just to stop the pressure and harassment.[15]

Not to miss an opportunity to mock Ezra's ignorance;

West Virginia miner shot dead for working during a strike
On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home. UMW President Richard Trumka (now Secretary-Treasurer at the AFL-CIO) told The Washington Times that "if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you're going to burn your finger." UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe was found guilty of weapons charges and conspiracy in York's death,

Virginia women targeted for working during a strike
In 1996, when the United Auto Workers Local 149 called a strike against Abex Friction Products in Winchester, VA, several of the workers decided they needed their paychecks and crossed the picket lines to work. They were targeted for harassment and intimidation. In one instance, an employee who crossed the picket line found a severed cow's head placed on the hood of her car. Later, someone made up a photograph with her face superimposed over the dead cow's head and mailed it to her. The union paid a substantial settlement to six women for its members' harassment of them.

UPS driver beaten and stabbed by fellow union "brothers"
In 1997, Teamsters Local 769 in Miami ordered a strike against United Parcel Service. One driver, Rod Carter (a former star linebacker for the University of Miami), announced that he did not support the strike and intended to continue working to support his family. His wife received a threatening phone call, but Rod went to work anyway. While driving his route, he was stopped and stabbed with an ice pick. When Carter sued the union, another unionized UPS driver testified in a court deposition that the violence had been approved of by union officials.

plenty more at http://www.unionfacts.com/articles/crimeViolence.cfm

One amused adult,

I'm going to take your patronizing tone as a byproduct of your inability to read, what else would explain why you ignored my sentence saying: "we're talking about coercing workers to join a union, not what they might have done to scare bosses or other stuff."

I'm a labor historian and the fact that you happened to choose steel is very convenient for me, because I happen to specialize in mid 20th century USWA history. I've written a great deal on their deplorable record on race, so I'm well aware of that as well. What I'm not aware of though is one concrete example in their history of SWOC and later USW organizers coercing workers into joining the union during their organizing drives of the 30s and early 40s because it didn't happen and its not a significant part of any union's history.

Do plenty of unions have a history of corruption and coercive behavior in certain arenas? Yeah sure, though I would still argue that its vastly overstated and people somehow always come back to the Teamsters when they've never represented more than 7 or 8% of organized labor in this country. But is there any historical trend by labor in this country in forcing workers who do not wish to be union to join? No, there isn't and thats all thats relevant to a discussion of EFCA.

And the funny thing is, after asking for concrete examples, you still just responded by calling me an ignorant child, but then of course could do nothing more than tell me to "go do some research." Believe me, I have - I've spent hours upon hours in the LOC, the Penn st archives, the George Meany center, and Catholic University archives pouring over union records and newspaper articles from the era in which CIO unions were organized and found absolutely no examples of unions coercing workers to join.

Some basics. If workers don't want a union, they shouldn't sign a card. Simple. The union doesn't have the power to force anyone to do anything. All the noise about "union thugs" ,etc. is based on a prejudiced perception of unions. It is all a fairy tale.

Today, U.S. workers have an option to use majority sign-up-to a point. AT&T wireless (formerly Cingular) agreed to this process with the Communications Workers of America and over 40,000 workers joined the union. You can't find one example of organizers intimidating workers. Even though this process was good for the workers and the company (the company didn't damage its relationship with its workers and waste millions of dollars), the company is the entity that decided to accept the majority sign-up process, not the workers. AT&T could have decided not to accept this process and forced workers into the NLRB "election". How is that for "workers' freedom"?

What EFCA would do is simply give that decision makeing power back to the workers. If workers decide they want an election instead of immediate recognition, so be it. This option is still there.

Furthermore, EFCA would raise fines that employers AND unions would pay if they violate labor law. Sounds fair. Let's make it costly for anyone to suppress workers' rights. Who could be against this?

And thirdly, EFCA would force emloyers and workers to enter binding arbitration within a few months after bargaining begins. Through the current process, if workers are lucky enough to win an election, they enter into contract negotiations which employers can drag on ad infinitum. Literally, employers employ delaying tactics with the goal of demoralizing a work force to the point that they drop negotiations in order to stop all the tension at work. It can take years to get your first contract.

If companies and their associations are so worried about their workers being intimidated, they should stop doing it themselves by not talking to thier workers about unions. Afterall, they surely recognize the power they have over their workforce.

The attacks on the Employee Free Choice Act is like all the talk about voter fraud in the national elections. Give me a break. The folks who yell and scream about "workers' freedom" and "voter fraud" are the same folks who tried to deny airport screeners the right to unionize and attempt to suppress voter turnout on election day.

Let's be clear. If unions were as large now as they were 30 years ago, Bush would not have come close to stealing the 2000 and winning the 2004 elections. Denying workers the ability to build worker organizations that reflect their interests at the shop floor and in the election box is what the attacks on the Employee Free Choice Act is all about.

Liberal Democrats do not wish to acknowledge that harrassment happens, just as they refuse to acknowledge that Blacks can be racist.

They see only what they wish and make arguements in bad faith. It's justified by the "greater good".

It's important to remember that the EFCA doesn't take away secret-ballot elections. There are still elections for union leadership. So workers can elect a leadership that refuses to sign a contract or agrees to every management demand, if that's what they really want. Or employees can ask for a decertification election to get rid of the union.

If I thought it could be enforced, I'd go for the penalties. Triple damages and jail time for whoever signs the termination order (or whoever they're willing to rat out up the ladder).

Right now, the penalty for unlawful firings is -- gasp -- you have to pay people the wages they lost as a result of the firing. Two to five years later. If they can front the costs for legal representation. If you don't put that part of your business into a separate subsidiary and have it declare Chapter 11.

To the person who asked: "Can someone please explain to me why this act that does away with the secret ballot is called a "free choice act"?
Here's why: It does NOT, in fact, do away with the secret ballot. What it does is put the secret ballot in the hands of the employees -- not the employer. That is why it is called the EMPLOYEE Free Choice Act. After more than half of the workforce signs cards seeking union representation, the workers may then choose to have a secret ballot election -- or not; it's up to them. As it is now, that is a choice given to the employer. That power should not be in the hands of the employer. It belongs to workers. If workers want a secret election, then they can have one. If they don't think it's necessary, then they can move forward to collective bargaining.

To the person who asked: "Can someone please explain to me why this act that does away with the secret ballot is called a "free choice act"?
Here's why: It does NOT, in fact, do away with the secret ballot. What it does is put the secret ballot in the hands of the employees -- not the employer. That is why it is called the EMPLOYEE Free Choice Act. After more than half of the workforce signs cards seeking union representation, the workers may then choose to have a secret ballot election -- or not; it's up to them. As it is now, that is a choice given to the employer. That power should not be in the hands of the employer. It belongs to workers. If workers want a secret election, then they can have one. If they don't think it's necessary, then they can move forward to collective bargaining.

Hey, One Amused Adult,
I am a long-time Pittsburgher who is not amused by your allegation that union snow plow operators threatened to shoot nonunion snow plow operators. I would like to see the link to that news story.