'Employee Free Choice Act' is anything but.........

America went to the polls on November 4th. We voted using a secret ballot. That is a way to allow us to exercise our right to enfranchisement as citizens. We are able to vote according to our own conscience, without sharing our choice, if we so choose.

The Unions and Democrats are pushing to remove the secret ballot as an means for those deciding whether to form a union. They have come up with the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. It is a misleading name at best. At worst it is downright cynical.

Currently, once 30% of a company's workers sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administers a confidential vote, typically 39 days after it receives the cards. The union and employer campaign for votes.

Under the 'Employee Free Choice Act' being promoted by unions, when more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards, the NLRB would have to recognize the new union. No campaign. No secret ballot...........just a "friendly" union representative.

The measure passed the US House in 2007 after the Democrats took control. The Democrats now have the votes to pass it in the Senate. They now have a President who will sign it. Even former Democratic nominee George McGovern has come out against it.

The proposed change would give unions and pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final outcome. Who wants a union organizer standing at their work space with a card and pen in hand, asking them to sign; while their coworkers all stare?

Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, argue's that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably lose.

The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.

Labor has seen its role decline since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged to unions, compared with about 7.5% today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership, particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. More members, more members dues.

The Democrats have a vested interest in ensuring passage. The unions have long been big donors to Democratic candidates. If the unions have declining membership and related dues, then there is less to give to the Democrats. If the Democrats get this passed and signed into law, the union officials and Democrats win. Unfortunately, the workers lose. This undermining of Democratic ideals is a poor deal for America's workers.