The Union Card Check Debate - Exactly What is It?

Is Card Check the Way Forward for Employees to Form a Union?

Clark Richards
The so-called card check issue is the basis for considerable political discussion concerning employee's rights to form a union. It is a contentious issue that many support and an apparent equal number oppose. So exactly what are the tenets of the proposed card check legislation that is currently stalled in congress?

Under present law, employees can form a union by signing a card expressing their desire to unionize. If 30% or more sign the cards, the cards are submitted to the National Labor relations Board (NLRB) who will organize a secret ballot election to determine the outcome of the employee desires to form a union. If more that 50% of the employees sign the cards then the union is presumed to exist by virtue of this card check process. However, an employer can request a secret ballot election that would challenge the card check process and therefore cause a formal secret ballot election to take place to determine the final outcome of the unionization process.

Unionization advocates want the current employer right to call for an election to be eliminated if 50% of employees vote to form a union based solely on the card check process. No secret ballot election would be necessary.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was introduced by Senator Kennedy (D-MA) in the Senate and is supported by Senator Schumer (D-NY) and others. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 241-185 in March 2007, but has been stalled by a filibuster in the US Senate.

The debate over card check is framed in several ways based on support or non-support of the issue.

Advocates for unionization state that without a union, employers will not recognize worker rights and will not implement job safety, pension plans or adequate health insurance without pressure from a union that supports employees. Advocates hope to obtain the necessary congressional votes to advance the legislation which was supported by President-elect Obama during his campaign.

Those that oppose the card check legislation state that the opportunity to vote using a secret ballot is being over turned. They believe the card check process will subject those that are asked to sign the cards to be exposed to unreasonable pressure by union organizing efforts. States that have right-to-work laws already champion worker rights concerning job safety, pension plans and adequate health insurance through state legislation and are concerned about unions replacing the state as the arbiter of employee rights and benefits.

Card check will continue to remain a contentious issue and ultimately the resolution may depend on the final make-up of the 111th Congress. Meanwhile, one can expect that card check will continue to be a topic on network and cable news television as well as a frequent topic in newspapers and editorials.

Published by Clark Richards

Clark Richards is a retired soldier, business owner and teacher that has traveled extensively throughout Europe, South America, Asia and Australia.  View profile

7 Comments

Post a Comment
  • John Kaminari12/22/2008

    I think your 3rd paragraph really sums it up. If 50% of workers are willing to sign their names to a card, then, why have an election? These are people willing to, basically, risk getting fired for being pro-union. People won't sign the cards if they think the election isn't at least 50% -- they could let it get to a vote. Also, the unions won't push the cards until they have called at least 50% of workers to get a firm, verbal "yes".

  • John Kaminari12/22/2008

    Regarding right-to-work: it's a better deal for workers if a union (or any worker-funded agent) does the negotiations. When the state does it, it's subject to a lot of lobbyist influence. It's always better if you have an agent who doesn't just represent you, but is paid by you. It only makes sense.

  • margaret cash11/24/2008

    I doin't think unions are particularly strong in America any more. My husband belongs to IBEW as he works for an electric utility. but he doesn't get involved in union politics. His union DOES get involved in local and state politics, but usually at the bidding of the utility itself. I chose not to join the union when I was a state employee in California, because I held a management position, and honestly I was usually quite annoyed when the union got involved in employee issues - it was always the lazy rule brekaing employee who called in the union. I just don't know what real purpose they serve in some employment situations. Where there is real labor force and safety issues, unions are important. Otherwise, they seem to be something of the past.

  • Anne Bryant11/24/2008

    Great Article Clark. You have made the issue clear and I'm glad because most people have no idea what it all means. Hmmmm... sounds like a lot of the voters in the last election doesn't it?

  • Sheryl Young11/24/2008

    Yes, like Amanda said, I fear people actually lose a lot of freedom thru unions. It's a great way to be overpaid, tho (in some instances).

  • Tony Vega11/23/2008

    A contentious issue indeed. Great report, Clark.

  • Amanda Keller11/23/2008

    Sounds like old-fashioned thuggery to me. Great piece, Clark!

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.