I'm surprised we haven't talked about this issue very much in N+D. (Unless there's a topic on it that I missed.) In any case, I have yet to meet a single person, on either side of the isle, that favors it once they understand what it's actually about. So....anyone?

link?

Getting carded sux.

is this the whole elimination of the secret ballot for union voting? if so, i am 100% against this. it's a limit on the democratization of the workplace that unionization is supposed to represent.

Just google "Employee Free Choice Act."

how could anyone support it?

Some people are, I've heard about them on NPR.

union bosses/members/the congresspeople who are pro-union

i dunno who else would

Awful.

Looks like whoever hosts your photos forgot to pay their union dues.

Reading about organized labor always seems to give me a headache.

Let me see if I have this right from my rudimentary Googling. This card check method would be a signal amongst a group of employees to unionize if 50% or more of the employees wish to do so by signing this card. This seems to be opposed to a secret ballot, which is cast by all employees giving a yes/no signal on whether or not to unionize.

Hmm. I guess I don't see what all the fuss is about. I understand why unions would want it for intimidation purposes, but I'm not understanding the whole majority requirement.

Anyone want to fill in the holes I'm not getting?

The Employee Free Choice Act allows employees to decide whether they want to select union represention using card check procedures or a secret ballot. It is the employees' choice. Under current law, the choice is taken out of the hands of employees and given to employers. They determine whether they will recognize card check petitions or whether they will demand a secret ballot regardless of employee wishes. The secret ballot, which must be done under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, is often used by employers to delay the unionization of the workforce. I don't know anyone who is not in favor of the EFCA. It should be the workers' choice.

You must know only invisible people.

I'm not sure I understand it (when I saw the title I though we were talking about ID cards)

needing 50% of employees to create a union..mm, ok though really there shouldn't need to be a majority to have a union (they'd get less power if they're not but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try represent).

Needing people to be identified to make sure there is actually the 50% and no cheating makes sense from the employers pov actually. yes it can be pressured, but it works both ways, if the attempt fails, the employees that signed might get looked badly (they shouldn't)

Once the union is created though, ANY industrial action should be done on secret ballot to avoid peer pressure.

and I'm not much a fan of unions, though I recognise their purpose at times. I'm French and am all too aware of their potential excesses! my dad was a factory director who started right at the bottom on the floor aged 14 and he instilled in me healthy suspicion

You really think it's a choice? If the union gets over 50% of the cards signed, there is no secret ballot election. That's not a choice between card check and free elections, it's replacing the latter with the former.

Yeah, this is what I don't get either. Obviously the union is more powerful with the higher percentage you have, but in some cases couldn't just a smaller percentage organize?

How is that expected to line the pocket's of union bosses who line the pockets of politicians?

Tsk.

OK, corporatists, here's the target, shoot holes in it.

http://action.americanrightsatwork.org/ ... llots.html

No. You can't negotiate for better conditions as a group then exclude people. Why would an employer keep workers on with higher pay and better benefits when they could hire people who aren't part of the union and would work for lower wages and fewer benefits?

So the fact that over 50% have signed the cards doesn't mean anything? EFCA does a lot more than require employers to accept card check. Why do you think that it exists at all? Employers have a long track record of undermining the secret ballot elections.

Better question, why would an employer not look to relocate overseas to avoid inexcusably high union labor costs?