Regardless of whether or not there are credible claims of intimidation, I don't buy the pragmatic argument.

Do we really want to get rid of something as sacred to democracy and individual conscience as the secret ballot?

It would also be interesting to hear (study or anecdote) how those who didn't sign the MIP were treated after the certification went through...

For the love, how come everyone spouts this losing the secret ballot argument when that isn't what the billd does? Rocinante, go do some independent research, not just listen to right wing sources. There is no provision in the bill that outlaws the secret ballot, none, zero. OK?

I'd take it as a kindness if you'd point me at some independent research. Most of what I've read is partisan one way or the other.

The Wikipedia article seems pretty balanced. (I've heard Wikipedia accused of many things; being a "right wing source [sic]" isn't one of them.)

Am I missing something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act :

"If enacted, the EFCA would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards.[1] The EFCA would take away employers' present right to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check.[3][4] The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.[3][5]"

...choose a secret-ballot election....

Why there it is. All this does is give the employees the right to decide what type of ballot they want.

It does not take away the secret ballot or whatever nonsense Limbaugh is spouting.

@Cols714: I see this talking point all the time, and I really don't get it.

If there's no intimidation, then great: Workers have the right to decide whether they want a secret ballot or not. And since there's no intimidation, they probably don't, and they can use card-check, and all's well.

If there IS intimidation to sign the card, wouldn't that intimidation also apply to the petition to choose card-check over secret ballot?

That seems dead obvious. And I mean "the voters insisted I remain dictator" kind of obvious. What am I missing? What protection does "you can choose to have a secret ballot" provide?

Ah yes, the sacred secret ballot -- otherwise known as the Australian ballot -- widely adopted in the late 19th century, a hundred years after the birth of the United States.

What am I missing?

Any evidence that there is a problem - such as union intimidation, or people not understanding the cards they're signing - that would justify denying workers who want to sign up for a union the right to do so.

as a former union member and someone who grew up in a family with generations of union members I can tell you I am a very strong supporter of unions but absolutely against this legislation.

This legislation absolutely removes the right for a secret ballot and anyone who supports it and denies it as such is a liar or a fool.

Shame on any union member who backs this legislation.

Here's the bill. Rick Calvert, shame on YOU for perpetrating such an untruth. The bill is right here. Read it. The Employee Free Choice Act states, "(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)."

OH LOOK! It ADDS TO 29 U.S.C. 159(c)of our US Code, NOT takes anything away.

Again, Rick Calvert, shame on YOU for perpetuating untruths. It's a shameful America when We, The People are no longer honored with making choices at our workplace.

This is what I mean. We have people on here talking about "intimidation" and denying the secret ballot.

The secret ballot part is a complete made up lie, and there has been no evidence of intimidation over the last however many years.

The days of being able to lie your head off and be taken seriously have come to an end.

Either fess up that you just don't like unions, or stop commenting, but don't insult our intelligence.

@joe from Lowell: Is it really a good idea to rely on self-reported cases of intimidation as evidence when the victims, by definition, don't feel that they can voice their opinions?

And on the other hand, how is anyone currently denying workers the right to form a union? The worst an employer can do is demand a secret ballot election.

I work at SEIU local 6434 ULTCW. I've never seen or heard anything about intimidation being directed against workers. HOWEVER: there was PLENTY of intimidation, including direct threats of physical violence, directed against anyone in the staff who didn't want to go along with the corruption that was rampant there. Documented here amongst other places: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080828-2130-ca-unioninvestigation.html. This suggests to me that fears of union intimidation are not entirely misplaced.

Fixed link?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080828-2130-ca-unioninvestigation.html

Clerk, the claim isn't "unions never do anything wrong". The claim is, "There's no evidence unions intimidating workers during organizing campaigns". The reason that intimidation is incredibly rare is simple: union organizers have virtually no leverage over workers whom they don't represent, and all the stereotypical, "it would be a shame if something happened to your car" crap is a felony. Are you going to risk spending 5 or 10 years in prison to get a card signed?

In the case you site, the union is the employer, which makes staffers very vulnerable to arm-twisting simply because they're dealing with their boss. Here's what the article says:

The investigation also encompasses union staff members' complaints that they were pressured to sign a petition in support of Freeman and that those who did not sign were retaliated against, losing union cell phones and being transferred far from their homes.

That's exactly the kind of thing employers do all the time. But union organizers simply don't have that kind of leverage in an organizing campaign. The workers aren't getting cell phones or other benefits from the union (in fact, giving them anything like that will invalidate any election or certification they take part in), and a union organizer can't transfer anyone since they don't control anything about their job.

Also, there is nothing whatsoever in that article about violence. Nothing. So provide a link to allegations of violence, or retract the assertion.

Pesto,

"Provide a link to allegations of violence, or retract the assertion."

Here you go:

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/la-me-union5-2008sep05,0,4142384.story

I guess I came across as a concern troll. The threats from SEIU staff were directed against me and my colleagues, both one and one, and in a delightful group session that was held at a Doubletree hotel in Ontario, California.
"One staffer who balked at signing the letter was later fired, according to co-workers.

"During a subsequent staff meeting, some employees threatened to retaliate further against anyone who provided information to The Times about Freeman, several of those in attendance said."

Let me tell you, it was no joke.

Actually the EFCA DOES remove the secret balloting process. Basically IF 50% of employees +1 employee in the business agrees to unionization, then the union and the business must collective bargain. Therefore, the other approximately 49% of employees DO NOT get a say in whether they want to unionize or not. To me that's UN-American and the loss of the right to CHOOSE via the voting process.

Ed, you poor benighted soul. Since when did a minority vote win ANYTHING in this country? Did President Obama win by having LESS votes than Senator McCain? So is it UN-American that supporters of Senator McCain don't have their guy in office? What a childish argument you posted.