TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Bypassing A Secret Vote Would Blindside Employers

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: February 10, 2009

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act would, among other measures helpful to union expansion, allow a shop to unionize before its owner knew a union campaign was being waged.

The proposed law is undemocratic, possibly unconstitutional, and certainly unfair. Already approved by the House but lacking a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the measure would make a number of changes to complex labor laws. The most dramatic change would be to open the door for unionizing without a secret-ballot vote by all workers.

That change alone should be enough to doom the legislation, but that is far from certain. Supporters say fears are exaggerated, because if enough employees publicly say they want a secret vote, they would still get one.

Employers are right not to feel the least bit reassured. They know that if union organizers twist enough arms, pat enough backs, and make enough promises, they'll get the required number of worker signatures to unionize before workers get a chance to hear management's side.

Under the change, if you didn't want a union, you could still say no. The difference, which both pro-union and anti-union forces know is worth fighting about, is that under the Free Choice Act, you'd have to make your choice in public, in front of colleagues. And you'd be badgered about your decision and asked over and over to reconsider.

Unions say the change is needed to overcome anti-union coercion by employers. But it's hard to see how anyone could be coerced while casting a secret ballot. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican opposed to the bill, makes the reasonable prediction that passage means "you're going to see a major, major effort by the unions to unionize people against their will without giving them a right to a secret ballot to make that determination."

Unions do have their selling points. The median usual weekly pay of union workers is now $886 while workers not represented by a union have median earnings of $691. Part of the difference is that jobs most likely to be unionized tend to have higher pay. Another reason for the gap is that well-paid government workers are five times more likely to belong to a union than are private-sector employees.

The growth of government unions is the reason union membership is increasing.

Workers need to understand that union membership is no guarantee of either a big raise or job security.

It's no coincidence that the states with the lowest percent of union membership tend to have the lowest unemployment rates. Above average union membership coincides with above average unemployment.

Michigan, for example, had both the highest jobless rate in December and the highest union membership.

Unions correctly point out that the troubles of big, unionized industries such as the automakers are not all workers' fault. But heavily unionized California, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Nevada are also among the leaders in job loss.

Florida, long known as a fast-growth, nonunion state, now is among the states with the slowest economic growth. Conditions here are ripe for rapid unionization.

Workers should be the ones to make the decision, workplace by workplace. And they should make the choice without anyone looking over their shoulders.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT