Employee Free Choice Act, Otherwise Known as "Card Check," Shaping Up to Be Big Fight

Just the word's "Card Check" have become some of the most divisive in the country right now, ranking right up there with "Stimulus", "Pork", and "Bail-out". The difference with Card Check and those other issues, however, is that the fight is not yet over, and in fact, the ramifications could be far-and-wide for all Americans, and not just in the pocketbook in future taxes.

The basic premise is this--part of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), aims to allow employees to choose whether they want to vote via a secret ballot or by signing a publicly viewable "card". While many of the bill's detractors like to cite it as the "end of the secret ballot", it is not an immediate abolishment as they claim.

22 states have "Right-To-Work" Laws, which mandate that Union Membership cannot be forced on an employee as a condition of employment. Right-To-Work believes that it is the worker's choice whether or not they would like to join the labor union of their profession or employer workplace, but that they cannot be forced to do so.

The part that is most disconcerting to the debate that is attached to the Union/Non-Union debate, is that in 29 states and the District of Columbia, where right-to-work laws don't exist, employees can be fired for refusing to pay union dues, even if those dues are used for purposes abhorrent to their religious, moral or political beliefs of the employee. Even in cases where the Supreme Court has upheld an employee's right to with-hold donations due to political activities that they are not in agreement with, the employee is almost never aware of this right, nor are they informed by the Union.

So let us imagine that an individual is a Republican/Conservative/Libertarian, and find out that a large portion of their Union Dues will be going to Democratic Party donations and organizing activities, they will lose their job if they decide to with-hold their dues. The employee would have legal recourse, if they have the money or resources to do so, to defend themselves in a lengthy and protracted legal battle, but in today's shaky job environment, it is not hard to imagine that most people would not take the risk.

Why the "End of the Secret Ballot" is such a contentious point is that it is not hard for most American's to imagine the difference between the secret ballot, and walking up to the ballot-box and voting in front of a guard brandishing an AK-47. Imagine elections in third world countries and banana republics, when the ruling party has their violent overseers standing at the ballot box, gun in hand, inspecting each ballot as it gets passed. Is that a free election, free from violent coercion? This is exactly what the backers of the EFCA are advocating.

As a teen I witnessed first hand the violence and intimidation that labor unions bring in their arsenal as they try and force Unionization on a workforce, as they attempted to do to the non-union factory my father worked at. We were targets of threats, vandalism, and worse, because my father was an out-spoken opponent to unionizing a factory that had a very generous track record with their employees, and working in a marketplace that any sort of competitive disadvantage could mean the end to the factories ability to survive entirely. My father took a brave stand, and thanks to the secret ballot, the Union was unable to succeed in turning the factory into a Unionized workplace. Now, I can imagine a very different outcome had all employees who similarly took a stand against the Union and refused to go along with them as my father had. He chose to stand up publicly and vocally against them, and became a target of their corrupt tactics, but how many others would have caved in under the same stress and duress?

Does that not seem in some ways Un-American?

How do we vote for our public offices? By checking the cards of the citizens, or by allowing each voter the right to cast a ballot with the freedom to express their interest without fear of retribution or retaliation?

In fact, because the EFCA will not over-ride the 22 states mandating "Right-To-Work", the only way that Unions can benefit from the passage of EFCA is threw the use of pressure to force themselves into workplaces in the "Right-To-Work" states.

Glancing at the picture of the states that are "Right-To-Work", one sees a large swath that includes the entire "South" (except Kentucky), most of the western-Midwest, and most of the Southwest. States that do not have "Right-To-Work" include California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the entire New England corridor, the very states that are traditionally home of the industries that are facing the greatest employment shortfalls and the traditionally "blue" states that Democrats rely on for political support.

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Eugene Scalia pointed out (emphasis mine), "Never before has it been thought that eliminating the secret ballot reduces voter intimidation. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), a case about political pamphleteering, the Supreme Court called the secret ballot the "'hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation.'" Indeed, EFCA'S lead sponsor in the House, Rep. George Miller (D., Calif.), previously joined 15 other colleagues in urging Mexico to recognize that "'the secret ballot is absolutely necessary . . . to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.'"

Aside from the "Card Check" issue of the EFCA, is the economics based argument that industries that have been heavily Unionized are those that have been the least profitable over the long-term, including the domestic Auto Industry and the Airlines, or those most susceptible to downturns in the economy, such as construction labor, and high-profile general strikes as was witnessed in the SAG Writers Strike and the mid-1990's Baseball Strike.

The benefits of Unions for workers are negligable in recent decades due to increased regulation of workplace safety, ever evolving minimum wage laws, and many other government mandated worker's rights that leave Unions, and their weekly accumulation of dues from workers, largely useless.

Indeed, the adverse effect on consumers, the final purchasers of the goods that are "Union-Made", will be in slowly and ever inflated prices, as the extra costs that adding a layer of cost-to-production of goods will not be charged to the margins of employers, but instead to the retail customer.

The dangers that could be faced by inflated cost-of-production are well documented in economic studies, but the first of which would be a continually diminished Global Marketshare as our heavy industries, agriculture, and consumer services would become less and less able to compete with non-unionized workforces around the world. This phenomenon has already been experienced domestically and abroad by witnessing how the "transplant" foreign auto manufacturers--using many if not most of the same parts suppliers--have been able to remain profitable even in the current economic evironment while their domestic counterparts are teetering on collapse. How many have lamented on the outsourcing of American jobs overseas, even in such sectors as customer service, call-centers, textile mills, and many other industries that have fled our shores.

The typical American, especially those who profess that American-Made goods are "patriotic", but still shop for the cheapest available option which usually come from Malaysia, China, and South America, are if at best only superficially cognizant of the wide-reaching effects of globalization. For our nation to compete, and maybe not only compete but survive as an economic power, we cannot allow for a new cost-of-production layer to be added to any of our economy.

If our citizen-consumers are having a hard time making ends meet now, how much worse will it get when more jobs flee overseas, when more of our product prices continue to inch up slowly but surely in cost while money is simultaneously being deducted from their paycheck each week?

How will we be able to convince more foreign manufacturers--as the states in "The South" have been very successful in doing over the last two decades--to relocate to our shores?

If the Unions spent as much time and of their forcibly collected dues trying to create jobs with innovative partnerships with foreign manufacturers rather than sucking the lifeblood and eventually driving away the jobs that are providing their subsistence, then Detroit would not be tottering on collapse. And most of all, the danger is that the Unions are only interested in a massive power-grab, ensuring that their long-waning power (membership in Unions have declined since 1978 from 21% to less than 6% nationwide) resurges and supports their political agenda with the Democratic party.

Sources:
The Wall Street Journal, Secret Ballots Are Free Choice, by Eugene Scalia