After Years Of Lies, WSJ Concedes That Employee Free Choice Act ‘Doesn’t Remove The Secret-Ballot Option’

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In a stunning reversal, the anti-labor Wall Street Journal editorial page admitted today that one of the key messages in Big Business's fight against the Employee Free Choice Act is false. "The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act," wrote the WSJ editors today.

The acknowledgment by the WSJ that the legislation doesn't eliminate the option of a secret-ballot election is surprising given that it has been one of the most aggressive pushers of the false meme:

– "Democrats in the House passed the Employee Free Choice Act,

a measure that rewrites the rules for union organizing by eliminating secret-ballot elections

." [WSJ,

3/8/07

]

– "

Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections

that have been in place since the 1930s." [WSJ,

10/17/08

]

– "Mr. Pryor knew the GOP would block the bill,

which gets rid of secret ballots in union elections

." [WSJ,

1/2/09

]

– "

Big Labor's drive to eliminate secret ballots for union elections

has united American business in opposition." [WSJ,

3/11/09

]

Just this past weekend, the Wall Street Journal's editors repeatedly claimed on their Fox News show that the bill was an effort "to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections." Watch it:

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, the Employee Free Choice Act preserves workers' rights to secret balloting. However, it also gives workers the option to form a union through a "card-check" system, in which a union would be recognized if a majority of workers signed a petition testifying to their desire to organize. This means that workers get to choose the union formation process — elections or majority sign-up.

http://thinkprogress.org/

[DEDixon 39]

Unions are good and bad... love the pilot's union, hate the grocery store union.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Major retailers push alternatives to card check

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three major retailers on Saturday laid out broad details of an alternative proposal they hope will fend off a deadlock over a hotly contested bill making it easier for workers to unionize.

Starbucks Corp., Whole Foods Market Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corp. are opposed to portions of the labor-friendly Employee Free Choice Act, which would take away the right of employers to demand secret-ballot elections by workers before unions could be formed. Under the legislation, unions could gain representation if a majority of workers sign cards authorizing it.

Still, the companies say they recognize that simply opposing the bill might prove futile given a union-friendly environment in Washington in which Democrats control Congress. So the companies on Saturday announced an ad hoc committee aimed at pushing through alternatives. Their proposals will seek to maintain management's right to demand a secret ballot election and would leave out binding arbitration.

The three retailers want to toughen penalties for companies that retaliate against workers before union elections, while at the same time stiffen penalties for union violations.

"We believe in and trust our employees, which is neither anti-union nor pro-status quo," said James Sinegal of Costco. He said the group's proposals "will ensure a fair opportunity for workers to make an informed choice, with a secret ballot, whether they want a union or whether they wish to retain non-union status."

It was unclear whether the broad principles of the alternative plan will gain traction on an issue where both labor and business have drawn firm lines.

Business groups have mobilized like never before to lobby against the Employee Free Choice Act — also known as card check — with Congress expected to consider the measure later this summer. Word that three of the most recognizable companies in the nation were even thinking about compromise provoked a wave of outrage from the business community, which has been maintaining a position of zero compromise.

"Small business remains steadfastly opposed to compromising on card check legislation," Brad Close, a vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business said Saturday. "It's not surprising that a couple of companies are panicking, but the result is that they are throwing the little guys under the bus."

Likewise, because the alternative proposal dramatically alters legislation that unions so heavily favor, labor groups are not likely to be enthusiastic.

Bill Samuel, government affairs director of the AFL-CIO, said the proposal "falls short." He said of most concern are the provisions that would bar workers from forming unions by simply signing cards. Also troubling is the provision leaving out binding arbitration, because it would "allow companies to continue to stall and delay and refuse to negotiate a contract in good faith," Samuel said.

The "card-check" bill passed the House two years ago, but failed to gain 60 votes in the Senate to defeat a GOP filibuster. Labor leaders believe Democratic gains in the last election could give them the votes they need for passage.

One wild card is President Barack Obama, who generally supports the legislation. Helping Starbucks, Whole Foods and Costco in their efforts is attorney Lanny Davis, a longtime Democratic operative. His involvement prompted some in the business community to speculate that the White House may be behind this plan. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

Davis said he had discussed the three major retailers' broad principles with the staffs of almost two dozen Democratic and Republican senators. He said most were "positive about our third-way approach."

"I'm proud to call myself a pro-labor liberal Democrat who believes that reforms are needed to provide a level playing field for both labor and management, but not at the expense of a guaranteed option for a secret ballot by both workers and management and certainly not at the expense of preserving the historic process of private, voluntary collective bargaining," Davis said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...4wqzfwD972NNUO0

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

One wild card is President Barack Obama, who generally supports the legislation. Helping Starbucks, Whole Foods and Costco in their efforts is attorney Lanny Davis, a longtime Democratic operative. His involvement prompted some in the business community to speculate that the White House may be behind this plan.

Lanny Davis, the Hillbot?

[peejay 327]

As an former union member for many years, the grandson of union members, the brother of a union member, and the relative of several other union members I don't believe that there should even be another option to the secret ballot. Anything other than secret ballot is coercive and open to intimidation. I don't like the ramifications of employees being confronted by union officials hitting on an employee one on one to browbeat them into signing anything. The secret ballot ensures free choice. Any other option is undemocratic and un-American.

[EasyRider 3]

The secret ballot doesn't stop the intimidation, trust me.

But it doesn't take much to know that all that GOP and Big Business propaganda was bullsh!t. All you have to do is read the damn thing. It says it right there and black and white. It's amazing how lazy most people are these days.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The secret ballot doesn't stop the intimidation, trust me.

But it doesn't take much to know that all that GOP and Big Business propaganda was bullsh!t. All you have to do is read the damn thing. It says it right there and black and white. It's amazing how lazy most people are these days.

So, Lanny Davis and the AP got it wrong, but Elizabeth Edwards (ThinkProgress is hers) got it right?

[Dan J 277]

As an former union member for many years, the grandson of union members, the brother of a union member, and the relative of several other union members I don't believe that there should even be another option to the secret ballot. Anything other than secret ballot is coercive and open to intimidation. I don't like the ramifications of employees being confronted by union officials hitting on an employee one on one to browbeat them into signing anything. The secret ballot ensures free choice. Any other option is undemocratic and un-American.

As it is, unions represent the interests of the workers, and not the company. With that, there will always be intimidation as long as they can get away with it. A secret ballot system makes it easier to hide intimidation from both sides. With a petition, some types of intimidation may be more difficult to hide, but it will still happen.

If anything, we should be making intimidation illegal, and make it possible for a worker to report intimidation from a company or union without the fear of facing repercussions.

[Pooky 3,794]

As an former union member for many years, the grandson of union members, the brother of a union member, and the relative of several other union members I don't believe that there should even be another option to the secret ballot. Anything other than secret ballot is coercive and open to intimidation. I don't like the ramifications of employees being confronted by union officials hitting on an employee one on one to browbeat them into signing anything. The secret ballot ensures free choice. Any other option is undemocratic and un-American.

As it is, unions represent the interests of the workers, and not the company. With that, there will always be intimidation as long as they can get away with it. A secret ballot system makes it easier to hide intimidation from both sides. With a petition, some types of intimidation may be more difficult to hide, but it will still happen.

If anything, we should be making intimidation illegal, and make it possible for a worker to report intimidation from a company or union without the fear of facing repercussions.

As it is, unions represent the interests of the unions first, then the workers. By driving out competition in the marketplace for their trade, they secure the freedom to dictate working practices, working hours and wage rates. Have you seen how much money the unions make from their members and the facilities they manage to build? Okay, construction may be one of the more heavily unionised industries in the country, but that just indicates how successful the unions can be in cornering the market. Given free reign, unionised labour is as anti-competition as a monopoly.

Personally, I would vote no if it came to a ballot to unionise, but I be there to cast my vote in a secret ballot. And I would respect the outcome of a secret ballot. Having been a union member in the UK, where everything now has to be a secret ballot to be legal, it is a route I can respect. Any route which has the possibility of forcing a ballot to be open, such as the proposed legislation, needs to be avoided to protect the rights of those in the workforce who desire the right of privacy for their opinion, even from their fellow workers.