Earlier today, we included a link to a Washington Post editorial which criticized business interests for remaining opposed to talk of an EFCA "compromise":

… the coalition failed to acknowledge any flaw in the existing process — except to the extent that it suggested, falsely, that the current playing field is tilted in favor of unions. That hardly sounds like bargaining in good faith.

NAM was quick to respond with a few thoughts, and now, James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation has posted a thorough explanation of the criticized position that current labor law is, in fact, skewed in favor of union organizers.  As support, Sherk cites:

  • Unions control the election timing, so workers do not vote until union support peaks.
  • Employers rarely learn of the organizing drive until unions ask for an election, so unions have months to build support while employers have just one month to present the other side.
  • Employers may not ask employees if they support the union. Unions may ask employees how they will vote and focus their efforts on persuading undecided workers.
  • The law severely restricts employer speech while allowing unions to say almost anything they want. Employers may not promise to improve working conditions if workers vote down the union. The union may promise anything it wants, even if it knows it cannot keep those promises.
  • Employers may not even ask workers what problems they have in the workplace and why they want a union. Unions can ask workers about anything they want.
  • Unions may not campaign while workers are on company property and on company time. However the company must give unions the addresses of every worker and unions can visit workers at their homes. Employers are legally prohibited from visiting workers homes to campaign.

His conclusion:

The only way for unions to organize most companies is if workers never get the chance to hear the other side and learn that, empty union promises aside, organizing won’t actually do much to help them. The goal of the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” is to force workers to publicly commit to a union before ever getting to hear the other side. That’s great for union organizing, but not for workers.

These card-check “compromises” have the same goal. Snap elections are intended to deprive workers of an informed choice. They would force workers to vote after months of campaigning by the union but with only a few weeks to hear the management side. How is that fair, and how does that help workers? Mandatory union access to company premises at staff meetings is intended to deter companies from discussing the downsides of organizing. If an employer doesn’t want the union disrupting their workplace they cannot talk to their employees about why unionizing might not be everything the organizers have promised.