05/ 30/ 2007
Discover some common justifications union proponents use for card-check agreements--and the reality behind their arguments.
Unions say: Card-check procedures are the most effective way to determine the wishes of a majority of employees.
The reality: Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that private-ballot elections are the most foolproof method of determining whether employees want union representation. Courts have noted that workers sometimes sign cards not because they intend to vote for the union in an election, but to get the person (usually a fellow worker) off their back.
Unions say: The private-ballot election process enables employers to wage bitter anti-union campaigns.
The reality: The election process gives employers time to provide employees with the information they need to weigh their decision and make an educated choice. In almost nine out of 10 cases, the employer and union reach agreement on the most contentious issues surrounding union elections--the scope of the bargaining unit (who is eligible to vote) and the date and time of the election.
Unions say: Employers illegally fire employees in 25 to 30 percent of all organizing drives.
The reality: National Labor Relations Board statistics show that employees are illegally fired in just about one in 100 (1 percent) organizing drives. Furthermore, if the NLRB finds that an employer illegally fired workers during an organizing drive, it has the power to order the employer to recognize and bargain with the union, even if the union lost the election.
Unions say: The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800) gives employees the option of using a card-check system, but workers are still free to choose a private-ballot process.
The reality: H.R. 800 gives union organizers the choice of organizing through a card-check process. If the union chooses to submit authorization cards, workers would be barred from seeking an election, cutting almost half of them out of the decision since the union needs only signatures from a majority to gain bargaining rights. Employees opposing the union wouldn’t have the chance to voice their opinion on a decision affecting their jobs.
