Just because something is a PR trick doesn't make it wrong. Secret balloting as an abstract moral principle is something that the vast majority of Americans believe in. Going against that is a horrible idea. It will lose, and Republicans will run on the issue.

Unionization is a good thing, but I hardly think that card check is the only way we can work to increase it. Democrats control the Presidency and Congress. If we can't find a way to ensure that unionization can succeed under a secret ballot, something is very wrong with the whole concept.

i've asked this question a billion times, and never really heard a satisfactory answer, but:
ok, suppose you are right. there's no risk of labor intimidation. still, why on earth are you handing the corporations this huge political tool of abandoning a secret ballot in the EFCA? if you just kept everything the same except made the ballot secret, would the labor unions be worse off in any tangible manner?

Ezra, if as you say the argument is just about trying to making it easier to organize a union, than why be wedded to the mechanism of card check to achieve that. Even accepting the validity and relevance of the Ontario findings, card check at the very least has a bad image problem. I think it hard to get over the notion of not being able to keep the decision to yourself and not having to defend the decision. There are certainly things well short of intimidation that would be extremely uncomfortable for a worker. As well, in our times, I would seriously doubt that there would not be at least apocryphal, friend of a friend heard a story of what this other union did stories, which would not help the cause of unions either. So whether it's a PR trick or not, is it time to look for a better idea that could accomplish the same goal of making it easier for unions to organize? One idea was that getting enough cards would trigger an immediate secret ballot. Or an online "virtual" card check where the NLRB would keep the names secret. It would seem that Ezra, Matt and the other great minds on the internet should be able to figure out a way to do this in such a manner that doesn't, rightly or wrongly, give people the willies.

Yeah, I don't get the card check idea at all.

I don't see how it helps employees or hurts employers, but since employers are so against it...well what am I missing?

It prevents employer intimination of employees?
How?
It's better than a secret ballot?
Why?

I've seen this asked before but never really explained

Why is it every time there's a post on EFCA, you get a hoard of lazy commenters who "don't understand" why instituting card check is such a big deal, and instead of doing their own research they want someone to explain it to them?

Fine. Right now, the status quo is NOT that there has to be a secret ballot election. Never has been. As it stands, if a majority of employees sign a card saying they want union representation, then the union is certified--UNLESS the employer decides, for no particular reason other than they don't want to have to deal with a union, that they don't "accept" this, in which case the employer can FORCE the employees into a secret-ballot election. In the meantime they wage a relentless anti-union campaign and basically threaten the employees by promising them they will lose their jobs if they unionize.

It is the second step that EFCA would eliminate: if a majority of employees decide to sign on with the union, that's it: the union is their representative. The employer cannot nullify this by demanding an additional secret ballot election.

If the employees want a secret ballot election THEY CAN STILL HAVE ONE.

Employers are prohibited from questioning employees about union activity. An employee conceivably could volunteer to an employer that she has been threatened, coerced or intimidated into signing a card, but if that in fact has happened, one can imagine why the employee would be reluctant to complain to the employer and why, if he did, he may ask the employer not to do anything that would reveal the employee's identity. As the number of employee complaints would have to be sufficient to affect the outcome, the employer may not have complained to the Canadian authority in the absence of that condition. Also, shouldn't a franchise be exercised based on legitimate choice rather than response to peer pressure? Also, the trend in the provinces to secret-ballot elections isn't adequately preempted by your reference to "a right-wing government killed it." What about the other provinces that have made this transition? Many EFCA advocates say "the movement" is more important than that choice. That is undemocratic, authoritarian and paternalistic. Folks with idealistic views of unions are rapidly becoming disillusioned because of EFCA.

jeebus,

If the employees seeking union certification want a secret ballot election, they can still have one. However, if they prefer card check certification and have enough signed cards, the OTHER EMPLOYEES CANNOT STILL HAVE ONE.

I am sure that the employees intimidated by the union can be found. They're the same people who went to work for the employer because they lost their family farm due to estate taxes.

"OTHER EMPLOYEES CANNOT STILL HAVE ONE"

Shouldn't respond to all-caps claims I guess, but EFCA requires a secret ballot if 25% of employees ask for it.

If the employees seeking union certification want a secret ballot election, they can still have one. However, if they prefer card check certification and have enough signed cards, the OTHER EMPLOYEES CANNOT STILL HAVE ONE.

If the majority of employees want union representation, and they have affirmed this desire via cards, why should they be forced to have a separate election at the whim of either the employer or a handful of employees who don't want to unionize? Majority rules.

If the majority of employees want union representation, and they have affirmed this desire via cards, why should they be forced to have a separate election at the whim of either the employer or a handful of employees who don't want to unionize? Majority rules.

If a majority of employees support unionization, then they would express that support in a secret ballot that was well run with protections against employer intimidation and, say, promptly held. In other words, the way to win this fight is to fix the damn elections, not get rid of them. That way you don't, you know, lose and give the Republicans something to run on in 2010.

Secret balloting as an abstract moral principle is something that the vast majority of Americans believe in.

To my great annoyance, earnest "petitions" are also some kind of abstract moral principle that lots of Americans believe in. So is "all in favor, say aye, all opposed, nay." The list goes on.

Trying to conflate union organizing with political elections seems a bit silly, if you ask me.

I just have a hard time understanding why Ezra, who is not in a union and seems to have no interest in joiningone, writes so frequently and passionately as a proponent of card check.
In fact, many left-side bloggers do. I know SEIU has been a big benefactor of Yearly Kos.
Ezra, do you or TAP receive any compensation from unions?
Are you or other left bloggers (to your knowledge) encouraged to write pro-EFCA posts?

Kaybeel-

Answer here:

That's cute, a, but it doesn't answer my questions.

kaybeel, the point is that your suppositions/accusations/"questions" are mere projections of your inability to understand why Ezra, not being in a union, would write pro-union posts. It's like me asking if you are paid by the RNC to post such ignorant drivel. I don't think you need to be paid. You actually believe all of that crap, and I assume the same is true for Ezra.

kaybeel, the point is that your suppositions/accusations/"questions" are mere projections of your inability to understand why Ezra, not being in a union, would write pro-union posts.

Really, tyro, it's ignorant drivel?
I can understand why he might write pro-union posts. That's why I was surprised back when he didn't really understand the emotions tied to American car companies.
It is specifically the card check issue that I'm wondering about.
It isn't an especially popular issue, and I find it interesting that so many bloggers on the left back it, and write so frequently about it.

If you don't think there could be any tie between pro-cardcheck posts in the blogosphere and heavy SEIU backing in the blogosphere, that's great. If you are sure unions only pay the Dem party and not Dem blogs or periodicals, that is your conclusion
Considering blogs are pretty opaque, I think it's fair to ask. I'd rather ask than remain ignorant.

Tyro. What "kaybeel" suffers from is the same type of affliction that makes most right-wingers have a problem understanding how ANY person of considerable financial means would champion the causes of those of lesser financial means. Ex: John Edwards. What they have a problem understanding is that those of means are only in that position because of those with lesser means. Look. Henry Ford understood that he could not maintain his standard of living if those who worked for him could not afford to buy the products that they made. I guess that it's much harder for some of the more modern type to grasp this. Oh, and Bergman, card check WILL happen. Just because for whatever warped reason YOU don't won't it to, does not mean that it won't

Ditto to Jeebus on the frustration with people posting "I don't get it" questions. This has been all over the blogosphere for months.

And to Andrew Bergman: the status quo is completely broken. Employers basically have free reign to abuse workers, delay elections, and refuse to bargain in good faith, with no repercussions. Card-check has been used for decades in Canada; it's been used by hundreds of thousands of American workers. It's a proven system.

If you want to reform the NLRB election process in lieu of card-check, then you come up with some suggestions on how to do that.

Now, as it happens, unions have managed to reach accords with employers from time to time on things called Private Election Agreements -- this is an arrangement between a union and a company to hold secret-ballot union elections outside the Board's purview, usually with better rules for the union than the Board has.

Often PEA's include: agreements by both parties not to attack the other in various ways; agreements by the boss not to hold captive-audience meetings; guarantees of access to company property for union organizers.

These agreements seem to work okay, so you might be tempted to use them as a basis for a new law. There are two problems: 1) bosses won't like it any more than they like card-check. You think the Chamber of Commerce is going to agree to give union organizers access to company property, and to limit captive-audience meetings? 2) The limits on the content of campaigns are okay as voluntary agreements, but totally unconstitutional as Federal law.

One other note: all the fantasies of union intimidation involve felonies -- "sign the card, I know where your daughter goes to school". Threats of bodily harm. If an organizer were stupid and evil enough to make that threat, the worker could call the cops on his ass and the organizer would have a good chance of getting in serious legal trouble. And the campaign would die on the spot.

The boss's threats, on the other hand, will get no action from the cops. You got moved to graveyard shift for handing out buttons? You got fired for standing up to the boss? Go tell the Board. Maybe they'll help you out in 6 to 10 months.

Are you willing to make the boss's unfair labor practices felonies? That might create a fair atmosphere for a Board election. But I doubt anyone is willing to go there. The Chamber certainly wouldn't.

Labor has its proposal on the table to give workers the rights we deserve. You don't like what's on the table? Make your own proposal. We're not negotiating against ourselves here.

Tyro. What "kaybeel" suffers from is the same type of affliction that makes most right-wingers have a problem understanding how ANY person of considerable financial means would champion the causes of those of lesser financial means.

Wow. So you have to support card check if you champion causes of those of lesser financial means?
Has it become the litmus test? If you don't support card check, you are an ignorant, non-empathetic, richie richerton or something?

How do higher gas prices and more expensive food impact these people of lesser means? Or doesn't it matter if you support card check?

Card-check is simply the process of workers deciding amongst themselves whether they're going to form a union, without the boss's interference or input.

So, kaybeel, if you're against workers being able to form unions when they want to, you're pretty much on the wrong side of the struggle, here.

I think the company should be allowed to have input into whether workers form a union that the company will then be legally forced to deal with exclusively (and support financially).
I think people should make the best wages they can.
I don't think workers should be forced into a union or fired for wanting to form one.
I think the vote should by default be private, after both unions and employers and employees have an opportunity to pitch their positions.

It isn't as black and white as you are pretending, but again I find it interesting that so many people want to make it so.

Again and again, the idea that the elections that employers run are at all "free and fair" is just a ridiculous notion.

Imagine an election run by the Republican Party where it can force voters to listen to hour long propaganda sessions, routinely strip voting rights (and employment!) of voters who show Democratic sympathies, and use force against any Democratic politician who tries to get the message out to voters, with no repercussions. Would anyone pretend it's fair?

Honestly, card check is less than ideal--if I were designing a world from scratch, it wouldn't be part of it. Because, indeed, there is a theoretical potential for peer pressure to unduly influence employees, though the idea that it could rise to physical intimidation is a right wing fantasy (the typical union organizer nowadays is far more likely to be a twenties-something girl with a nose stud than some mob-affiliated brute). But pretending coercion and pressure doesn't already exist on the employer side, in far greater quantities than any realistic estimation of union coercion does, is willful ignorance.

kaybeel: it's about allowing small-d democratic principles to play a role in helping people build institutions that will further their interests.

kaybeel: Here's a question. Do you think workers should automatically get a right to vote in shareholder meetings about how the company should be managed?

If not, why should the company have a right to determine how workers should be able to form a union?

Wow. You really are ascribing a great deal of power to unions. Typically for a right winger, all of it bad. Please, give me anectodal evidence (Outside of that with which you pull out of your ass.) that shows that unionization means higher food or gas prices. I feel pretty confident that I can find you evidence that wages rose within the greatest trajectory for workers across the board during the U.S.'s greatest period of unionization (From 1933-1975). What I don't get "kaybeel" is that you seem to not be able understand that, if you as a worker don't want to be in a union, then you don't have to be. Vote no. very simple. The reason that you want to create a distorted view of EFCA or unions for that matter, is the same reason that many working or middle class people have voted against their own economic interest for years. You think that upward mobility is a zero-sum game. If I win, you lose. I'm here to tell you that it's not, although you have probably listened to "personalities" on the radio for years that have told you that this is the case. If you want to continue to be deluded into believing this, so be it, but the natural order of things is progress, and unions represent progress. We WILL move forward in this country once again, creating opportunities for more people to move up the socio-economic ladder, but if you want to whine and complain on the sidelines, so what.

Oh, and "kaybeel" in the VAST majority of cases, just because a union is represented in a place of work, does not mean that an individual has to join. Just taking that distortion off the board before you try to offer it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's none of the boss's business whether the workers want to form a union. Workers have a fundamental human right to self-organization -- it's their decision whether to exercise that right as a group, and bosses have to live with the consequences. Also, the company isn't supporting the union financially -- the members pay dues, not the boss. In fact, in this country, it's illegal for anyone but members to give money to a union.

I think the vote should by default be private, after both unions and employers and employees have an opportunity to pitch their positions.

Have you ever been around a union campaign, or more specifically an anti-union campaign? This isn't a power-point presentation about the relative merits and demerits of collective bargaining. The campaign involves the workers, on the one hand, trying to create a democratically-structured organization through which they will determine, articulate and fight for their collective interests, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the boss trying to destroy that effort and make it impossible for the workers to stand together and stand up for themselves.

The boss doesn't fire workers, berate them in captive-audience meetings, spread rumors about organizing committee members, etc in an effort to establish a rational basis for opposing the collective bargaining process. They do it to terrorize the workers, turn them against one another, attack their nascent organization, and scare the ones who are left out of wanting to go through the process ever again.

If you want NLRB elections to consist of rational debates about collective bargaining, then you better be calling for some massive reforms to the status quo. Because that's not what the status quo delivers in a Board election at all.

Imagine an election run by the Republican Party where it can force voters to listen to hour long propaganda sessions, routinely strip voting rights (and employment!) of voters who show Democratic sympathies, and use force against any Democratic politician who tries to get the message out to voters, with no repercussions. Would anyone pretend it's fair?

Sounds like the Democratic caucuses!

kaybeel: it's about allowing small-d democratic principles to play a role in helping people build institutions that will further their interests.
====
Small-d democratic would mean that employers have a say, though. They are going to be forced by law to deal with the union that is formed. They are going to not only have to pay their workers, but support the unions (by paying the workers the dues the workers will pay the unions).
Unions can do a lot of great things, but it is important for workers/unions to also feel they share in the responsibility for the success of the company. Their decisions impact the company.
----
As an aside, the reason I brought up Ezra not being in a union is that it seems to me anyone not in a union, and not intending to join a union, can well imagine why others wouldn't want to join a union.
I'm sure TAP doesn't want to be unionized for many of the same reasons other companies don't want to be.

[i]Sounds like the Democratic caucuses![/i]

In what respect, kaybeel? And do you even have a point?

[i]
Small-d democratic would mean that employers have a say, though. They are going to be forced by law to deal with the union that is formed. They are going to not only have to pay their workers, but support the unions (by paying the workers the dues the workers will pay the unions).[/i]

Ok, kaybeel. Employees are going to be forced by law to deal with the rules that management puts down on behalf of shareholders. They are not only going to have to abide by those rules, but work to maximize shareholder profit. The company's decisions impact workers

Shouldn't workers then automatically be given a majority of the shareholder votes in a company?

They do it to terrorize the workers, turn them against one another, attack their nascent organization, and scare the ones who are left out of wanting to go through the process ever again.

So do you think they do this because they just want to terrorize workers? Or is it because they don't want to be legally bound to dealing with a union?
Some employers, I'm sure, want to be cheap and mean.
Others have very rational reasons for not wanting to have to be legally bound to working with a union.

kaybeel, you haven't answered my question. Since you seem to think management should have the right to make determinative decisions on how the labor-side of things operates, why doesn't that also require workers have a right to make determinative decisions on how the capital-side of things operates?

Let's be clear, I don't think that. But a company is comprised of two parts, labor and capital. Those who control the capital hire a group of people--management--to maximize shareholder income. Those who control the labor have an equivalent group, the union, to maximize benefits. Workers and shareholders have lots of interests aligned, and some not aligned--given the latter fact, why should we expect management to act in labor's interest?

In what respect, kaybeel? And do you even have a point?

It was a tiny joke. But yeah, not being able to vote if you are in the wrong party, having to listen to a propaganda spiel, and taking votes away from Hillary (MI) kind of fit the bill.

Employees are going to be forced by law to deal with the rules that management puts down on behalf of shareholders.

As far as I know, no employee is forced by law to remain at an employer.

If you want to reform the NLRB election process in lieu of card-check, then you come up with some suggestions on how to do that.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap. I'm not an expert in election law, and I don't pretend to be. I'm not even saying that card-check is immoral. What I'm saying is that you're focussing on the wrong thing. Blow up the status quo if you want. I'm all for it. We control the government pretty much, so go nuts. Just don't put the Democratic party in the position of opposing secret ballots.

What I'm trying to do is to make a political point. More unionization is a good thing; most of us here share that goal, I think. But, if card-check makes a fairly liberal guy who grew up in the SF Bay Area like me a bit uncomfortable -- no, this is not concern trolling; you can google me -- then I'm pretty sure it's not a winning issue. Card-check is a lazy shortcut that has every chance of blowing up in the Democratic party's face. So, as a matter of politics, I would think it would be better if the people versed in labor issues would stop this BS consequentialist argument for card-check and come up with something that will not only help unionization, but actually pass.

Just a thought.

kaybeel, please answer my question.

Aaron, the point is this: proponents of card check think the claims of 'taking away the secret ballot' are overblown. It doesn't take that right away; employees still have the right to request a secret ballot (in fact, only 25% need to do so). The only thing it does is prevent interference from management in decisions that are internal to the employees.

If a majority of employees support unionization, then they would express that support in a secret ballot that was well run with protections against employer intimidation

Again: a majority of employees, in this hypothetical situation, have already affirmed that (a) they want union representation and (b) that they are satisfied with the card process as a means of expressing that. And you want to force them to have a further, secret election because .... ?

I think the company should be allowed to have input into whether workers form a union

Then you are simply rejecting THE fundamental premise of labor law in this country since the 1930s. Employers have absolutely no "input" into that decision, or at least they are not supposed to (assuming by "input" you mean something over and above the chance to propagandize).

All this said, it's obvious that the Chamber of Commerce and folks have done a good job coming up with an effective, however dishonest, frame for EFCA. Thankfully not that many people have heard the debate, but progressives better be pushing a strong one to counter it.

why should we expect management to act in labor's interest?
Why does "management" work for the company? Why does the purchasing clerk or the scheduler?
Management doesn't equal shareholders, but there is no company if the company can't make money. Similarly, there's no making money if you can't get people to work for you.

kaybeel, please answer my question.

Man, you are impatient. You must be one of those management thugs. :-)

Then you are simply rejecting THE fundamental premise of labor law in this country since the 1930s. Employers have absolutely no "input" into that decision, or at least they are not supposed to (assuming by "input" you mean something over and above the chance to propagandize).

Yes, I am rejecting the premise of labor law since the 1930's. Times have changed.
Remain vigilant, but progressives should be able to get out of the past.

I don't see any manufacturers moving into Michigan the way things are now.

"25%" above should be "30%". Not that I've seen any opponent of EFCA confront the argument.

Again: a majority of employees, in this hypothetical situation, have already affirmed that (a) they want union representation and (b) that they are satisfied with the card process as a means of expressing that. And you want to force them to have a further, secret election because .... ?

Because I want to win elections. Card-check may be the shortest distance from the current situation to more unionization, but it has all sorts of backlash potential. Unless you're telling me that it is impossible to get more people in unions with a secret ballot, then I'm saying we should try to do this in a way that will get the largest proportion of Americans behind us.

The same to Zephyrus: this isn't about whether the right to secret ballot is being given or taken away. It's about winning the PR battle. If you can get a majority of workers to support a union with card-check, you'll win a fair election, too. Now, I'll accept that the current election system is a POS. Fine. Blow it up, make a new one, and don't give the Republicans a stupid issue to run on in 2010.

Maybe, instead of forcing Obama into taking an unpopular position, you could give him the opportunity to accomplish the same goal and look like a consensus-builder. But don't give me crap about how anyone who opposes card-check opposes unions. I'm sure plenty of them do, and I'm damn sure the various business lobbies do, but there are plenty of people who will see this as a moral issue. Now, you could go on an expensive campaign trying to convince them that their initial moral judgment was wrong -- and good luck with that -- or you could come up with a plan that gets to the same place without the moral question. One way you're putting the burden on a large number of voters, and in the other, you're putting the burden on yourself. Which do you think has a better chance of working?

Yes, I am rejecting the premise of labor law since the 1930's. Times have changed.

In what way that makes securing the right of workers to organize any less important? Employers still take advantage of workers; as long as that's the case, the right to collective bargaining is crucial.

Look, we don't have a laissez-faire government. The days of Lochner are long gone, and good riddance. Your problem isn't with EFCA; it's with the NLRA itself. So don't pretend you have a problem with EFCA because of some lofty principle regarding secret ballots. In the conflict between workers and owners, you've taken your side. Fine.

I want to win elections. Card-check may be the shortest distance from the current situation to more unionization, but it has all sorts of backlash potential.

This is pure concern-troll nonsense. EFCA is not an unpopular piece of legislation. It is certainly not something that is going to cause a widespread "backlash" and cause people to vote for the GOP. Believe it or not most people want to make unionization easier. There is virtually nobody in this entire country whose vote is going to go from blue to red because Congress passes a law that says their employer cannot demand a secret ballot election in response to a successful union organizing campaign. It's just not going to happen. You're either delusional, or you're bullshitting.

This is pure concern-troll nonsense.

Gee, thanx.

EFCA is not an unpopular piece of legislation. It is certainly not something that is going to cause a widespread "backlash" and cause people to vote for the GOP.

Wanna bet? You don't think this is an easy issue to demagogue?

(Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any polls on this issue that I'd trust -- they're all Zogby or Chamber of Commerce Funded. Regardless, polling won't matter if there's a well-funded ad campaign saying Democrats are against a secret ballot.)

Believe it or not most people want to make unionization easier.

And I'm one of them! I just think that there are better ways to do it than this. That labor has put all their eggs in this basket strikes me as borderline self-destructive. It's just not necessary. Secret ballots will be won if we do them right. Let's make the Republicans make the argument that unions are bad instead of arguing that Democrats are against democracy. You already know which one I think I think we can win.

Others have very rational reasons for not wanting to have to be legally bound to working with a union.

So what? Still, though, they should not be allowed to intimidate workers and fire workers and engage in propaganda efforts, regardless of whether they're doing it for fun or because they want to stop a union for organizing. You seem to think, "well, it's ok as long as the employer is doing it to stop a union from organizing." A funny "the ends justify the means" there, reflecting, I think, an odd hostility to unions or, perhaps, a weird belief that employers have some kind of role to play, where they actually don't (the comparison to shareholder meetings is apt, here).

One again, kaybeel, you -- as well as many Republicans I encounter -- simply lack the mental ability to see outside yourself. The point of a union is so that workers can organize. It's not a choice made by the employer.

The old system without the card check has failed, and has allowed employers to run roughshod over the system. Thus, I don't see the need to keep the current system.

What Aaron Bergman said.

I want more unionization, but this method of getting there just oozes fail.

It's easy to see how a process of simply collecting cards would make organizers smile, and I get that they've had a hard run of it lo these many years. But politically, advocating card check is the equivalent of asking the Democratic party to walk around town carrying a sick chicken. It's not something you do to your friends if there's another answer.

And in case you didn't notice, there's a lot more at stake in our elections than unionization.

Anyone who thinks "secret ballot" union representation elections are remotely fair has never been involved in an organizing campaign.

Employers routinely require workers to attend "captive audience" meetings, where they're subjected to anti-union arguments and not so subtle threats that they'll lose their jobs, the plant will close, etc., if they vote for union representation. Moreover, employers routinely harass and even fire union activists; sure, it's illegal to do so, but it takes 2-3 years of expensive legal work to get such workers reinstated. By then, the organizing campaign has been squashed.

Imagine a political campaign in which only one candidate could talk to voters, run ads, etc. You might have a secret ballot, but you sure wouldn't have a democratic election in any meaningful way.

As for card check subjecting workers to intimidation from union organizers, that's nonsense, at least in my experience, for the simple reason that that's the surest way to lose a card check - and, yes, card checks occasionally do fail.

The issue here isn't simply helping unions organize. It's no mere coincidence that real wages have stagnated or declined as union density has dropped over the years - or that economic inequality has dramatically worsened as the percentage of private sector workers with union contracts has fallen sharply.

I'm curious--no one has yet responded to my question.

What exactly is the issue with removing employers from the unionization process? Workers STILL have the right to a secret ballot election if they request one. EFCA simply removes the ability of the employer to overrule one method in hope of getting a better outcome.

It's like you all(?) are putting your fingers in your ears and humming to yourselves to make that point go away. Unless you're arguing not against EFCA per se but EFCA as it's currently framed politically, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you--friends of labor need to do a hell of a lot better job framing this.

Unless you're arguing not against EFCA per se but EFCA as it's currently framed politically, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you--friends of labor need to do a hell of a lot better job framing this.

I think we generally agree, but remaking the political frame is not totally divorced from the EFCA itself. Going from bad elections to no elections (at least potentially) gives Republicans an issue. I'd much prefer to be going from bad elections to better elections (even if, in practice, those elections are mere formalities).

And I'm one of them [people who want to make unionization easier]! I just think that there are better ways to do it than this.

So name one, Andrew. Give us some idea of what you would propose as a way to improve the NLRB election system that (a) prevents interference and abuse on the part of the boss, and (b) preserves the balloting process you like so much, and (c) is a better political stance for the Dems.

Despite my saying that I wasn't going to negotiate against myself, I couldn't help it and went ahead and did it anyway. Scroll on up and read what I wrote about Private Election Agreements. Do you think that kind of reform is doable? Do you think something else is? You haven't commented on any of that yet.

What exactly is the issue with removing employers from the unionization process? Workers STILL have the right to a secret ballot election if they request one. EFCA simply removes the ability of the employer to overrule one method in hope of getting a better outcome.

Just to expand on your excellent point here, Zephyrus. I assume everyone understands that we currently demand a card-check to qualify for an election: that is, the Board schedules an election after workers submit signatures of at at least 30% (realistically this is usually no less than 55% or 60%) of the relevant workers on a petition or on cards requesting union representation or an election.

So for all of you who think cards or petitions violate some right of privacy: the cat is already out of the bag. Workers already need to sign cards or petitions declaring where they stand on the union. It's just, as Zephyrus points out, that current law allows the boss to decide, unilaterally, to make the workers jump through a series of flaming hoops before getting legal recognition for the union they've formed.

Whatever privacy concerns you have about card-check are, as we used to say in debate, non-unique. All those alleged harms should already be happening in the status quo. Folks who think card-check for certification violates privacy rights and leads to intimidation need to explain why card-check for filing an RC petition at the Board doesn't cause those harms.

Anyone who thinks "secret ballot" union representation elections are remotely fair has never been involved in an organizing campaign.

Not claiming they are.

So name one, Andrew.

Who is this Andrew person?

Give us some idea of what you would propose as a way to improve the NLRB election system that (a) prevents interference and abuse on the part of the boss, and (b) preserves the balloting process you like so much, and (c) is a better political stance for the Dems.

As I said above, I'm not an expert on labor law. I'm asking that the people who are try harder. Like, say, ...

Despite my saying that I wasn't going to negotiate against myself, I couldn't help it and went ahead and did it anyway. Scroll on up and read what I wrote about Private Election Agreements. Do you think that kind of reform is doable? Do you think something else is? You haven't commented on any of that yet.

Works for me. It sounds infinitely preferable to card check. And, sure, the chamber of commerce will be against it, but it will be a much easier fight to win.

Sorry about the name screw-up, Aaron. My bad.

Works for me. It sounds infinitely preferable to card check. And, sure, the chamber of commerce will be against it, but it will be a much easier fight to win.

So, let me get this straight: you think that there's no Constitutionality problem with forbidding companies to express opinions on unionization? You think it's easy to win the "someone from the union can force his way into your shop whenever he wants and disrupt your company's work" argument?

Most importantly, you think it'll be easier to win criminal penalties for ULPs? Even if it were enforceable, that sounds like a big loser to me.

Here's the biggest problem with just beefing up deterence/enforcement for Board elections: the workers' new union is Humpty Dumpty, and the boss is trying to push him off the wall. After Humpty is smashed on the ground, the Board eventually wanders by, says, "Tut-tut, you shouldn't have done that" and makes the boss post an apology for smashing ol' Hump. Maybe a few workers get rehired.

It's all more than worth it to the boss to smash Humpty to pieces.

No amount of enforcement after the fact can repair the damage, so if you mandate an election process that's a proven opportunity for abuse by the boss, you need massive penalties in place to make sure bosses butt out. Now, these penalties are (a) untested, unlike card-check, and (b) potentially objectionable to lots of people, since it would involve personal liability (like criminal sanctions) for committing ULPs. And then, the Board wouldn't even be able to enforce them, you'd need to use criminal courts.

All of that trouble would be to try to jury-rig a lousy election system onto a process that doesn't need it -- the workers' collective decision about organizing. I think you get worse outcomes, more hostility between workers and bosses, much more bureaucracy, and worse enforcement of rights with that system than with card-check.

For one thing, the boss is always going to be trying to smash Humpty Dumpty, no matter how many laws all the king's horses and all the king's men get together and pass.

What if we said that balloting could begin immediately after enough cards are signed, election results could be certified by (say) any licensed notary public, and no notice to management is required until results are certified?

southpaw,

What if we said that balloting could begin immediately after enough cards are signed, election results could be certified by (say) any licensed notary public, and no notice to management is required until results are certified?

Okay, now we're getting into the nitty-gritty. The problem I see with your plan is getting participation in the actual vote. There's a good reason for the Board's rules about election logistics: all the workers go to a workplace (in most normal work situations) so you have the election at work; you schedule the election on payday because that used to be a day everyone would show up, even if they weren't on the clock that day; you give a few weeks' notice so people can make plans to be there.

All those benefits, which are designed to increase participation in and legitimacy of the Board election, actually do occur, but are utterly outweighed by the opportunity that system affords to the boss to undermine the democratic legitimacy of the election by attacking the workers.

So we could, as you suggest, rework the election system to keep the boss out of it. The problem is that you might also keep lots of workers out of it, too. Where is the balloting held? Can't be at work, if you don't want the boss to know about it. So can workers actually get to the polling places? How will the workers find out about the specific times/places for voting, but the boss not find out?

Take this scenario. 400 workers, 240 of them sign cards to organize a union. You hold your non-worksite, quick-run election, and the vote is 130 for the union 140 against. Which represents the collective, democratic will of the workforce?

The same structures that increase election participation make the election itself vulnerable to attacks by the boss. It's really, really tough to design systems that (a) look like secret-ballot, voting-booth votes (b) give workers a legitimate opportunity to participate in the decision-making, and (c) protect the workers and their new organization from the boss.

Now, you could tinker with the rules about the election some more. Maybe we could you say that the election only counts if the no vote is bigger than the number of submitted cards, or if the no vote is a majority of the bargaining unit, not of the valid ballots cast.

But piling rules on top of rules like this begins to resemble pre-Copernican astronomers fantasizing epicycles of epicycles to make their astronomical observations match a geocentric universe. Eventually you have to wonder whether the ideal in your head and reality just don't match up.

The secret ballot is a tool to facilitate democratic self-determination. It's not a holy rite. If the secret, voting-booth ballot fails to facilitate democratic self-determination, and a better tool is available, we should use the better tool. One of our biggest problems as a polity is that we seem to have decided that democracy = elections, period. That's completely wrong, in my view. Ballots don't always mean democracy, and democracy doesn't have to rely on the voting-booth secret ballot as a tool for decision-making.

Mail-in voting. It's already used in presidential elections, so why not in union elections?

Maybe even online voting, although that probably has access problems. Phone voting, maybe?

Again, Aaron, there are logistical problems all around. Mail-in ballots are used under the Railway Labor Act, a law that preceded the NLRA, also enforced by the NLRB, that covers transportation workers. So when flight attendants have a union vote, it's a mail-in ballot and, under that law, you need a majority of the bargaining unit, not just a majority of the ballots, to certify.

Now, I've never worked for a union that dealt with the RLA, so I can't go on direct, personal experience. But here are some of the problems:

1) Getting ballots to everyone is logistically complicated. It takes time, which means the boss can attack the workers. It also requires addresses, which means the boss is involved again. So this can't work with southpaw's secret-ballots-before-the-boss-is-any-the-wiser plan.

2) Access problems: some workers don't speak English, or don't have access to a computer. A phone would probably work better.

3) Election validity. Who's filling out the mail-in ballot? Who's getting online or calling in? If there are questions about the voting, how do you raise objections or challenges (I'm sure there are answers WRT mail-in ballots under RLA, I just don't happen to know them).

And I'd repeat my points in my last post about the conflict between increased worker participation in an election and increased opportunities for employer malfeasance.

Mail-in voting. It's already used in presidential elections, so why not in union elections?

I think that's more than a rhetorical question, because elections for public offices and union elections are completely different. It's important to understand those differences.

In an election for an office -- President, Senator, dog-catcher, student council -- there's an office that already exists, and the question is who is going to fill it. There's a chair there, someone is going to sit in it, and the only issue is who.

In a union election, there's no chair at all. The issue isn't who is going to fill a role and get sworn in at a given date and time. The issue is whether a group of workers wants to bring into being a democratic organization through which they will determine, articulate, and fight for their own collective interests, both by negotiating wages, hours and working conditions with their employer, and through other means, if they choose, such as political advocacy. It's not a vote about filling a slot that will inevitably get filled-in by someone on swearing-in day. It's a vote about whether the workers are making a collective decision about creating their own organization.

That difference explains a lot of the reasons that officeholder-style, secret ballot voting booth elections are often a weird and inappropriate fit for deciding whether to form a union. I think workers should be able to chose that method if they want, and EFCA preserves that right. But if they prefer to make that decision through majority sign-up, I think they should be able to do that, too.

I guess this is the nut of our disagreement. I would think that the problems of organizing employees to get a quorum in an election would pale in comparison to the political difficulty of getting rid of an election process that already exists. I would think that the former effort would go hand in hand with building a strong union; the latter would give unions a pretty big black eye even if we won the fight.

I should add, WRT mail-in ballots, that the Board virtually never approves absentee voting in NLRA elections. If you're out of town when the vote happens, that's your tough shit. So mandating mail-in or phone-in or log-on voting across the Board would be a huge change for Board doctrine and practice under the NLRA.

So mandating mail-in or phone-in or log-on voting across the Board would be a huge change for Board doctrine and practice under the NLRA.

Well, yeah. I think we're all on board for a major disruption of the policies and procedures of the various organs of the labor department, right?

The point I'm trying to make--and that I think Aaron is trying to make too--is that the shitstorm the Republicans are planning over the EFCA will make even the most mindblowing changes in Board doctrine look like a popcorn fart. Getting the labor department to update itself to the complexities of modern life is easy, provided we have a bill that we can get through Congress without risking our control of both houses.

1) Getting ballots to everyone is logistically complicated. It takes time, which means the boss can attack the workers. It also requires addresses, which means the boss is involved again. So this can't work with southpaw's secret-ballots-before-the-boss-is-any-the-wiser plan.

If you can get cards to union members, you can get ballots to them, too. Have 'em mailed to some government run address that doesn't inform employers that stuff is getting mailed.

2) Access problems: some workers don't speak English, or don't have access to a computer. A phone would probably work better.

If you can explain a card, you can explain a ballot.

3) Election validity. Who's filling out the mail-in ballot? Who's getting online or calling in? If there are questions about the voting, how do you raise objections or challenges (I'm sure there are answers WRT mail-in ballots under RLA, I just don't happen to know them).

We're using them for presidential elections.

These are all logistical questions. They are far from insuperable. Do so, and we will all have a much easier time at the end of the day.

I would think that the problems of organizing employees to get a quorum in an election would pale in comparison to the political difficulty of getting rid of an election process that already exists.

As Zephyrus has stated already, EFCA does not get rid of the NLRB election process. When I organized nurses, the RNs signed cards calling for an election, not cards demanding representation. That's because the RNs wanted the election (not that the boss would have recognized their demand anyway...) but in any case it wouldn't have been possible for them to demand recognition even if every single one had signed a card. Nothing about that changes under EFCA -- those RNs can still sign election-demand cards and have a regular Board election if they want.

You're also comparing apples to oranges, here: the difficulty of passing card-check recognition vs. the difficulty of making an election system work for the workers involved. I've already made lots of unrefuted arguments about the political difficulty of passing Board-election reform with teeth -- the fights over union access to the workplace, and limiting campaigning by the boss, etc.

I'd also remind you and Aaron about the fact that workers already need to sign cards to get the election under the status quo. The privacy cat is out of the bag already.

I would think that the former effort would go hand in hand with building a strong union; the latter would give unions a pretty big black eye even if we won the fight.

There's some truth to the first, but only of the "that which does not kill you makes you stronger" kind. Workers who make it through the sheer hell and terror the boss puts them through before a vote, and still vote for the union, have been through a war together and know it. But the actual organizing is already taking place during the earlier phase of the campaign that leads to card-signing under the status quo. You need an organizing committee in place, and the structure of the union is basically in place already.

If supporting card-check gives unions a black eye, it's because people are either (a)ignorant about what really happens in Board elections, or (b) not really supportive of workers organizing. This is a very, very anti-union country, even among American workers. So I'm not confident about EFCA passing. But part of the challenge is to explain to people that fetishizing the secret ballot is wrong here. The goal is to let workers who want to organize do so, not to carry out the proper holy so that the Gods of Democracy will favor us with good turnout in the fall.

Aaron,

The issues you're responding to are "all logistical" because you're ignoring all my other points - specifically the political difficulty of passing serious penalties for ULPs (essential to deter boss attacks), the conceptual difference between officeholder-elections and union elections, and the non-uniqueness of privacy concerns related to card or petition-signing.

And the logistical problems are based in the tension I've mentioned twice already (not responded to by you or southpaw) between increasing participation by the workers and handing the boss opportunities for attacking the workers.

We get ballots to voters in presidential elections based on a huge election-registration bureaucracy that operates year-round, and there are still enormous problems. Usually, the problems have little effect on the election outcome. But when you've got 75 workers voting, every single vote is incredibly important. Getting every ballot to the right address is a very, very big deal. Making sure each vote is cast by a voter matters, too (not a problem with a card that has a person's signature on it). What happens if a ballot is lost (this is one of the reasons the Board hates mail-in elections)?

And the more time you take to resolve this stuff, the more the boss will attack the workers and destroy the whole point of the election in the first place. Which is why you'd need, minimally, the rules that are unconstitutional and impossible to pass and enforce to keep the election fair.

You could shrug your shoulders, decide that elections happen 1 week after filing, by mail, and be done with it. But what about the undervote scenario I outlined above? Is a 130 to 140 secret-ballot election more legitimate than 240 signed cards by workers saying they want to form a union? If so, why?

So, there are two questions here: 1) is card-check the right thing to do? 2) can card-check win the political support it needs to pass? You and southpaw have been sliding between these two questions, I feel.

On 1, the most you've done is demonstrate that one could construct some kind of election that might be less fraught with abuse than the current NLRB system. But I've identified lots of flaws with those systems that haven't been refuted here, and the only substantive argument in their favor is an inchoate determination to have secret, voting-booth ballots. I've explained why that determination is wrong-headed in the case of workers' organizing a couple of times here -- again, with no response from you or southpaw.

On the politics of it: I'm pessimistic, too. Bosses are prepared to fight to the death over this. Workers aren't. But the problem here isn't the proposal itself. The problem is that American workers are so anti-union. I'm pessimistic overall because I don't see any way to change the underlying ideology, a false consciousness, if you will, that motivates things like being more committed to making checkmarks on slips of paper than to workers getting to organize when they want. At least, I don't see any way to change that underlying ideology before organized labor finally reaches a critically small mass and actually dies in the US.

I've explained my view on the status and role of secret ballots. Why do you value them so highly when it comes to the decision by a group of workers to form a union in the first place? And are you going to respond to the majority of the arguments I've made here, which you haven't acknowledged to this point?

I'd just like to chime in on Pesto's side - ultimately, it comes down to this: "The issue is whether a group of workers wants to bring into being a democratic organization through which they will determine, articulate, and fight for their own collective interests."

Unions are private organizations chosen by workers for workers; it makes no more sense to say that you have to have elections to form them than it would to form a lodge of the Elks or a chapter of the NAACP. If workers want to form unions, they should be able to with the minimum of hassle.

As for the politics of it, I think what Aaron and Southpaw don't get is that business is going to attack with whatever they have and with everything they've got, no matter what decision gets made. They'll find a storyline no matter what, they did it before, back when used "free speech" to legitimize threatening people, or "property rights" to legitimize banning union organizers from the premises, and so on and so on.

The question is whether we have the intestinal fortitude to just introduce the bill, vote it through, and to hell with what the Republicans think. The next week, the voters are not going to care about this bill.

I've tried (although possibly not always succeeded) in sticking to a political argument. You can lose on your substantive arguments, or you can come up with a proposal that will win. Of course the chambers of commerce will fight what we come up with regardless, but we don't have to make their life easier. If you stick card-check, all your rational arguments are going to have to go up against the visceral feeling people will get from the lack of a secret ballot. Now, you seem to want to throw up your arms, say that people are anti-union regardless, try for card-check and probably lose. I'm not so into noble struggles that end in futility. I'm suggestion, we find a way to make it easier to unionize without engaging Americans' moral sense in abrogation of democracy. You point out various logistical difficulties, but it's hardly as if card-check is a complete panacea either. My way is surely harder than card-check in the beginning, but I think that with that extra work, we can achieve the same goal without being tarred as anti-democratic. I like having Democrats in power, and my goal is to keep it that way.

"(Labour law goes province-by-province in Canada)"
Technically, its province-by-province and certain industries (like banking or uranium mining) are regulated federally.

"If you stick card-check, all your rational arguments are going to have to go up against the visceral feeling people will get from the lack of a secret ballot."

On what basis do you assume that people will have a "visceral feeling ... from the lack of a secret ballot?" I see a lot of hand-waving and concern-trolling but no real data. If this really were such a potent issue, then why on earth didn't it come up during the campaign?

Sure, Republicans will try to make something of it. Will they succeed? I doubt it, and you've given me absolutely no reason to believe they will.

The truth is there isn't much data, and we have to be skeptical of what there is because it has all been gathered by partisan operations.

That said, there's certainly some indication that the public will be receptive to Republican messaging on the secret ballot stuff.

Again, I don't see why this is a hill the Democratic coalition should be prepared to die on. If we're going to have a bet-the-party vote, let's have it for universal healthcare or gay rights or a new new deal, not for some bureaucratic work-around that even proponents concede isn't central to the issue.

Oh for god's sake, southpaw, your proof of public opposition is a survey conducted by something called the "Coalition for a Democratic Workplace" that is just a front group for a bunch of business lobbyists?

That's not an indication of what the public thinks. It's an indication of what Capital thinks. Big whoop.

Again, I don't see why this is a hill the Democratic coalition should be prepared to die on.

I don't see any proof that supporting this will kill the Dems. You certainly haven't provided any. The targets of the attack ads about EFCA in this past election don't seem to have been hurt much.

some bureaucratic work-around that even proponents concede isn't central to the issue.

Which proponents say it "isn't central to the issue"?

Look, I've tried very hard in this discussion to lay out, at great length, the details on why card-check is the best tool available for ensuring that workers can exercise their right to self-organization. If you don't think workers deserve that right, say so; if you think the status quo works, say so; if you think my arguments for card-check and against tinkering with Board elections are bad, then respond to them.

But saying, "Oh, Americans won't like this and the Dems will be doomed!" and quoting a rogues' gallery of Chambers of Commerce, manufacturing groups, and boss quislings as proof is frankly pretty hard to take seriously.

"That said, there's certainly some indication that the public will be receptive to Republican messaging on the secret ballot stuff."

Um ... no. Citing some whiny protests and unsourced "data" from a business front group is hardly evidence of public reception of, well, anything.

Again, I don't see why this is a hill the Democratic coalition should be prepared to die on.

So far, you've given us no reason to believe that the Democratic majority will suffer a damned thing should they choose to pass this legislation. Come back when you've got something real.

All of these posts from the concern trolls and not one shred of real data? Methinks they doth protest too much.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's none of the boss's business whether the workers want to form a union."

Really? The formation of a union often amounts to a confiscation of at least some of the owner's assets. I'd consider that very much "the boss's business".

"Workers have a fundamental human right to self-organization -- it's their decision whether to exercise that right as a group, and bosses have to live with the consequences."

If you're referring to freedom of association, which is a fundamental right, it implies the ancillary freedom to disassociate, which is denied the owners by statute. Unions are permitted the legality of forcing themselves into an association with their employers beyond that which good old freedom (and the employment contract they signed when hired) would entitle them. In other words, unions are given special privileges that no one else in the country enjoys, privileges that should be entirely revoked.

"Also, the company isn't supporting the union financially -- the members pay dues, not the boss. In fact, in this country, it's illegal for anyone but members to give money to a union."

Who pays the members, bozo?

All of these posts from the concern trolls and not one shred of real data? Methinks they doth protest too much.

All the data is shitty. All the polls are against card check, and they're all by business front groups. So, all I have to go on is my gut instinct which I've explained ad nauseum. I certainly hope somebody out there is polling this in a decent way, even if they're not publishing it.

In case it wasn't clear, I agree that's a shitty poll.

Otherwise, I've said my piece. I would very much appreciate some proper survey research, and I find its absence curious given the prominence of this issue.