Gut Check on Card Check
Will we ever get to the point where it's the norm rather than the exception for politicians to stand up to their constituent groups and tell them when they've gone too far? Such an opportunity has arisen on the so-called "Card Check" bill (i.e. The Employee Free Choice Act). Organized labor has successfully lobbied Democrat legislators to proffer a bill that makes it much easier for workers to unionize the workplace. In and of itself, that is not a bad thing; workers do, in many instances, deserve more rights. The devil, of course, is in the details. And, one of those very devilish details is language that allows workers to join a union as soon as a majority of them sign authorization cards. If enacted, a foundational principle of our society, the right to a secret ballot election, would be compromised. It's hard to imagine that Democrat legislators don't know that provision crosses the line. Apparently, they're more interested in currying favor with a powerful and financially friendly group of supporters, than maintaining a critical pillar that helps to sustain our national character.
The bill's other provisions are reasonable, or minimally, the basis for negotiation. Stronger penalties against employers that take illegal steps to dissuade collective bargaining, and a process for mediation and arbitration if both sides fail to reach a first contract are both legitimate terms. Even if one were to completely ignore the potential open season for union intimidation of non-supporting workers, and give 100% weight to the organized labor argument that management wields too much power and is too coercive in its zeal to fight union formation, it is still inappropriate to attempt to correct a perceived wrong via the eradication of a fundamental right. Just as we didn't need to make a sweeping expansion of civil rights contingent upon restrictions to free speech, we don't need to address worker rights by eliminating the right to, and protections of, a secret ballot.
The bill's other provisions are reasonable, or minimally, the basis for negotiation. Stronger penalties against employers that take illegal steps to dissuade collective bargaining, and a process for mediation and arbitration if both sides fail to reach a first contract are both legitimate terms. Even if one were to completely ignore the potential open season for union intimidation of non-supporting workers, and give 100% weight to the organized labor argument that management wields too much power and is too coercive in its zeal to fight union formation, it is still inappropriate to attempt to correct a perceived wrong via the eradication of a fundamental right. Just as we didn't need to make a sweeping expansion of civil rights contingent upon restrictions to free speech, we don't need to address worker rights by eliminating the right to, and protections of, a secret ballot.


It is interesting to note that when the Democrats had to decide on the future of Joe Lieberman in their party, they held a SECRET vote. It goes back to my grandmother with "do as i say and not as i do."
Reply to this