Secret Ballot Watch

Although the card check plan has stumbled under the weight of widespread public opposition, its special interest advocates continue to claim that this undemocratic plan is necessary to prevent intimidation and coercion in the workplace. 

As evidence, they cite statistics purporting to show illegal behavior by employers. But as today’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review explains, the numbers just don’t add up:

---

"Indeed, a previous survey of union organizers painted a grim picture – one that's entirely unreliable. It claimed that management threatened workers in 69 percent of election campaigns, fired workers in 34 percent and harassed them in 41 percent.

“But a funny thing happens when these figures are compared with those from the National Labor Relations Board, reports James Sherk of The Heritage Foundation.

“Based on the NLRB's figures, threats occurred in only 7 percent of the elections; union supporters were fired in 6 percent and harassment took place in only 2 percent. The overwhelming majority of employers obey the law. …

“In attempting to gain the upper hand in this debate, Big Labor reveals that it doesn't have a statistic to stand on.” 

Editorial, “The card-check ruse: Bogus argument,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 06.26.09 

---

Card check is starting to look like a solution in search of a problem.

Of course, advocating card check as a way to prevent public pressure has always been a rather bizarre argument, and one that defies common sense. If workers are at risk of threats and harassment based on their vote on whether or not to join a union, federal law shouldn’t make that vote public – it should guarantee workers the right to vote in private.

# # #