Offering Democrats a Deal on Card Check

Recently, Soren Dayton said we should be very wried about Democratic attempts to tilt the playing field to benefit Unions - e.g., the Card Check (Employee Free Choice Act) legislation. that would give Unions more (coercive) power to lock in workers and much more political power, as a result.  Ezra Klein, on the other hand, thinks Dayton's is "the best argument you'll ever read for Card Check" and adds "If I were the union movement, I would be sending this blog post to every Democrat in the country."

In light of the Democrat's obvious commitment to "Employee Free Choice", I'd like to make an offer in two parts:

  1. Bring back Card Check legislation, which allows a Union to be created immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards in support of unionization.
  2. But make it real employee free choice by allowing a Union to be decertified immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards opposing an existing Union.
  3. For bonus points, let's also stipulate that an Employee Free Choice Act should give each employee a free choice about membership in a Union, and no employee can be forced to join (or leave) a Union against his will.

It's a good deal.  It's a fair deal.  It's the workplace democracy that Democrats tell us they really want.  What's not to like about it?   I think we can come to a deal.**

What say you, Democrats?

**...unless, of course, Democrats decide that reciprocity isn't they had in mind, and the Employee Free Choice Act suddenly includes a bit too much employee freedom.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)


If I were a Democrat

I would agree in a heartbeat.  Unions have a way of intimidating people into not signing decertification cards.   I am not sure how many decertification elections are held in a given year anyway.  If that number is small, or if most of the decertified unions are simply replaced by another union,   the Democrats may be getting more than they lose with that deal.

Take it a step further

Not only ban the requirement that workers be forced to join a union against their will, but also ban agency fee arrangements under which workers who exercise their right to leave a union are still forced to pay as much as 90% of union dues as a "representation fee" for a representative they do not want.

Can someone please explain to me....

...just exactly where in the political platform or by-laws of the Republican Party, Republicans are anti-union? Because if there is a written declaration of such a political bias, I would like to address it, because it is costing us dearly at the polls.

ex animo


Wait ....


Not anti-union. Pro prosperity and enterprise.

I thought you were supposed to be the conservative.

I am a conservative, Party member and official...are you

But good unionism and good business go together. And whether you are a lowly union member, an ununionized, unprotected exploited worker, or a corporate leader, manager, boss, we are all people, and the job of the party, at least the Republican Party I believe in, represents and protects the personal choices of the People.

ex animo


Well here is a shocker

Yes Unions can be good in theory. But Unions hate republicans. Always have and until Unions ACTUALLY care about their workers again, they always will

In politics, no one can afford to "hate" anyone.

They may from time to time disagree with their friends from across the aisle. But "hate" is a word used by the uninformed.

ex animo


Well the thing is

The Unions are pretty much with a couple of exceptions explicitly Anti-Republican


so the GOP hasn't made an effort to reach out to folks who have been an arm of the Democratic party. (though thats changing somewhat)

Not Anti-Union


Just as no employer or combination of your co-workers should be able to require you to join a particular church or force yo to tithe to it against your will, it is equally unacceptable for them to be able to require membership in any other organization you do not voluntarily choose to join or extort contributions to it as acondition of employment.

Yes, I agree.

The Republican Party as a matter of public policy should  endorse and support an open shop. That is consistent with protecting personal choice.

ex animo



I don't see anything in this story that could be described as anti-union.

Not anti-Union

I would add that favoring the right to organize is one thing; giving those Unions coercive authority is another; allowing Unions to become collusive cartels is a real problem.

Good. Now that we agree -- the Republican Party ... not "anti-union", allow me to point out that in my own experience, it is companies and corporations who have the overwhelming coercive authority to control employee's personal choices when it comes to bringing in a union for the first time, not the union.

Under the EFCA, an employer would no longer be able to demand a secret ballot election when a majority of employees have signed union cards and there is no evidence of illegal coercion.

And with this clause, you think unions can become "collusive cartels"?

ex animo




A Union can secretly strong arm a Majority to sign cards


NOW if protections were put in that the Unions didn't know how many people signed the cards until they "won" then I might be willing to support it

Okay, let's accept your premise...

..."A Union can secretly strong arm a Majority to sign cards".  You must also accept the premise that company officials also have that same ability. So who do you think is in a much, much better situation to pull off such a flagrant violation of the law, a union agent or the company's shift manager?

ex amimo



The companies don't have a history of enlisting organized crime to help pressure people into making the choices they want them to make

Perhaps not organized crime..but certainly organized "enforcers"

Look, there is enough  fault to go around. What we, as Republicans, must insure is that everyone is given an opportunity to exercise their "personal choice" in this situation. I don't see anything in this legislation that would tip that delicate balance either way.

If you do, please let me know and then we can go forward.

ex animo



I /am/ a Democrat, and…

 Speaking simply for myself, I agree with the proposal.  If a majority of employees have the power to establish a union, it makes perfect sense that they should also have the power to dissolve it.  It also seems that the power to dissolve a local union chapter would be a good way for individual workers to keep union management in check.  

I also agree with davidfarrar that as far as coercive practices regarding union cards are concerned, the trouble is much more likely to come from the shift manager than a union agent.  

I agree.

If that is the issue at hand. And if I read the legislation correctly, dissolving the union would only take one/third of the employee membership to initiate the process. 


ex animo