Secret Ballot Watch

In the ongoing battle over the so-called Employee Free Choice Act – a bill better known as card check, because it replaces federally-supervised secret ballot elections with a public card signing process – supporters of this anti-worker plan have argued that the legislation is necessary to strengthen a flailing economy.

But a new analysis from Applied Economic Strategies (AES) found that many of the supposed economic benefits of card check are questionable, while the economic downsides are clear. The analysis argues-  

---

“[A] policy decision like passing EFCA is not cost-free; someone has to pay for it. Economic research and state comparisons indicate that American workers, including union members, will pay for a large part of the cost with higher unemployment, slower job growth and fewer job opportunities, and slower wage growth – costs that many workers can not afford, especially in this recession. Research also shows that higher labor costs are passed on to consumers through higher prices, and businesses though lower profits – two additional costs that will hit the economy just as profits have collapsed by 21.5 percent over the past year and family budgets are under great stress.”

Wilson, “EFCA: Who Pays For The Unintended Consequences Of Increasing Union Influence,” 04.17.09 

---

This new analysis follows the release of a report earlier this year that projects a loss of 600,000 jobs in just the first year after a card check plan is enacted, a crushing blow to an American economy facing continued job losses and a deep recession.

The economics of EFCA are worth considering. But this latest analysis paints a far different picture than the rosy scenario put forward by the bill’s special interest proponents. For workers who would face “higher unemployment, slower job growth and fewer job opportunities, and slower wage growth,” card check seems not to be the economic quick fix they have been promised.

# # #