« Leaning Rudy | Main | Do carbon offsets really work? »

Farewell secret ballot

I'm accustomed to disagreeing with acts of Congress, but I can usually at least understand the motivation behind them. But the Employee Free Choice Act, which seems sure to pass, has left me scratching my head.

Whenever the title of a bill reads like an unadulterated good, it's always worth looking under the hood to see what it really does. In this case, it does away with the secret ballot in unionization votes. Ostensibly, the point is to prevent employers from intimidating and browbeating workers into voting the way they want.

Isn't that sort of... backwards? Wasn't the whole point of a secret ballot precisely to prevent management from influencing unionization votes? The only rationalization I can conceive is that Congress wants to allow voter intimidation and browbeating, but on the part of the unions this time.


It SHOULD pass the House, I'm not sure about the Senate...and it certainly WON'T have a chance at over-riding the inevitable veto.

The Bill allows Unions to Unionize a workforce against the will of the majority of workers so long as they can dupe enough workers into signing cards. The Bill does allow for subtrafuge and distortion a/k/a "lying" on the Union's part, so those cards can be pitched as "sign here to get more information about our Union."

When enough workers sign those cards, the Union can begin taking dues out of their checks even though a majority of the workers didn't actually want a Union.

Intimidation and browbeating? from a union? If you believe in that, you probably believe that this bill won't be vetoed.
Wal-Mart beware!

ANd yet four of our NJ Republican representatives, LoBiondo, Saxton, Smith, and Ferguson, voted for it. Only Frelinghuysen and Garrett voted against it. Of course, Garrett votes against everything. He reminds me of Groucho's song in Horsefeathers: "Whatever it is, I'm against it."

The government has no place in legitimizing or legislating unions. Unions as workers freely associating and bargaining en masse to get the best deal for their labor is perfectly legal and American.

Why does the government have any role in how free associations are run?

>Why does the government have any role in how free associations are run?

Why indeed?


What Barry pointed out BH, is that this post actually OPPOSES a government action (the ill-named Employee Free Choice Act) on behalf of Unions, which would allow Unions to claim to represent workers AGAINST their will, so long as enough "inquiry cards" were filled out.

This "Free Choice Act" actually removes "free choice" form the employees, by eradicating the secret ballot, in favor of a card count and Union reps could represent these cards as "mere requests for further information," rather than a deisre to be represented by that particular organization.

Real wages are at best stagnant, it is only in the unearned income where our economy seems to be doing well

All I am saying is that the government has no bases for legislating anything at all in these matters. Any such legislation is clearly unconstitutional.

I hope our new justices step up and defend our constitution by simply nullifying this baseless legislation.

"All I am saying is that the government has no bases for legislating anything at all in these matters. Any such legislation is clearly unconstitutional." (BH)

Uhhhh, HELLO McFly...I mean Barely??? We have to have laws that govern any such mutual exchange, that's kind of how this thing called civilization works.

Some Unions claim that they have a right to represent any group of workers, so long as they can get enough "inquiry cards" signed.

Most business owners oppose that view. They seem to feel that a Union can only rightfully represent a goup of workers via a secret ballot election.

See, they're at an impasse.

Ergo, the government must come up with legislation (that's what legislative bodies, like Congress do) to clraify the rules, so that courts can use LAW decide who is right and who is wrong.

Uhhhhh, sub-normal IQ person ... I mean JMK???

The government cannot "come up with" legislation on matters outside of what they are constitutionally entitled to regulate. Your line of thinking is exactly how busing kids around school districts was justified. You are asking for justices to acknowledge constitutional powers that don't exist.

Here is all the government needs to know about unions: they are free and voluntary associations of workers who wish to collectively bargain. The government has no legal power to force industries to deal with unions if they don't want to. The government has no legal authority to interfere with how unions are run, unless they are violating the rights of workers who do not wish to participate.

Remember that old saw, the Free Market? Well, if the unions sucks, workers will leave it and form another, better union. No government involvement is necessary. If a union makes unreasonable demands, a company should be able to end negotiations with them and try to hire those willing to work without a union.

Union hooliganism is simply criminal activity. Union workers have to right to impede the operation of a business or destroy property.

Companies have no right to use illegal immigrant workers.

If the government focused more on simply enforcing the law, equally, on both individuals and corporations, and if our government stopped with this idea that instead of America for Americans we have a "global market" in which every American has to compete with ever dirt-poor third-worlder who can handle plutonium without gloves for all their government cares ... well, everything would work out, and we could return to prosperity.

ALL DISPUTES....that is ALL,/b> disputes between individuals and between labor and management are subject to court review and often times arbitration.

The government can rule via the courts OR force both sides to accept a government mandated agreeement on such matters via "binding arbitration."

If the government decides that secret ballot elections are required to form Unions....then Secret Ballot elections are required.

That's the stance I obviously support.

If it innanely decides that merely enough signed "inquiry cards" are required then THAT is the new legal standard.

Otherwise both sides would have to hash it out the way labor unions once tried to hash things out with Andrew Carnegie, who was famous for saying, "When the workingman raises his head, smash it with a club."

Believe me, the courts are better...and our LAWS require that such disputes ONLY be settled in COURT.

You made one correct statement in all your inane ramblings, "Companies have no right to use illegal immigrant workers," proving that even a monkey can type out a truism if given enough tries.

Correct, companies CANNOT hire illegal aliens.

Of course, ONLY the government can enforce that and they are now doing exactly that raiding businesses that do that, fining the owners and deporting the illegals.

Now, which disputes can and should be heard and settled in a U.S. court of law?

That's right, EACH & EVERY dispute between differing factions within America's jurisdiction.

Post a comment