I’ll give Marc Ambinder credit, he’s at least trying to understand the details of secret ballot/majority sign-up (or as the wingnuts like to say, "card check"). But he tends to lean a bit heavily on overpaid hacks spreading disinformation on behalf of the business lobby —and therein lies the problem:
The AFL-CIO’s polling firm, Hart Research Associates, asks respondents whether they’d support legislation that "[a]llows employees to have a union once a majority of employees in a workplace sign authorization cards indicating they want to form a union."
75% say yes.
Pollster John McLaughlin, working for the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace,the question this way: "There is a bill in Congress called the Employee Free Choice Act which would effectively replace a federally supervised secret ballot election with a process that requires a majority of workers to simply sign a card to authorize organizing a union and the workers’ signatures would be made public to their employer, the union organizers and their co-workers. Do you support or oppose Congress passing this legislation?"
74% say no.
Fine. You ask the question different ways, you’re going to get different answers. But Ambinder concludes: "The CDW definition includes loaded language implying that their co-workers and bosses could intimidate them into signing the card. Privacy is the killer for unions; when Americans are read descriptions of the bill that make it plain that their votes won’t be kept secret (that’s the point of card check, in a way), their support plummets."
The point of majority sign-up is to make sure that worker’s votes "won’t be kept secret?" In order to understand how knee-deep the bullshit is in that statement, we’ve got to take a little trip into the weeds about how union elections actually work.
This is the "secret ballot" process, which is in place right now:
A union decides they want to unionize workers of a particular company. They have to collect cards signed by more than 30% of that company’s eligible workers saying that they want to join the union and allow that union to negotiate with management on their behalf. The union usually does this by talking to workers and gathering signatures outside the work place, frequently at their homes, because companies have a bad habit of firing workers who try to organize (Dean Baker estimates one in five lose their jobs).
The union then turns the cards over to the NLRB, who verifies them and calls for an election. Now in practice, although the union only has to have cards signed by more than 30% of the workers they usually present 50%, because they know there is going to be intense pressure put on workers by employers and professional "union busters," and they don’t want to waste their time unless they think there is serious support.
The NLRB is required to then set a date for a "secret ballot" election within 42 days, during which time workers are usually subject to various forms of intimidation. It’s easy for employers to ask for and receive extensions, however. When the "secret ballot" election is finally held, it’s conducted on the work premises, and workers have to file past the watchful eyes of their supervisors in order to cast their ballots. This is the "right" to "secrecy" that the anti-union forces seem to be so committed to preserving.
If more than 50% of workers vote to let the union to represent them, the union is recognized and they can begin negotiating with the employer for a first contract.
This is how majority sign-up ("card check") would work under the Employee Free Choice Act:
A union decides they want to unionize workers of a particular company. They have to collect cards signed by more than 50% of that company’s eligible workers saying that they want to join the union and allow that union to negotiate with management on their behalf.
The union then turns the cards over to the NLRB, who verifies them.
If more than 50% of the cards are verified by the NLRB, the union is recognized and they can begin negotiating with the employer for a first contract.
Got that?
"Secret ballot" isn’t "more secret," it’s an extra step. In both cases, the union is responsible for getting cards signed and turning them over to the NLRB, so they know who has signed them. The "secret ballot" is just an extra hurdle that workers have to surmount if they want to recognize a union.
Today, corporate toady Mike Murphy of CDW writes Ambinder to say that their polling, by McLaughlin and Associates, is probably "far more accurate" because it uses the words "effectively replace a federally supervised secret ballot." Note the introduction of the word "effectively," and what can only be characterized as an abject lie that "workers’ signatures would be made public to their employer, the union organizers and their co-workers." Nothing of the sort ever happens.
In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act allows workers to have a "secret ballot" election if they want one. Woo hoo! Have a party. What Murphy and his fellow hacks don’t say is that when given a choice, most workers probably aren’t going to want one. I’m going out on a limb here to guess that corporate lobbyists are probably more worried about that eventuality than they are defending the rights of poor beleaguered workers.
Update: Guy Molyneux, the AFL-CIO’s pollster, calls bullshit too.



30 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Is he fat, too?
Thanks Jane.
digg
I noticed the word “efectively” too. It kinda screams “we’re making this up.” like when people say “it appears that..” Means “I dion’t know but maybe….”
jane what about:
the workers’ signatures would be made public to their employer, the union organizers and their co-workers.
True? Bullshit?
Honest question, does the union distribute the cards to be signed? If so, then what is the difference between them knocking on your door and them handing you a card? Taking the card and talking to them would most likely cause the same reaction from the management, no?
Did you see that anti-EFCA ad somebody has with the drawing of people looking at the workplace bullentin board and it has everuybody’s name liosted as either “for” or “against.” They are killing us every day on this. Think the D’s figured with larger majorities this was a slam dunk? they’re not that dumb are they? But it’s an excellent point. Far as I can see, in terms of privacy, the process is really no different than it is now to collect the 30% showing of interest.
The worker’s signatures are not made public to the employer. An arbitrator gets the employee list from the employer and cards from the union and verifies that there are a sufficient number of cards.
Prior to Taft Hartley (1947), employer’s were prohibited from making any statements during a union organizing drive. In the name of ‘free speech’, employer’s were given that right. Therefore, the NLRB has parsed employer speech to the nth degree to determine if it has gone too far. The definition of ‘too far’ changes with changes in the party affiliation of the administration. Employer free speech means employers can threaten to close a plant if the workers vote for the union. They can distribute literature with bold faced lies. Free speech for employers means intimidation and fewer and fewer unions winning elections. Hence, we have card check.
total bullshit
Not sure but it seems to me (how’s that for equivocating language?) that the Union Organizer is going to know the names of the people s/he gets to sign up for the Union.
Beyond that, the NLRB would have to know I’d think in order to verify. Beyond that, I can’t see what business it would be for the other employees or management to know who has signed.
When I worked at a hospital years ago, some of my co-workers came to visit, left the card, and I signed the card in my own home. No union busting lawyers in sight. No management.
In elections, organizers knock on doors both before and after the cards are signed. That is part of the campaign to get elected. The period after the petition for election is the period of time when the boss can intimidate and start firing people for union activity.
Under card check, worker’s sign cards. It can be done under the radar before the employer has a chance to campaign against unionization. That’s why it is preferred.
But wouldn’t any union busting lawyer that would sit outside your door and watch most likely just watch to see if you took the card instead?
I’ll admit I was somewhat confused on this subject. Thank you for explaining it so well.
The employer is never informed about who signs cards. The only people who know are the Board agent and the union. The process is confidential.
Americans are tired of the right-wing’s lies. And since the right-wing can’t win arguments without lying, we’re likely to see it fade away.
The Owners aren’t worried about workers’ rights — they are worried about Owners’ rights. And people can tell they are pretending: their lips are moving.
Let’s move past this quickly: pass EFCA, get more union members, float some boats that aren’t super-yachts, pass universal health care, and mourn (not) the passing of the GOP.
You don’t need to equivocate in your answer. You nailed it.
I’m about as pro union as they come and the language describing ballot process for the EFCA is confusing. They could have came up with better wording or a better process.
I hope it passes but someone didn’t do a good job in making it easy to understand.
Jane,
Thanks for promoting this, as Maddow would say, someone’s got to do it and I’m glad it’s you.
I’ll admit I was very confused on the subject (particularly that secret ballot part).
Thanks, Jane.
And the workers aren’t worried about the owner’s rights, they’re worried about workers rights. Something wrong with worrying about your own rights?
Mitch McConnell was fear mongering at the National Press Club Re: EFCA and included data and interpretation from former Labor Dept Commissioner Elaine Chou his wife.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress……nell-efca/
thank you.
nothing makes them happier than confusion and ignorance. Stick w/ jane & marcy and Tula and others here b/c you’re not heraing this stuff in the media.
Thanks for chiming in, you seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject and it’s much appreciated.
that’s what I always thought. don’t know where tey’re getting that horseshit. I’m getting more and more interested in this issue everyday. i’ll say it again. thisn is so important and should be able to get done now but it’s just tailor made for harry reid to fuck up.
ditto to Lee. I have a surface knowledege of this. no brownnose complimenting here but I’m glad to learn more and more everyday here from all the comments. i really wanna know all i can about this. i’m thinking…. this is sort of a test of the pathetic lonely bloggers. we’re gonna have to make a major effort on this. efca has piqued my interest probably more than anything on the agenda – on its own merits and as kind of a bellweather.
The other side (The Darkside) will always provide “experts” who put their own spin on this and then cry that it will hurt business and companies will move elsewhere.
right. and pollsters like this Mclaughlin creep. I remember the guy now. I saw him on FOX saying “we don’t know how the fuck to account for kids and people with no land lines but we factor them in somehow and it’s all accurate.”
New post
Ezra Klein’s missive, he penned yesterday, is an excellent read…
Jane,
We should just trump their ace. If they want a secret ballot, they can have one. It’s to supervised by the NLRB, held off site within 7 calendar days of the union’s collecting enough signatures.