# Employee Free Choice Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272 "2008-11-24T17:19:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/1 "2008-11-24T17:19:19Z")
This is going to be a watershed event in my opinion if the Democrats and Obama get it passed in January. It will slowly strangle the entire US economy like the unions have done for Detroit. Here’s the [gist](http://www.timesleader.com/news/Union-friendly__bill_controversial_11-23-2008.html) of it > [@](#): > > Under current law – the National Labor Relations Act – a secret-ballot election among employees is required if representation by a union is disputed after an organizing attempt in which more than 30 percent of employees requested representation. > > The Employee Free Choice Act would amend the rules by eliminating the secret-ballot requirement if more than 50 percent of a company’s employees sign cards indicating they favor representation by a specific union – the card check process. There’s no question why the unions want this.Its easy enough to avoid confrontation when a co-worker asks you to sign up, because you still have your secret ballot vote to say no. But if you don’t have that option, you’ll have a good chance of making enemies if you vote your conscience by not signing up. I can’t understand why the Democrats would favour this legislation to subject workers to coercion. It can’t be any other reason than to support a donating special interest at the expense of workers and the country as a whole. I believe unions are a neccessary component of the economy if only to protect abused workers and a hammer over the head of selfish and abusive employers, but we need to keep in mind that we live in a global competitive world. There’s a reason why steel and auto plants have been closing down in the Northeast. If Obama supports this, he will lose my respect. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/2 "2008-11-24T17:27:32Z")
I would be more willing to believe the mantra that they want to help the worker if union membership were completely optional. When you can be forced into a union just because co-workers want to be represented, that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (I nearly had to quit my job over this issue, but fortunately they decided not to organize my department) ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/3 "2008-11-24T17:53:28Z")
The secret ballot still exists - if between 30-50 percent of workers have the cards the employers can still request a secret ballot before recognizing the union. If over 50% of workers have signed cards then there’s no need for the secret ballot. It makes sense doesn’t it? Why should the employer get to challenge the organization if over 50% have already put their names on the line? The secret ballot isn’t an employee protection mechanism. It’s an employer protection mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/4 "2008-11-24T17:58:16Z")
Why would this only work in one direction? Couldn’t one argue that this change would invite coercion from both organizers and management? If you don’t sign the card, the union breaks your legs. If you do sign, the company’s thugs break your legs. Or, less violently, either or both sides make it known that they will pay you for your signature. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/5 "2008-11-24T18:01:28Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Why would this only work in one direction? Couldn’t one argue that this change would invite coercion from both organizers and management? > > If you don’t sign the card, the union breaks your legs. If you do sign, the company’s thugs break your legs. Or, less violently, either or both sides make it known that they will pay you for your signature. Coercion is against the law. It’s specifically mentioned in the act. If the labor board finds that anyone has been coerced into signing cards, they no longer get federal recognition as a bargaining unit. ETA: I’d like to note that every single con-EFCA argument I’ve ever read has never, ever linked to the actual text of the bill - why is that? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/6 "2008-11-24T18:13:09Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Coercion is against the law. It’s specifically mentioned in the act. If the labor board finds that anyone has been coerced into signing cards, they no longer get federal recognition as a bargaining unit. How does one prove coercion without evidence? If I’m worried about how I’m going to get along with my disappointed co-worker for the next 20 years, how do I present my case to the labour board ? > [@](#): > > ETA: I’d like to note that every single con-EFCA argument I’ve ever read has never, ever linked to the actual text of the bill - why is that? As in most bills that are reported. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/7 "2008-11-24T18:18:50Z")
[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1041:](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1041:) That’s the senate version. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.800:](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.800:) There’s the house one. Both are from 2007, it appears that is the last time they were introduced. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/8 "2008-11-24T18:21:59Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > How does one prove coercion without evidence? If I’m worried about how I’m going to get along with my disappointed co-worker for the next 20 years, how do I present my case to the labour board? How is this different from any other topic in the work place? Maybe you’re on to something here.. maybe we should prevent workers from talking about their families, personal lives, pets, politics, religion, salaries, benefits, certain projects, the direction of the company and parking spaces while they’re at work too - since you know.. that might make some people uncomfortable around their coworkers. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/9 "2008-11-24T18:40:53Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Coercion is against the law. It’s specifically mentioned in the act. If the labor board finds that anyone has been coerced into signing cards, they no longer get federal recognition as a bargaining unit. > > ETA: I’d like to note that every single con-EFCA argument I’ve ever read has never, ever linked to the actual text of the bill - why is that? Yes, coercion is illegal, but there is a long history of its use in all kinds of group decision making. Threats and bribes happen, have happened, and will always happen in any voting scheme. Why should it be necessary to put oneself at risk to act on one’s right to organize? Anonymity always protects the worker by allowing them to vote solely as their interests dictate. This not possible when other parties with an interest in the outcome can review your vote.. Vote buying is useless when the bosses cannot confirm that they got their money’s worth. Violence to intimidate beforehand or retaliate after the fact cannot be targeted appropriately. Eliminating a secret ballot removes an effective layer of protection. What is the company going to do? Fire everyone, or beat them all when a vote to unionize is passed? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/10 "2008-11-24T18:43:32Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > How is this different from any other topic in the work place? Maybe you’re on to something here.. maybe we should prevent workers from talking about their families, personal lives, pets, politics, religion, salaries, benefits, certain projects, the direction of the company and parking spaces while they’re at work too - since you know.. that might make some people uncomfortable around their coworkers. Oh please ! I’m not concerned about the workers who are active in promoting their agenda openly for or against. I’m concerned about the workers who will be forced to state their position openly against their wishes. There’s a reason why we get more political and religious discussions on this anonymous board than we get at the workplace. There’s a lot of people who just want to get along. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/11 "2008-11-24T19:01:04Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > How is this different from any other topic in the work place? Maybe you’re on to something here.. maybe we should prevent workers from talking about their families, personal lives, pets, politics, religion, salaries, benefits, certain projects, the direction of the company and parking spaces while they’re at work too - since you know.. that might make some people uncomfortable around their coworkers. The difference is that no one is forced to openly declare a position about their personal life, etc. while excercising their right to organize. They may choose to remain silent on all the subjects you list. A decision to change the rules which govern a workplace is almost certain to provoke strong sentiments. Why force people to choose which group of coworkers they anger? Why not let them vote their concscience, secretly? ---
**Author:** ![UnwrittenNocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6de8d8/32.png) [@UnwrittenNocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwrittenNocturne)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/12 "2008-11-24T19:08:15Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Oh please ! I’m not concerned about the workers who are active in promoting their agenda openly for or against. I’m concerned about the workers who will be forced to state their position openly against their wishes. There’s a reason why we get more political and religious discussions on this anonymous board than we get at the workplace. There’s a lot of people who just want to get along. But you still missed the point. A ballot will no longer be required when over 50% have already signed for the union. It just won’t be needed ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/13 "2008-11-24T19:19:33Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > The difference is that no one is forced to openly declare a position about their personal life, etc. while excercising their right to organize. They may choose to remain silent on all the subjects you list. > A decision to change the rules which govern a workplace is almost certain to provoke strong sentiments. Why force people to choose which group of coworkers they anger? Why not let them vote their concscience, secretly? Umm.. because no one’s forcing anyone to do anything. Last time I checked you can remain silent on the whole unionization thing too. Unless you can demonstrate where in the law that it requires workers to sign cards either supporting or against supporting their right to be recognized - that’s a total non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/14 "2008-11-24T19:20:07Z")
> [@UnwrittenNocturne](#): > > But you still missed the point. A ballot will no longer be required when over 50% have already signed for the union. It just won’t be needed Of course. But a **secret** ballot will needed to verify the unfettered legitimacy of that outcome. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/15 "2008-11-24T19:21:24Z")
Unions have always wanted to be on par with employers, and though this is not what I thought would be the result of those efforts, it doesn’t surprise me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/16 "2008-11-24T19:23:06Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Umm.. because no one’s forcing anyone to do anything. Last time I checked you can remain silent on the whole unionization thing too. Unless you can demonstrate where in the law that it requires workers to sign cards either supporting or against supporting their right to be recognized - that’s a total non-starter. Sure, put people in a situation of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” Very considerate of you. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/17 "2008-11-24T19:25:29Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Yes, coercion is illegal, but there is a long history of its use in all kinds of group decision making. Threats and bribes happen, have happened, and will always happen in any voting scheme. > Why should it be necessary to put oneself at risk to act on one’s right to organize? since voting’s so fraught with perils, maybe we should just reconsider the whole electoral process then eh? > [@](#): > > Anonymity always protects the worker by allowing them to vote solely as their interests dictate. This not possible when other parties with an interest in the outcome can review your vote.. Vote buying is useless when the bosses cannot confirm that they got their money’s worth. Violence to intimidate beforehand or retaliate after the fact cannot be targeted appropriately. Eliminating a secret ballot removes an effective layer of protection. What is the company going to do? Fire everyone, or beat them all when a vote to unionize is passed? No one is voting! If they want to unionize - they sign a card. If there are cards from 30%-50% of the workers the employer can require there be an anonymous vote before recognizing their right to bargain. If there’s over 50% the employer doesn’t have a choice. The labor board recognizes them at a federal level and they have the power to bargain without the employer making them vote on it. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/18 "2008-11-24T19:27:27Z")
You want your position secret because the company will come after you. It is not so much about fellow employees. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/19 "2008-11-24T19:28:07Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Of course. But a **secret** ballot will needed to verify the unfettered legitimacy of that outcome. Can you describe to me a situation in a shop of 100 workers that results in a shop being unionized against the will of the majority of the workers? ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272/20 "2008-11-24T19:30:03Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Umm.. because no one’s forcing anyone to do anything. Last time I checked you can remain silent on the whole unionization thing too. Unless you can demonstrate where in the law that it requires workers to sign cards either supporting or against supporting their right to be recognized - that’s a total non-starter. I am not arguing that the worker is required to declare a position in order to continiue to work. I am arguing that without a secret ballot, they are required to sign the card in order to participate in the process. To remain silent is to be unable to excercise your rights. Why is it necessary to expose oneself to retaliation in order to vote? What specific advantage does public voting have over secret voting? Why is it only advantageous in the decision to unionize and not for any other vote? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employee-free-choice-act/474272.md?page=2)