After reading this discussion here’s what comes to my mind:

Every employee is given a card which they can check and mail in whenever they want.

If a majority of employees for the company (or perhaps it’s done on a plant by plant basis) says UNION, then it’s union. It’s secret because they can do this in the privacy of their home and mail it in within an envelope. But, it’s still ‘majority select Union’ institutes the union WHEN that majority has checked their cards. No one-day election!

Question is, where do they mail it so they would feel confident in it being counted properly. They obviously wouldn’t be sending it to the RNC.

Consequently, by expanding the Argumentation in favor of EFCA, less surgical slicing or the Grand Compromise, will occur, since the Republicans will have to defend themselves from a variety of political avenues. Moreover, adding a variety of issues, either directly or tangential to EFCA, will be a boon to the political dynamic as this legislation moves through Congress and in particular, the Senate. And for the folks like myself from the Center-Left, adding even the kitchen sink to this Argumentation, will demonstrate to the Republican that they will have to contend with a brutal political fight.

Union organizers can corner an employee (say in the locker room) and twist her arm until she signs. If she then wished to change her mind, she must ask for her card back – not an easy thing to do.

Precisely… supporters of EFCA conveniently ignore the intimidation by union organizers and sympathizers – it happens, I’ve seen it and it’s just as bad.

In addition, if they were really for “free choice” then they’d let employees choose whether they want to pay dues or not (right to work) but they are not for that type of choice. Rather hypocritical.

Is anyone really prepared to believe that the signers of all these petitions can be easily coerced into doing so? Despite judges, prosecutors, and police? I doubt it, because if it were a widespread public concern, we would not be basing most of our secret-ballot elections themselves on this form of “card-check”.

Offical Washington should just laugh this “concern” off.

As a Chicano from the Sonoran Desert with a self-serving history for being a military vet, and at one time being a member of both the CWA and the Teamsters, I now write on the internet at the Cactus Juice Commenaries for the Chicano Veterans Organization.

To wit, in the past, I have written where a potentially union-affiliated employee should have the opportunity and the ability to design and craft the language that would be applicable and consequently, where the actual name and signature that would appear on the “approval” or union application. Thus, I have in past put the label to it as one for a “Transparency for Employee Application and Approval”.

Additionally, I have also advocated that this “process” be amended to or included into our Free Trade Agreements. And I have argued this on the basis that governments “own” the labor unions in Latin America. In this manner and by using this ‘vehicle’ would require the affected governments to turn over their ‘ownership’ to an ownership systemic that properly belongs to the affected and potential union-affiliated employee. I have also went even further in advocating that by shifting the ownership of unions to the employees, the migration patterns into the United States will shift and reduce this ‘voting with your feet’ behavior, considerably.

So, let’s hear it as to whether I am off “target”! As such, be a critic.

The secret ballot system under the jurisdiction of the NLRB has been rife with abuse,

Why not just solve the problem with a better NLRB, one that functions to protect Labor (isn’t that in their title?) Having seen some of the union tactics (at Y-NH Hospital) I am convinced that the “card count” “majority sign up” system offers greater potential for abuse.

Union organizers can corner an employee (say in the locker room) and twist her arm until she signs. If she then wished to change her mind, she must ask for her card back – not an easy thing to do.

The Democrats who let this lie propagate unimpeded might be from the same group who told Kerry to not respond to the Swift Boat lies.

It’s tough when you have enemies on the outside, much worse when they are also in the inside, and remain trusted for their advise.

voters favor the Employee Free Choice Act by nearly three to one (55% favor; 28% oppose).

Michael got carried away spinning and this why we lose credibility. 28×2=56 28×3=84, so it isn’t even remotely close to a 3:1 ratio. It is barely a 2:1.