Congress Should Protect Workers’ Freedom to Choose

By Dan Juneau
LABI

Imagine an election in which you cast your ballot in public instead of in the privacy of a voting booth. Imagine that you have to mark your selection on a card in full view of others, including a representative for one of the candidates and your friends who support that candidate. What if you don’t really want to vote for this candidate? Should election laws place you in this situation? Of course not, and they don’t. But the federal laws governing labor union certification elections might do so after next year.

Over the last few decades, private sector union membership has steadily declined. Many workers are realizing that unions can be a bureaucratic obstacle to workplace efficiency and employee freedom. They see how some unions have crippled companies’ ability to maneuver and compete in the demanding world market, and they want no part of that.

Union membership has certainly diminished as workers at unionized companies lost their jobs because their employers were no longer competitive. However, membership has also fallen as employees -- disenchanted with their union leaders -- have sought to have the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) remove (decertify) a union from their workplace. During the one-year period ending July 2008, the NLRB conducted 330 decertification elections and the unions lost 201 of these, or 61 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of elections to certify unions has dropped significantly. The NLRB conducted 2,726 such elections over the one-year period ending July 2001, and yet during the year ending July 2008, the NLRB conducted just 1,604 elections, a 41 percent drop.

Recognizing that they are on the mat and down for the count, union leaders are struggling to get back on their feet. So, for the past two years, they lobbied Congress to pass legislation eliminating secret ballot elections for certifying unions, replacing this procedure with one that would require the NLRB to accept signed authorization cards from a majority of workers. This process is referred to as “card check.” Thus far, this legislation has failed to pass, but it will be before a new Congress next year -- one that will likely be more willing to approve it.

Card check legislation is a desperate attempt by union leaders to stack the deck to reverse their dismal experience in union elections. It would permit the use of peer pressure and even intimidation to expand union ranks. It is a power play that should never be sanctioned by Congress.

The role of government in labor/management relations is to ensure balance. Governments -- local, state, and federal -- must never tip the scale in favor of one side. The fact that neither the employer nor the union knows how workers vote in a secret ballot election effectively stops coercion by either party. Workers are free to choose and need not tell anyone how they voted.

Contrary to assertions by card check advocates, current law in no way limits the ability of unions to organize workers. What it does do is protect workers who don’t want a union in their workplace from being forced to have one. That is balance, and it is what the majority of voters in Louisiana believes should happen.

Seventy-four percent of Louisiana’s voters say that having an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election is the best way to protect workers’ rights during a union organizing effort. And this sentiment is even stronger within union households (91 percent).

As a right-to-work state, Louisiana law protects workers’ freedom to choose. It would be wrong for Congress to erode this freedom by favoring union leaders over workers.

Jim Patterson, Vice President and Council Director for LABI’s Employee Relations Council, contributed to this column.