So just now I poked my head out from the ol' echo chamber and waded into Kausfiles. Now, my understanding is that Kaus is liberal in the sense that Sullivan is conservative — i.e. not much. But nonetheless I think he may have a few solid points about the Employee Free Choice Act. I came across this post from a week ago that took serious issue with this sentence from WaPo reflecting what we see as the factual content of the bill:
The bill, first introduced in 2003, gives workers the choice of whether they want to organize by getting a majority of workers to sign pro-union cards, instead of having to hold secret-ballot elections.
We accept this as fact, and yet if Kaus is right about the actual mechanics of the bill, he may have half a point that it's not so simple.
a) The cards aren't to choose the method. They are to choose the union. If 50% of the workers sign the cards the union will have won, period. An election at that point is prohibited;
b) The only way an individual worker could use this system to "choose" a secret ballot election is by somehow [...] know[ing] if his signed card will provide the 31% plurality or the 51% majority.
(emphasis mine)
So Kaus's view of a unionization effort under EFCA is this:
- People start signing cards and sending them to the NLRB.
- If fewer than 30% of the employees sign, FAIL.
- If more than 50% of the employees sign, WIN!
- If between 30% and 50% of the employees sign, then you get to have an NCLB election by secret ballot.
So talk me down. Is Kaus right? Is that how the system works? Because if so, then it's true that the right to a secret ballot is weakened by this legislation.
(As a side note, I'm happy to have found what may be a legitimate point of discussion, beyond the usual “ZOMG KEEP THE SECRET BALLOT!!!” vs. “YAY LABOR YAY UNIONS BOO CORPORATISM!!!” shitfest. It's good to get some non-echo-chamber fresh air once in a while.)