In recent weeks, the National Mediation Board, a federal bureaucracy whose purpose is to, among other things, “to promote… the effectuation of employee rights of self-organization where a representation dispute exists…” within the railroad and airline industries, has proposed revisions to its Representational Manual that would open the floodgates to the use of coercive "card check."

While the NMB does “determine and certify collective bargaining representatives of employees” it also says that it functions to “ensure that the process occurs without interference, influence or coercion.” Despite this fact, the proposed NMB revisions are explicitly stated
to not be “intended to interfere with or preclude either certification by card check…or voluntary recognition.” In other words, while its mission is to stop coercion, the NMB wants to modify its rules to encourage the coercive card check process for unionization.

National Right to Work Staff Attorney Glenn M. Taubman submitted opposing comments for the National Right to Work Committee and the National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation regarding the sneaky changes proposed by the National Mediation Board. As Taubman points out, not interfering with “card check” practices is essentially providing a rubber stamp for more union boss interference, influence and coercion.

Taubman makes a forceful argument using historical fact and case law that having rules that allow “card check” undermine employee free choice. Taubman concludes that “all MNB rules, regulations and policies should mandate the secret-ballot election process and entirely forbid ‘card checks.’”

The full document can be downloaded here.

Today, the Wall Street Journal editorialized on the fact that Big Labor “has won the intellectual battle for control of the Democratic Party and is reasserting its agenda in a way not seen since the 1970’s.” The WSJ notes Big Labor’s political influence, especially within the Democratic Party, has been steadily increasing over the years.

At the top of Big Labor's agenda is, of course, more compulsory unionism privileges to force workers into dues-paying union ranks:

[R]ewriting federal law to promote union organizing is now near the top of the Democratic agenda. The main vehicle is "card check" legislation, which would eliminate the requirement for secret ballots in union elections. Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation. This would arguably be the biggest change to federal labor law since the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. The Democratic House passed card check last year, and Mr. Obama has pledged his support. With a few more Senators, it might pass.

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal "right to work" laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories.

The Las Vegas Sun recently published the story of Anishya Sanders, a hard-working single mother exploited by Big Labor to push for the Card Check Forced Unionism bill (aka the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act”).

Union bosses flew her to Capitol Hill to testify in support of the union power grab and let her live the limosine lifestyle of a union boss for a precious few days. Anishya lived it up at suave hotels, private meetings with members of Congress, and celebratory wining and dining on surf-and-turf and merlot at tony DC hot spots.

Things were really turning around for Anishya. She thought she'd finally made it, and she was even promised a good job by the local union boss. However, after returning home things didn't pan out that way. Eventually, the local union official told the mother of five “your 15 minutes are over” and hung up. She is now homeless and unemployed and concludes that if Big Labor had just left her alone, she would still have a job.

So much for the little guy (or woman, as the case may be)... Once Anishya could no longer help union officials with their latest compulsory unionism power grab, the union bosses kicked her to the curb.

Read the whole sordid tale here.

Erin McKee, top boss of the Charleston Labor Council, has written a mind-numbingly ignorant (or intentionally misleading) response to an op-ed which outlines the mass rewriting of federal labor law Big Labor is hoping for after the 2008 election. Several of Boss McKee's assertions are just downright factually incorrect.

Lie #1:

Mr. Factor points out that [Big] labor's agenda is to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed, which is true. If a majority of employees have signed cards saying they want a union, it doesn't end there. They would then be allowed to have a fair election process and not be lied to, harassed and fired.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere, the text of the misnamed EFCA reveals that once union organizers present the signed cards of even the smallest majority of workers in a unit, the National Labor Relations Board "shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative." In other words, card check does effectively eliminate the secret ballot from union certification drives. The less-abusive current election process would be replaced by one-on-one harassment from union goons.

Lie #2:

In a right to work state such as South Carolina, the union is forced to represent everyone in the bargaining unit. This means that everyone benefits, not just those who choose to pay the union dues for the benefits they receive. (If you think this is fair, let's try running our government this way and see what happens.)

Right to Work laws merely ensure that workers cannot be forced to pay tribute to an unwanted union. Unfortunately, even non members are forced to accept the union's so-called representation, even when it works against them. It's illegal for workers to bargain with their employer on their own merits.

Further, federal law doesn't require that unions represent non-members, they seek and obtain monopoly bargaining status. Plus, as I have previously explained, if union bosses were serious about eliminating the so-called "free rider" problem, they would oppose federal and state monopoly bargaining statutes. They don't. They want them.

Lie #3:

Mr. Factor also seems to have a problem with the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. He states that public-safety employees would no longer be permitted to bargain individually and could be forced to accept a union's representation. Do local governments have the manpower to negotiate a bargaining agreement with each employee individually, or would it be more effective if management worked with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package?

Yes, they do actually. Municipalities all over the country do it. (For a good summary of the more-aptly titled Police & Fire Monopoly Bargaining Act, check out this month's Labor Watch article by Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.)

Boss McKee's language in this passage is particularly revealing of Big Labor's patronizing attitude toward workers. Instead of each employee negotiating with the employer, union cheifs like McKee claim to want "management [to work] with employees to come up with a wage and benefits package." But what exactly is the difference? How is that not what is occurring when individual employees have the opportunity to negotiate directly with the employer? Why should a majority of the employee's co-workers get to pick the employee's representation? Even criminal defendants get to pick their own representation!

In what has become an annual (or rather semi-annual) tradition, the increasingly discredited American Bar Association (ABA) is once again pointedly excluding the viewpoints of individual employees who don't want a union in their workplace.

The intellectually dishonest organization is holding its second annual Labor and Employment Law Continuing Legal Education Conference in Denver this September. The cover of the event brochure (pdf) trumpets a panel titled "Hot Topic: Neutrality Agreements, Card Checks, and Voluntary Recognition After Dana."

The core case at issue, Dana/Metaldyne, was brought and won by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, and most of the law in this area is the result of Foundation litigation. Yet, the roster of attorneys on the panel again consists entirely of union, company, and government lawyers.

Foundation VP Stefan Gleason wrote the following about the anti-individual worker bias of the ABA back in February, the last time Foundation attorneys were excluded from speaking about its many cases, and the criticism therein is only reinforced by this latest episode:

ABA political hacks have pointedly refused to allow the perspective of employees who may, God forbid, not want a union to dominate their workplace. Once again, a hot topic at the conference was the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation's cases defending employees whose rights are abused during card check organizing drives.

And yet again, the ABA meeting planners refused to allow the perspective of workers or their Right to Work attorneys to be heard -- instead selecting speakers representing Big Labor and a small faction of squishy, union-boss-friendly management lawyers. (Of course, the views of the speakers were rejected by the NLRB in its recent Dana/Metaldyne ruling, and the views of Foundation attorneys were embraced. Just a technicality, I guess.)

The ABA's intellectual dishonesty continues to be an embarrassment to America's legal profession.

Far Left stalwart and former Democratic nominee for President George McGovern comes out swinging in the pages of the Wall Street Journal against Big Labor's demand for mandating coercive card check in union organizing drives:

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.

There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.

To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.

Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.

[Emphasis added]

Good for McGovern for acknowledging a few basic truths about the abuses of card check that Big Labor apologists continue to deny.

McGovern points out, correctly, that card check runs "counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement."  Of course, so does forced unionism generally.  Samuel Gompers founded the AFL on the principles of volunteerism (as opposed to today's compulsory system).

It's important to note that, while the current process may be less abusive than mandated card check, majority rule by secret ballot (in the labor law context) is controversial and unjust in and of itself.  No worker should be stripped of his legal right to represent himself in private employment matters and be forced into a monopoly union collective by a vote of even the majority of his peers.

The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial up on the National Right to Work Foundation's ongoing efforts to push the Departments of Labor and Justice to investigate the SEIU for illegal campaign fundraising. Money quote (emphasis mine):

The mighty Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend some $150 million in this year's election, most of it to get Barack Obama and other Democrats elected. Where'd they get that much money?

That's a question the Departments of Labor and Justice are being asked to investigate by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Specifically, the labor watchdog group wants Justice to query a new SEIU policy that appears to coerce local workers into funding the parent union's national political priorities.

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.

No other major institution could get away with its bosses demanding that every single one of its workers step in line behind its political preferences. This is the sort of imposed political obeisance that infuriates so many workers and turns them away from
unions.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air follows up with commentary on some of the broader implications of SEIU political activism (emphasis mine):

Now the SEIU suddenly has $150 million, from which they’ve already committed at least $85 million specific to Democratic candidates. That money got squeezed out of the locals under duress, in obvious violation of the spirit and letter of federal law. The union knows how to protect itself and its interests, and the lockstep nature of their support for Democrats should awaken voters to the threat their policies comprise. This is nothing more than a closed-feedback loop for Democrats, and Card Check is the prize that will ensure its rapid growth. The Department of Justice needs to put an end to this shakedown racket immediately.

The National Association of Manufacturer's 'Shopfloor' blog has post up on another oft-repeated card-check myth. The entry starts out with Big Labor's favorite rejoinder to critics of the erroneously-titled "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA):

The most-common misleading response from organized labor to the criticism that the Employee Free Choice Act will destroy the secret ballot in the workplace goes like…well, here’s a recent example. It comes from Bill McCarthy, president of the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation.

. . .

"The EFCA would give workers, not employers, the right to decide how to express the choice about going union: through the card-check process OR through the NLRB election process."

McCarthy is playing the readers for idiots. Theoretically, oh sure, union organizers might, possibly, theoretically, choose an election, maybe. But under what possible circumstance would that be a realistic choice?

Well said. Once union organizers are given license to unilaterally bypass NLRB-supervised elections, there's absolutely no incentive for them to go the less-abusive secret ballot route. Union militants know that card-check drives dramatically increase their chances of warehousing employees into monopoly bargaining collectives by opening the door to intimidation and harassment.

Shopfloor also highlights the excellent congressional testimony (.pdf) of John Raudabaugh, a labor law attorney and former member of the NLRB. Here's his assesment of the EFCA (emphasis mine):

[Big] Labor claims that elevating card-check to secret ballot status does not do away with the ballot box. Their double-speak is a pathetic attempt to "change the subject." To trigger the secret ballot process and NLRB administrative involvement, 30 percent or more of the employees in an "appropriate unit" must sign a petition requesting an election. Should a union garner signatures from more than 50 percent of the unit employees, an employer can voluntarily recognize the union or not to ensure a secret ballot election. Why? To protect the employee-voter from peer pressure and third party overreaching.

[Big] Labor wants card-check with 50+ percent yield to bypass but equate to the ballot box process. Why? To effectively silence the employer by conducting a quick, one-sided campaign without counter-information from the employer. Moreover, without the ballot-box, there is effectively no cure to overreaching and false Labor promises.

[Big] Labor and its funded academics ignore Taft-Hartley specifically protecting a worker’s right to refrain from third-party representation. Were the union to come up short of 50+ percent signed cards, would it really proceed to file a petition for an election? No, the secret ballot would not remain a real option under the EFCA proposal.

And that's the bottom line. The card check bill will almost certainly result in the de facto elimination of all secret ballot protections in the workplace. Suggesting otherwise is simply dishonest.

For a more comprehensive look at the EFCA, check out this (.pdf) National Institute for Labor Relations Research study.

Karen Ackerman, the national political director for the AFL-CIO, recently had this nonsense to say about the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act:

"Of course, employers are not happy about it," Ackerman said of the legislation. "Of course, employers are going to call it undemocratic.

"But, in fact, if people want to be members of the Republican Party, they don't have to have a secret-ballot election. If folks want to join a church or be a member of a Boys Club, they don't have to have a secret election," she said.

The Employee Free Choice Act, she said, is "a way to even out the system."

What she doesn't want to acknowledge is that my political party or church does not have special coervice powers granted by the government to compel other people to accept its "representation" and even to join or pay dues.

Even secret ballot elections for union certification are far from fair. That's because if a union is voted in, it is awarded the power to be the "exclusive representative" of all members of the bargaining unit -- even those workers who do not want to join (or be "represented by") the union brass.

Opponents of Card Check Instant Organizing shouldn't only rely on appeals to "democracy" in the debate against union officials and union-backed politicians. A democratic election may seem a better alternative to union goons misleading or coercing workers into signing authorization cards -- but one should not overlook the link between card check and the greater evil of monopoly bargaining.

If Ackerman were to be honest, she would look at the flip side of her own example -- I may be free to donate money to the Republican party, but she is also free NOT to do so. A worker should be free to join or pay dues to a union, but a worker should also be free NOT to support a union -- or to be "represented" by a union.

As long as there is monopoly bargaining -- whether it is imposed through an NLRB-supervised election or the even more abusive card check process -- there can be no real employee free choice.

Here at Freedom @ Work, we often discuss card check by citing examples of employees being harassed, misled, or lied to by union organizers.

But simple common sense also says that when (often intimidating) individuals shove a piece of paper in your face, and tell you that it is in your interest to sign, you may well do it -- even if you aren't exactly sure what you are signing.

Case in point are two videos -- both done for television shows -- of people signing absurd petitions. In both cases, the signature collectors don't even lie to the people whose signatures they seek about what they are signing.

In one video, two comedians set up a table at a fair and easily collect dozens of signatures, mostly from women, to "end women's suffrage." Meaning that without even lying, they got dozens of women to sign a petition in favor of eliminating their right to vote.

In another video, shown below, a women collects hundreds of signatures to ban "Dihydrogen Monoxide" -- better known as water -- at a rally of environmentalists. Like, the "end women's suffrage" pranksters, the signature collector truthfully informs prospective signers about the chemical (water) that they want to ban:

As these videos show, just because someone signs a petition or card, doesn't mean they really understand what they are signing. Furthermore, Foundation legal cases have shown outright lies about the meaning or effect of the cards. These realities are something that must be remembered when union bosses or their allies in Congress attempt to impose more card check coercion on workers.